By perceiving state borders to be physical barriers that keep disaster at bay, people underestimate the severity of a disaster spreading from a different state, but not the severity of an equally distant disaster approaching from within a state. We call this bias in risk assessment the border bias.
More here. Amusingly, the authors show that making the border more salient by darkening the border lines on a map can make people feel even more protected.
Hat tip: Paul Kedrosky.
Did borders make no difference in handling of the Katrina hurricane?
They sure did, the storm hit Mississippi directly, La obliquely and Texas not at all, but then came Rita…
Amazingly enough there was a difference in outcome that simple minds such as myself might perfectly equate to borders.
If a disaster is hitting Western Louisiana, I'd rather be in Beaumont (something I never thought I would say). And once the hurricane has passed I'd rather be in Gulfport than Metairie.
Those nice thick borders make all the difference.
So, if Congress passes a law mandating that all maps have a thick border between the US and Mexico, then there would no more concerns about illegals crossing the border.
I like this. Way less expensive than the police-state approach.
I've often found borders fascinating, especially how different things can be on the other side. I once crossed a border buried under a river south of Texas and discovered a vastly different world.
That got me thinking about how life could be so different on two sides of a river. Now I'm libertarian.
Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it. I put a link to my site to here so other people can read it. My readers have about the same interets
Comments on this entry are closed.