Blog Post

Of meltdowns and fallouts: What do the financial and the nuclear crises have in common?

The metaphors used for the financial crisis have reappeared in the news. Earthquake, tsunami, meltdown, black swan and fallout have been used to describe both the (possible) events in the financial markets in 2009 and in Fokushima recently. It might just be the journalists searching for powerful visual language. But maybe there are some revealing […]

By: Date: March 23, 2011 Topic: Green economy

The metaphors used for the financial crisis have reappeared in the news. Earthquake, tsunami, meltdown, black swan and fallout have been used to describe both the (possible) events in the financial markets in 2009 and in Fokushima recently. It might just be the journalists searching for powerful visual language. But maybe there are some revealing structural similarities. I would argue that apart from being perceived as catastrophic, both events have at least four similarities: (1) As indicated by the “black swan” metaphor they are in part due to the difficulty in correctly assessing risks in complex systems. (2) The “fallout” in both cases is potentially cross-border in nature. (3) The cost incurred by the imprudent companies will be partially socialised. (4) Both events feature an inability of regulators to forecast and prevent the crisis.

(1) There is one reading of the nuclear accident that highlights that a 9.0-magnitude earthquake is an extremely exceptional event. As such events occur only rarely their probability cannot be very well assessed with models based on limited historic data. Events with very low probability but high impact have also been at the heart of the financial crisis. One reason for the financial crisis has been the appetite of financial institutions for selecting (and in some cases also constructing) products that have above-average returns in normal times but excessive losses in exceptional cases. As we have now seen, old nuclear power plants in seismic zones have a similar payoff structure. Another similarity is that both financial and nuclear risk models seem to not have correctly evaluated the correlations between different risks. While financial institutions tried to mitigate risks by bundling subprime mortgages, TEPCO’s cooling system was able to either cope with a blackout and an earthquake or with a tsunami. But in both cases the failure-probabilities were correlated and their joint occurrence led to catastrophe.

(2) Both nuclear and financial meltdowns tend to have a fallout. In the Japanese case, only the wind and the lack of a land-border prevented a major effect on neighbouring countries. In continental Europe, many reactors are within a 100-mile range of another country’s territory.  So a nuclear accident in Europe would possibly have a cross-border dimension. But, like financial regulation, nuclear regulation is still essentially national, even in the EU with its Euratom treaty. As the economic importance of nuclear power plants is very different across member states, consensus on regulatory harmonisation is hard to reach. France will continue to produce the largest fraction of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and will seek to preserve its nuclear sector; Italy might have a much higher appetite for risk mitigation as it does not produce electricity from nuclear power but is surrounded (within about one-hundred miles) by one Slovene, one Swiss and six French nuclear power plants. The reluctance of the French government to include its nuclear plants into a harmonized European regulatory framework could be compared to the British efforts to prevent major European harmonization of financial market rules because of its important financial service sector.

(3) Another similarity between both events is that the erroneous risk assessment was largely due to the asymmetric distribution of social benefit and individual cost of more effective risk mitigation. Lehman and TEPCO were able to increase their profits as long as the risk they were willing to accept, voluntarily or thoughtlessly, did not materialize. Their management certainly benefited from this as long as everything went well. When the crisis struck, however, the cost of the meltdown exceeded the equity of the companies and had thus to be socialized. The question that arises is whether there exists a structural failure in coping with complex private activities that risk leading to large damages for society. The simple answer is yes. In fact this is well understood and is the reason why we have regulators for most such systems.

(4) In both cases, however, the corresponding regulators were not able to prevent the risk. The SEC did not require more capital and try to halt risky practices at the big investment banks. The Japanese nuclear regulator did not enforce stricter security rules. In fact, regulators systematically fail to prevent some of the events. There are several reasons for this regulatory failure: The inability to acquire and process all relevant data, the political difficulty in enforcing strict judgements and the aforementioned difficulty to model tail risks are some of them.

Relying on low failure probabilities, national policies, the caution of private actors and the monitoring by regulators seem to be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. So what should be done?  
As in finance, insuring the risk and making the originator of the risk pay seems to be the most sensible approach. If each power plant had to insure the risk it imposed upon society (within and outside its country of residence) it would bear the true economic cost of its activities. In this ideal world, the insurance premium of each individual plant would be linked to certain influenceable and non-influenceable factors such as location in a densely populated area and the risk-aversion of the local population. Furthermore, the risk assessment should be linked to individual plants risk factors such as location in a seismic zone, secondary-containment, redundancies etc. Consequently, plants in densely populated areas with lower security standards would face higher insurance cost. This could lead to a self-selected phase-out of the most risky plants.

The implementation of such a scheme is highly unlikely. First of all, it is virtually impossible to correctly assess the risk profile of individual plants. Secondly, such a scheme would impose large costs on only a few companies in a few countries. Governments will fight hard to protect these companies from being required to pay for the risks they impose on domestic and foreign society. This likely outcome is reminiscent of the initiative for a European or global banking fund that would have collected money to insure against the next crisis.

Nevertheless, in both cases, perfect insurance could serve as a valid benchmark for any policy implemented. Recommendations could thus be: (1) nuclear power plants should not be phased-out according to age but to their risk profile (however schematically it is calculated). And (2) cross-national insurance for nuclear accidents should be mandatory. Under such a scheme the Soviet Union in 1986 would have been required to pay for the costs the Chernobyl accident imposed upon European farmers and the health system. Implementing these improvements will be difficult enough, but as for the financial sector, crisis is the mother of reform.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

European governance

Can the EU fiscal rules jump on the green bandwagon?

By and large, setting a new green golden rule would be a useful addition to the existing EU fiscal framework.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European governance, Green economy, Macroeconomic policy Date: October 22, 2021
Read article
 

Opinion

COP26: why carbon pricing is crucial to China’s climate change pledges

China’s emissions trading scheme is a welcome but to reach its full potential, it needs to cover more of China’s emissions, go beyond the electricity sector and let prices reflect the true cost of carbon.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Junyu Tan Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: October 22, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The contribution of hydrogen to European decarbonisation

What role will hydrogen play in Europe's decarbonisation?

Speakers: Alison Conboy, Matthias Deutsch, Ruud Kempener, Ben McWilliams and Andrea Pisano Topic: Green economy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 21, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Oct
27
12:00

Can COP26 save the planet?

In this episode of the Sound of Economics Live Italy's Minister for Ecological Transition, Roberto Cingolani outlines his priorities for the upcoming COP Summit.

Speakers: Roberto Cingolani and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Green economy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic
 

Upcoming Event

Oct
28
14:00

Can climate change be tackled without ditching economic growth?

What will be necessary to achieve climate goals and keep growing?

Speakers: Francesco Starace, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Green economy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Monetary policy in the time of climate change

How does climate change influence monetary policy in the eurozone? What potential monetary policy measures should be taken up to address climate risks?

Speakers: Cornelia Holthausen, Jean Pisani-Ferry and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Green economy, Macroeconomic policy Date: October 20, 2021
Read article
 

Opinion

Xi’s pledge on financing coal plants overseas misses point

China’s domestic installation of coal-fired power plants continues at great pace.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: October 7, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

The only quick-fix to Europe’s energy price crisis is saving energy

The only thing Europe can quickly do to prevent a potentially difficult winter is to actively promote energy conservation in both the residential and industrial sectors.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Green economy Date: October 7, 2021
Read article
 

Opinion

Will China use climate change as a bargaining chip?

Beijing shows signs of changing tactics ahead of the COP26 conference.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global economy and trade, Green economy Date: October 6, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Letter: The lesson Europe should learn from the gas crisis

Europe’s gas supply security could more effectively be safeguarded by ensuring that unused alternatives are maintained.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Green economy Date: October 5, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Can climate change be tackled without ditching economic growth?

The ultimate answer to the question on whether climate change can be tackled without ditching economic growth depends on our willingness to step up climate action massively.

By: Klaas Lenaerts, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Green economy Date: September 27, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

External Publication

Winners and losers of energy and climate policy – How can the costs be redistributed?

Who should bear more and who less of the burden achieving climate policy goals?

By: Gustav Fredriksson and Georg Zachmann Topic: Green economy Date: September 24, 2021
Load more posts