Category: History
Prescriptive versus Performance Codes
A great piece in the NYTimes on the history and future of factory produced buildings:
But the most remarkable difference between the United States and Sweden is regulatory. Building codes in the U.S. try to make buildings safe by prescribing exactly what materials must be used and how (a prescriptive code). In Sweden, the government does this by setting goals and letting builders come up with a way to achieve them (a performance code).
So, for instance, U.S. building codes dictate the thickness of drywall that must be used for fire resistance, how many layers are needed and how many nails are required to attach it. In Sweden, the code requires that a wall must resist burning for two hours, say, and lets engineers and manufacturers figure out how to accomplish that. The regulator’s job is to check the engineer’s work.
The result of both is fire resistance and structural safety, but in the United States, each residential building needs to be granted a permit. During construction, work often halts for inspectors to make periodic visual inspections. That contributes to a stop-and-go pace that frustrates pretty much everybody except lenders, who get interest on financing. Sweden’s codes require more work on the front end when builders have to demonstrate that their methods are up to snuff, but factory processes that comply with the performance code can be certified. This encourages innovative solutions and results in less waste.
As an example of how a performance code leads to innovation:
..Before Sweden adopted its performance-based code in 1995, wood buildings had been limited to two stories; almost overnight, wooden buildings could be as tall as engineers could prove safe.
Addendum: See the comments for useful argument that the US code is more performance based than the NYTimes article suggests. What would be very useful is to hear from someone with experience in both systems.
Was the Great Stagnation originally a problem of human capital?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column. Here is one key part of the argument:
There are numerous theories as to why [the Great Stagnation started in the early 1970s]: oil price shocks, more stringent government regulations, an increased emphasis on environmental protection over economic growth, and the collapse of the Bretton Woods international monetary order. In my 2011 book The Great Stagnation, I blame the disappearance of the low-hanging fruit that resulted from powerful machines and plentiful fossil fuels.
Some of those likely are factors. Now an economist, Nicholas Reynolds of the University of Essex, claims to have found a new villain in this economic story: a negative shock to the quality of human capital in America.
Americans born after 1947 and before the mid-1960s — the first of whom were just entering their prime working years in 1971 — did not see economic gains comparable to those of their predecessors. But the problems of this cohort are more far-reaching. They had more problems as young children, and they did worse in school in the 1960s, accounting for the educational declines of that era, such as lower test scores and higher dropout rates.
Birthweights also declined in the 1980s, a sign that the post-1947 cohort was less healthy, most of all when it comes to maternal health. You might think that development is due to intervening economic factors. But the post-1947 world is still wealthier than what came before, so it is not obvious why an economic slowdown, but not absolute decline, should have created such significant health problems.
It’s not just that Americans born after 1955 stopped getting taller, whereas Europeans didn’t. There are deeper problems, such as the alarming rise in the midlife mortality rate since 1999. These “deaths of despair” may also be a legacy from this 1947 break in Americans’ quality of health.
I am not sure that is all true, but if so it is very important and would constitute a significant revision in our understanding of 20th century economic history. And what happened in the late 1940s? There it gets tricky:
The obvious question is what exactly happened in about 1947 to put the US on this less constructive path. There is no obvious smoking gun, but the cohort decline seems to start in adolescence, prior to entering labor markets. So perhaps it is something in the structure of American society, or in US public health practices, rather than stemming from traditional macroeconomic factors.
One possible cause is an increase in postwar automobile usage, and thus higher levels of lead exposure, given the lead additives in gasoline at the time. There is no direct evidence for this claim, but lead has been shown to have significant negative impacts on human development, and some researchers blame it for the later higher US crime rates.
Still, it is not obvious why lead should lead to such a sharp break in the data. And if lead is the main culprit, then there should be major improvements forthcoming, as lead additives were fully banned from American gasoline in 1996, with a phase-out starting in the 1970s.
A second possibility is that the baby boom generation was so large that there was a decline in quality of care given to each child.
Very much worth a ponder, and then some.
Obama’s space legacy?
Bucking his central planning instincts, Obama embraced a surprisingly laissez-faire approach to space flight that angered political allies and opponents alike.
In doing so, however, he tapped a reservoir of ingenuity and innovation that has ushered in a new age of space flight and exploration…
In her forthcoming book Bureaucrats and Billionaires, former NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver and reporter Michael Sheetz trace the origins of NASA’s commercial crew program, a revolutionary human spaceflight program that joins private aerospace manufacturers such SpaceX and Boeing with NASA’s astronauts.
Garver writes that this hybrid allows space flight “at a fraction of the cost of previous government owned and operated systems.” A decade ago, however, the program faced opposition seemingly from every side.
The saga began early in 2010 when President Obama announced his intention to abort NASA’s Constellation program—NASA’s crew spaceflight program—correctly pointing out it was “over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation.”
The decision angered almost everyone. As Garver and Sheetz write, the program was “extremely popular with Congress, and the contractors who were benefiting from the tax dollars coming their way.” An impressive array of stakeholders from aerospace companies, trade associations, and astronauts to lobbyists, Congressional delegations, and NASA pushed back.
The resistance was immense.
NASA chief Charles Bolden, while choking back tears, compared the decision to “a death in the family.” Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Charles Krauthammer ominously noted the move would give the Russians “a monopoly on rides into space.” Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas) called the decision “a crippling blow to America’s human spaceflight program.”
Few commentators seemed to even notice the $6 billion in spending over five years to support commercially built spacecraft to launch NASA’s astronauts into outer space…
By pulling the plug on Constellation, Obama had unleashed the power of markets and competition. While many associate competition with dog-eat-dog and survival of the fittest tropes, competition is a healthy and productive force.
Here is the full story, by John Miltimore at FEE (!). Via Matt Yglesias.
Jim Crow and Black Economic Progress After Slavery
This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and restrictive Jim Crow institutions on Black Americans’ economic outcomes. We track individual-level census records of each Black family from 1850 to 1940, and extend our analysis to neighborhood-level outcomes in 2000 and surname-based outcomes in 2023. We show that Black families whose ancestors were enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income, and wealth than Black families whose ancestors were free before the Civil War. The disparities between the two groups have persisted substantially because most families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim Crow regimes after slavery ended. In a regression discontinuity design based on ancestors’ enslavement locations, we show that Jim Crow institutions sharply reduced Black families’ economic progress in the long run.
That paper, by Lukas Althoff and Hugh Reichardt, will be coming out in the QJE, was it Florian Ederer who mentioned this on Twitter?
Mobility vs. density in American history
American history is much more about rapid and cheap transport than about extremes of population density. Even New York, our densest major city by far, became dense relatively late in American history. To this day, the United States is not extremely dense, not say by European or East Asian standards.
But in American history, themes of horses, faster ships, safer ships, turnpikes, canals, our incredible river network, railroads, cars, and planes have been absolutely central to our development. America has put in a very strong performance in all those areas. When it comes to density, we have a smaller number of victories. The moon landing was mobility, but not density.
Many of our Founding Fathers were in fact a bit suspicious of density. So why not play to your own cultural and also geographic strengths? After all, the United States is arguably the most successful country.
American SMSAs are so often more impressive than are American cities per se.
These days I see an urbanist movement that is more obsessed with density than with mobility. I favor relaxing or eliminating many restrictions on urban density, and American cities would be better as a result. Upward economic mobility would rise, and Oakland would blossom. But still I am more interested in mobility, which I see as having a greater upside.
One issue is simply that urban density seems to lower fertility. It is not obvious the same can be said for mobility.
And do you really want to spread and replicate the politics of our most dense areas?
Is not mobility rather than density better for raising a class of young men who will fight to defend their country?
Do not mobile, scattered immigrants assimilate better than densely packed ones?
The density crowd is very interested in high-speed rail, which I (strongly) favor for the Northeast corridor, but otherwise am not excited about, at least not for America. Otherwise, the density crowd works to raise the status of a lot of low-speed means of transport, for instance bicycles. Bicycles are also precarious, and their riders break the traffic laws at a very high frequency. I do not wish to ban bicycles, but I do wish we could program them not to run red lights. (I wonder how much the demand for them would then fall.)
I prefer to look to a better future where higher-speed transport is both affordable and green. Ultimately, low-speed transport is a poor country thing. It is also a poor country thing to have a lot of different speeds on your roads at the same time (I will never forget my first India visit in 2004). High variance of speed also can prove dangerous, as evidenced by the research of Charles Lave.
I do not want to see the United States moving in poor country directions.
If you are obsessed with mobility, you will attach great importance to Uber, Waymo, self-driving vehicles more generally, and better aviation. To me these are major advances, and they all can get much, much better yet.
I do not know if current plans for Neom, in Saudi Arabia, can prove workable or affordable. Nonetheless, the idea of rapid transport along “The Line” at least represents an attractive mode of thought. A better direction for future exploration than bicycles.
These points were obvious to many people in the 1960s. The Jetsons had their (safe) flying cars. The ultimate innovation in Star Trek was the transporter.
Jane Jacobs was obsessed with the West Village, an amazing part of America. Yet, as far as I can tell (I haven’t read all her work), she didn’t write much about how to get more people visiting, and learning from, the West Village. Hers was the perspective of the insider who already lives there. That is one valid perspective, but not the only one.
Robert Moses was obsessed with building the Cross-Bronx Expressway. That was a mixed blessing (see Robert Caro), but it did reflect his interest in mobility rather than density per se.
Today the world is full of anti-tourist movements, opposed to at least some kinds of mobility. I prefer to push back on most of those, using Pigouvian fees to protect Venice and other locales when needed.
Ireland strikes me as the one country today that truly should be obsessed with density, not mobility. Before 1840, the country had many more people than it does today. And it could once again, easily. In the meantime, there are far too few structures and the cost of living is very high. Dublin and Belfast also need more cultural infrastructure (requiring higher populations) to be bigger draws for talented foreign workers.
The correct answers here really are going to depend on the countries and regions under consideration.
Switzerland, a highly successful country, also pays great heed to mobility. The Swiss tunnels through the Alps are some of Europe’s greatest achievements, though today we take them for granted. And the Swiss are trying to do road upgrades without slowing traffic. You don’t have to put more people in Bern if it is easier to get to Bern, and away from Bern.
Mobility often gives you more algorithmic freedom than does density.
So, at least amongst the urbanists, perhaps density is these days a wee bit overrated? After all, the net flow of American citizens still is to the suburbs.
The Intellectual Roots of YIMBYism
At the Democratic National Convention former President Obama came out strongly in favor of housing deregulation saying “we need to build more homes and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that make it harder to build homes”. Robert Kwasny asks on X, “What are the intellectual roots of present-day YIMBYism?”
Looking at MR I think the first truly YIMBY post was a 2005 guest post by Tim Harford, Red tape and housing prices, pointing to a Slate article by Steven Landsburg. Here’s Landsburg:
Instead of the traditional formula “housing price equals land price + construction costs + reasonable profit,” we seem to be seeing something more like “housing price equals land price + constructions costs + reasonable profit + mystery component.” And, most interestingly, the mystery component varies a lot from city to city.
Even in cities like San Francisco, where there’s little room to build and land is consequently dear (on the order of $85,000 per quarter acre, compared with $2,200 for Dallas), you can’t use land prices to explain away housing prices. The mystery component in San Francisco housing—that is, the amount left over when you subtract land prices and construction costs from house prices—is the highest in the country.
Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Joe Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania have computed these mystery components for about two dozen American cities. They speculate that the mystery component is essentially a “zoning tax.” That is, zoning and other restrictions put a brake on competitive forces and keep housing prices up. (Read one of their papers here.)
Zoning’s Steep Price, the Glaeser and Gyourko paper is actually from 2002 (a popular version of their NBER piece presented that same year at the NYFed) so you can see back in the old days it took years for ideas to circulate even among the bloggers! Nevertheless, 22 years from NBER paper to Presidential campaign is a great accomplishment. I see Glaeser and Gyourko as the YIMBY fountainhead. All hail Glaeser and Gyourko!
MR continued to promote housing deregulation on and off for years but I think it picked up around 2017 which is when the first YIMBY reference I can find on MR appeared in an assorted link. Here’s Tyler in 2017 pointing to a job market paper on how regulation increases housing prices and here is me in early 2018 on Why Housing in California is Unaffordable. The increase in research on this topic gave us something to talk about which is an interesting model of how ideas are transmitted.
Kwasny also wonders why Democrats seem to have picked up YIMBY more than Republicans, especially given that deregulation, anti-zoning, pro-growth, pro-developers would seem more compatible with Republican rhetoric and political support. Indeed, Zoning’s Steep Price was published in Cato’s Regulation and the assorted link which introduced YIMBY to MR was to an article blaming YIMBY on libertarians, Peter Theil and tech bros! (Congratulations Jeremy Stoppelman for an extremely effective EA donation!)
While it might have started out as being coded libertarian, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are to be credited with pushing YIMBY and housing growth among Democratic elites. (Jon Favreau, an Obama speech writer, says Obama sounds like Ezra Klein!) But it’s not too late for Republicans to come home. Can’t we all agree on building more? Read Bryan Caplan in the NYTimes and buy his book!
Addendum: Tyler traces the intellectual roots of YIMBY back much further to Nicolas Barbon’s An Apology for the Builder which is also recommended by Marc Andreessen. For Britain, Sam Bowman points Mark Pennington’s excellent 2002 monograph Liberating the Land: The Case for Private Land-Use Planning (pdf).
*Ukraine: The Forging of a Nation*
By Yaroslav Hrytsak, I found this to be one of the very best overviews of Ukrainian history and certainly the most conceptual. This passage concerns the 1914-1945 period and the frequency of change:
In Lviv — eight [the nature of the regime changed eight times]. In Kyiv, the government changed hands eleven times and at one railway station in Donbas up to twenty-seven times during the first half of 1919 alone…
In just fifteen years (1932-1947) there were multiple genocides on Ukrainian lands. (I use genocide here in the broad sense proposed by the creator of the term, Raphael Lemkin: acts of mass violence that threatened the existence of entire groups…) Such genocidal acts included: the liquidation of the ‘kulaks’ as a class in 1930-31; the Holodomor of 1932-33; the ‘Polish’ and ‘Greek’ operations of the NKVD; the Holocaust against the Jews; the elimination of the Roma; the Nazi destruction of Soviet prisoners of war (1941-44); attacks against the Polish population by Ukrainian nationalists (the Volyn massacre of 1943); attacks on Ukrainians by the Polish underground. Also three mass deportations: of Crimean Tatars from Crimea (1944); of the Polish population from the western lands of the Ukrainian SSR and of the Ukrainian population from the southeastern lands of communist Poland.
…How can we explain the intensity of violence on Ukrainian lands in 1914-45?
Recommended, but of course this is not in every way a happy story.
*Vertigo*
The author is Harald Jähner, and the subtitle is The Rise and Fall of Weimar Germany 1918-1933. I quite enjoyed this book, which focuses on elements such as the dance, or the growing prominence of the automobile, as essential elements of Weimar. Here is one good passage:
In the early 1920s most people didn’t go to see a particular film, they just went to the cinema. For that reason, many cinema owners didn’t think it necessary to set a particular time for the screening to start. Films were just shown one after the other, ini any order. People came and went, they pushed their way along the rows of seats in the middle of the film and watched for as long as they flet like it. If the projectionist wanted to go home early he just played the film speeded up, silent films can take that. More importantly, there was no need for the audience to listen, so they made any amount of noise, chattted, applauded or commented bawdily on the action.
Recommended, and the author stresses just how rampant sexual harassment was in Weimar employment relations, even relative to other, earlier periods of time.
*The Hidden Victims*
The author is Cormac Ó Gráda, the renowned Irish economic historian, and the subtitle is Civilian Casualties of the Two World Wars. This is a first-rate and also horrifying of a still underdiscussed topic. Here is one excerpt:
The death rate from famine in Greece was probably higher than in any other European country with the exceptions of the Soviet Union and Poland. Following its occupation by Axis troops in April-June 1941, the British Navy, which controlled the Mediterranean, blocked sea access to Greece. Greece was one of the few Nazi-occupied economies that depended on imports for much of its food. The theft of meat and dairy cattle in the area around Athens for army use quickly followed occupation. Very soon, essential foodstuffs became scarce, particularly in Athens, which led to a famine at its most intense in 1941-42. The capital and its port city of Piraeus and some of the islands were hit particularly hard. The context was one of hyperinflation, an Allied blockade, and state-sponsored theft by the occupation forces.
This important book will make my best non-fiction of the year list.
Tabarrok on China: World of DAAS Podcast
I was very pleased to appear on Safegraph CEO Auren Hoffman’s World of DAAS podcast. We covered lots of material including this (lightly edited) bit on China.
Auren Hoffman (23:06.518):
Now, you’ve thought a lot about things like reshoring, building manufacturing capacity. How do you think we could be thinking about that differently?
Alex (23:24.058)
I understand that there are some concerns about China, and there is an argument and I think it’s a legitimate argument, that there are some things such as chips that we want to make sure, it’s not good to have them located in Taiwan, right? We want to make sure that we onshore those. However, I have three concerns. One is, fundamentally, I don’t think China and the United States have such a clash of interest. Of course, it’s not perfect harmony, but there’s a lot of harmony of interest between China and the United States. We do lot of trade with China, which benefits both China and the United States.
..China’s getting richer Okay, people are worried because they’re getting more military whatever but also what this means is that people in China are getting cancer. Well now there’s 1 .4 billion people who want to cure for cancer, and they’re willing to put some money into it, right? And then that’s going to increase the amount of research and development for all kinds of high-tech goods, which is amazing for us. Like, I would be thrilled if an American wins the Nobel Prize for curing cancer. I would be 99.5 % as happy if a Chinese scientist wins a Nobel Prize for curing cancer.
So we have a lot to gain from a richer China. That’s point one. Point two is that, yeah, I get the idea that we want to onshore chip manufacturing, but I think we want to friendshore, right? So we don’t want to just have protection against all countries. Like I get it, okay, a hundred percent tariff on your Chinese EVs. It’s kind of crazy, but all right. However, let’s reduce tariffs on Germany.
Let’s reduce tariffs on Europe. In fact, let’s create a free trade, even a free immigration block among the Western democracies, you know, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand. So, let’s not turn a small problem in foreign policy, which is to make sure that we have a ready military supply. Let’s not turn that into trying to create a fortress America Which is going to make us poorer and actually less safe instead, you know, let’s build up the free world. Okay, let’s create an immigration and free trade with Europe and Canada and Mexico and so forth. Let’s build up the free world. That’s point two.
Point three is that look. It’s very, very easy to take a foreign policy argument and turn it into rent seeking for the benefit of special interests and protectionism for the benefit of special interests. Right? So at one point in the United States, probably even still today, you know, we were prohibiting mohair imports. Okay. Why? Because we use mohair to make military uniforms. The whole thing is ridiculous. But it’s very easy, almost inevitable, that this kind of argument is turned into a special interest trough.
I think this is one of my best podcast appearances because we covered some new material on crime, the universities, why Tyler and I are able to cooperate on so many projects, a conspiracy theory I believe and more. Listen to the whole thing.
US Human Experimentation Without Consent or Contract
In July 1946, 20-year-old Helen Hutchison walked into the Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic in Nashville, Tennessee. Helen found herself pregnant after her husband had returned from combat in World War II. The pregnancy, however, had not been easy. During her visit to the clinic Helen’s doctor handed her a small drink.
“What is it?” she asked.
“It’s a little cocktail,” her doctor replied. “It’ll make you feel better.”
“Well I don’t know if I should be drinking a cocktail,” she responded in jest.
“Drink it all. Drink it all down” (quoted in Welsome 1999, p. 220).Helen did as her doctor ordered.
Three months later Helen’s daughter, Barbara, was born. Not long after, Helen began to experience some frightening health problems; her face swelled, and her hair fell out. She then experienced two miscarriages, one of which necessitated 16 blood transfusions (Welsome 1999, p. 220). Baby Barbara experienced her own health problems from early childhood. She suffered from extreme fatigue and developed an autoimmune disorder and eventually skin cancer.
…Unbeknownst to Helen, she and her unborn baby had been subjects in a government-funded experiment. She was one of hundreds of women who received an experimental “cocktail” between 1945 and 1947 during one of their prenatal visits, compliments of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which provided the materials (Wittenstein 2014, p. 39).
The 829 women of the Vanderbilt clinic were but a few of hundreds of thousands of individuals, mostly U.S. citizens, who would be subjected to illegal experiments and suffer human-rights violations during in the post-World War II period at the hands of scientists with funding and materials provided by the U.S. government. These experiments were meant to provide the government with information about the effects of atomic weapons on the human body to advance military capabilities in the name of “national security.”
This paper tells the story of U.S. government activities related to human experimentation after World War II.
That’s Coyne and Hall writing on Dr. Mengele, USA Style: Lessons from Human Rights Abuses in Post World War II America. It’s interesting that these immoral experiments using radiation and also agents of chemical warfare are less well known to the public than say the Tuskegee Study even though they involved far more people.
Sam Mendelsohn’s Travel Blog
When I travel abroad, I will often get recommendations of where to eat, what to do and what to read and watch from Sam Mendelsohn. Not just a few sentences, as if from a travel guide, but pages of unique and original material. I often have time to pick only one or two recommended items but invariably they are excellent. When I stayed in the Devigarh palace outside of Udaipur, for example, Sam pointed me to the movie Eklavya: The Royal Guard which is set in the palace. Watching the movie added to the stay. Not your usual material.
Sam is now formalizing his notes into a travel blog. He’s starting with some of lesser known places in India but will soon add more. He is also an expert on Thailand. Email him for some out-of-the-ordinary tips.
Every place is its own distinctive world: some combination of intellectual, literary, culinary, musical, sonic, linguistic, spiritual, philosophical, visual, architectural, geographic, botanic, olfactory, and cinematic worlds, and etc, brought together by different cultural and historical currents, and that’s all only a small part of the story of any given place. That such worlds of worlds actually exist, and the planet is full of them, seems underappreciated. Few people have the time or background knowledge to give anything more than a very superficial exploration of any of these while traveling, and I won’t claim to either. Despite my ambitions, I’m quite mediocre. Nonetheless, attempting to get lost in these worlds, however briefly and incompletely, is incredibly stimulating and meaningful for me. I like cities more than most people because they contain more worlds to get lost in, but on a short trip less can be more.
MR and Guinea (Conakry), a short history (from my email)
I will not double indent:
“Dear Tyler,
I am a great fan. I am currently focused on Guinea (Conakry) and wondered what you might have posted about the country over the years. My search for “Guinea” in Marginal Revolution results in 50 posts:
- In 13 of them you are referring to “guinea pigs”.
- In 9 of them you are referring to “Papua New Guinea”.
- In 9 you refer to “Equatorial Guinea”.
- In 5 of there is no explicit mention of Guinea (I assume the reference to Guinea can be found if one follows the links?)
- In 4 you refer to “Guinea Bissau”.
- In 4 you refer to “Guinea”, the country of that name with capital in Conakry
- In 3 the reference is to the broader region (Gulf of Guinea, etc).
- One reference to the island of “New Guinea”.
- One reference to the “guinea worm”.
- One reference to “guineas” as in the coins.
Of the references to the country of Guinea, one refers to Bembeya Jazz (good one!), another to press coverage from that country on the DSK affair in 2011, one mentions Guinea as one of the countries of origin for Africans in Guangzhou, and a final one appropriately mentions it on the topic of “Wikipedia knowledge deserts”.
None of these is a dedicated post to the country, something each of the other Guineas does enjoy on Marginal Revolution. I wondered if you might consider redressing the balance?
If it helps, here I write for the Centre for African Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University on how Asian demand, investment and policies is driving a mining boom in Guinea. Guinea is posed to be one of the top 2 growing economies in the world over the next five years on the back of the $20 billion Simandou iron ore mining project. You heard it here first!
Cordialement,
Bernabé Sánchez”
That was then, this is now, German edition
Via Scott Sumner.
The Unseen Fallout: Chernobyl’s Deadly Air Pollution Legacy
A fascinating new paper The Political Economic Determinants of Nuclear Power: Evidence from Chernobyl by Makarin, Qian, and Wang was recently presented at the NBER Pol. Economy conference. The paper is nominally about how fossil fuel companies and coal miners in the US and UK used the Chernobyl disaster to successfully lobby against building more nuclear power plants. The data collection here is impressive but that is just how democracy works. I found the political economy section less interesting than some of the background material.
First, the Chernobyl disaster ended nuclear power plant (NPP) construction in the United States (top-left panel), the country with the most NPPs in the world . Surprisingly, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 (much less serious than Chernobyl) had very little effect on construction; albeit the 1-2 punch with Chernobyl in 1986 surely didn’t help. The same pattern is very clear across all countries and also all democracies (top-right panel). The bottom two panels show the same data but looking at new plants rather than the cumulative total–there was a sharp break in 1986 with growth quickly converging to zero new plants per year.
Fewer nuclear plants than otherwise would have been the case might have made a disaster less likely but there were countervailing forces:
We document that the decline in new NPPs in democracies after Chernobyl was accompanied by an increase in the average age of the NPPs in use. To satisfy the rise in energy demand, reactors built prior to Chernobyl continued operating past their initially scheduled retirement dates. Using data on NPP incident reports, we show that such plants are more likely to have accidents. The data imply that Chernobyl resulted in the continued operation of older and more dangerous NPPs in the democracies.
Moreover, safety declined because the existing plants got older but in addition “the slowdown of new NPP construction…delayed the adoption of new safer plants.” This is a point about innovation that I have often emphasized (see also here)
The key to innovation is continuous refinement and improvement…. Learning by doing requires doing….Thus, when considering innovation today, it’s essential to think about not only the current state of technology but also about the entire trajectory of development. A treatment that’s marginally better today may be much better tomorrow.
Regulation increased costs substantially:
The U.S. NRC requires six-to-seven-years to approve NPPs. The total construction time afterwards ranges from decades to indefinite. Cost overruns and changing regulatory requirements during the construction process sometime forces construction to be abandoned after significant sunk costs have been made. This often leads investors to abandon construction after already sunk billions of dollars of investment. Worldwide, companies have stopped construction on 90 reactors since the 1980s. 40 of those were in the U.S. alone. For example, in 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to significant construction delays and cost overruns. At the time, this left two other U.S. AP1000 reactors under construction in Georgia. The original cost estimate of $14 billion for these two reactors rose to $23 billion. Construction only continued when the U.S. federal government promised financial support. These were the first new reactors in the U.S. in decades. In contrast, recent NPPs in China have taken only four to six years and $2 billion dollars per reactor. When considering the choice of investing in nuclear energy versus fossil fuel energy, note that a typical natural gas plant takes approximately two years to construct (Lovering et al., 2016).
Chernobyl, to be clear, was a very costly disaster
The initial emergency response, together with later decontamination of the environment, required more than 500,000 personnel and an estimated US$68 billion (2019 USD). Between five and seven percent of government spending in Ukraine is still related to Chernobyl. (emphasis added, AT) In Belarus, Chernobyl-related expenses fell from twenty-two percent of the national budget in 1991 to six percent by 2002.
The biggest safety effect of the decline in nuclear power plants was the increase in air pollution. The authors use satellite date on ambient particles to show that when a new nuclear plant comes online pollution in nearby cities declines significantly. Second, they use the decline in pollution to create preliminary estimates of the effect of pollution on health:
According to our calculations, the construction of an additional NPP, by reducing the total suspended particles (TSP) in the ambient environment, could on average save 816,058 additional life years.
According to our baseline estimates (Table 1), over the past 38 years, Chernobyl reduced the total number of NPPs worldwide by 389, which is almost entirely driven by the slowdown of new construction in democracies. Our calculations thus suggest that, globally, more than 318 million expected life years have been lost in democratic countries due to the decline in NPP growth in these countries after Chernobyl.
The authors use the Air Quality Life Index from the University of Chicago which I think is on the high side of estimates. Nevertheless, as you know, I think the new air pollution literature is credible (also here) so I think the bottom line is almost certainly correct. Namely, Chernobyl caused many more deaths by reducing nuclear power plant construction and increasing air pollution than by its direct effects which were small albeit not negligible.