Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/287314 
Year of Publication: 
2021
Citation: 
[Journal:] Public Choice [ISSN:] 1573-7101 [Volume:] 190 [Issue:] 1-2 [Publisher:] Springer US [Place:] New York, NY [Year:] 2021 [Pages:] 1-32
Publisher: 
Springer US, New York, NY
Abstract: 
Nine out of 10 constitutions contain explicit emergency provisions, intended to help governments cope with extraordinary events that endanger many people or the existence of the state. We ask two questions: (1) does the constitutionalization of emergency provisions help governments to cope with disasters and other extraordinary events? (2) What particular parts of emergency constitutions fare best? We find that the more advantages emergency constitutions confer to the executive, the higher the number of people killed as a consequence of a natural disaster, controlling for its severity. As this is an unexpected result, we discuss a number of potential explanations, the most plausible being that governments use natural disasters as a pretext to enhance their power. Furthermore, the easier it is to call a state of emergency, the larger the negative effects on basic human rights. Interestingly, presidential democracies are better able to cope with natural disasters than parliamentary ones in terms of lives saved, whereas autocracies do significantly worse in the sense that empowerment rights seriously suffer in the aftermath of a disaster.
Subjects: 
Constitutional emergency provisions
State of emergency
État de siege
Regime transformation
Positive constitutional economics
JEL: 
K40
Z13
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.