Skip to main content

Small Business vulnerability to floods and the effects of disaster loans

Small Business Economics volume 49, pages 865–888 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the impacts of floods on businesses and the efficacy of small business administration (SBA) disaster loans on mitigating disaster aftereffects. We find lack of business adaptation to extreme events in the short term, indicating their extreme vulnerability to flood disasters. Our results further indicate that subsidized disaster loans are important for businesses, with statistically significant effects estimated for businesses employing fewer than 50 people. At the margin, for every additional dollar spent on disaster loans per establishment in a county, four small businesses survive. Gloomy projections about increasing frequency and severity of disasters imply there will be significant loss in local economic activities because of increased vulnerability of small businesses to these incidents. Moreover, these effects will have implications nationwide, given the vital role small businesses play in creating jobs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Cavallo and Noy (2011) and Kousky (2014) provide a comprehensive review of literature related to economics of disasters.

  2. The SBA is generally known for providing financial support to small businesses. Craig et al. (2009) reviewed the literature examining economic impacts of SBA-guaranteed loans on various economic indicators. A recent study by Brown and Earle (2013), to the best of our knowledge, is the only study that uses firm-level data to examine the effects of SBA guaranteed loans on employment. The authors find positive growth effects of SBA guaranteed loans on employment, but disregard firms receiving disaster loans.

  3. Barro (1981) shows that the “temporary” effect of defense spending, which is associated with wartime, has twice as much expansionary impact on output as the one generated by an equal-sized permanent shift in defense spending. In another study, Barro and Redlick (2011), using new defense variables, show that multiplier of the shift in permanent defense expense is higher than that of a temporary one.

  4. Unlike small businesses, global enterprises (that produce tradable goods) have a high chance of survival even if local residents do not return because they produce goods that are not traded locally.

  5. SBA disaster loan documents are used as a source for our description. Details can be found in the SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure document at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sops/SOP_50_30_8_Final.pdf and https://www.sba.gov/loans-grants/see-what-sba-offers/sba-loan-programs/disaster-loans.

  6. Bartelsman and Doms (2000) show a clear evidence of a large degree of heterogeneity in the productivity and growth patterns of businesses in various industries in the USA.

  7. If this is the case, there may be a selection bias problem. However, given low overall insurance penetration for non-residential sector (i.e., as of October 30, 2016, only 5.3% of policies in force are designated for non-residential type), the selection bias is unlikely in our sample.

  8. The employment size that qualifies businesses as small is debated among researchers. SBA reports size standards matched to industries in North American Industry Classification System (US SBA Table of Small Business Standards). Employment size of 50 or less is commonly matched with published size standards based on NAICS industry classifications.

  9. All financial variables are inflation adjusted (2005 = 195.3) using Urban CPI.

  10. FDIC SUMD reports number of institutions, amount of deposits and market share of institutions in each county. The market share of institutions in each county = the amount of deposit for each institution/the total amount of deposits. The HHI for each county equals the sum of squared market share. If HHI approaches zero, this means the market contains a relatively equal number of large-sized firms—approaching a pure competition. As the HHI approaches high levels, this is a sign of a decrease in the number of firms in a market and an increase in the size differences of those firms—approaching a pure monopoly.

  11. Precipitation data are reported daily by weather stations, identified in the dataset by their latitude and longitude. To compute county annual precipitation, weather stations are mapped relative to county locations. We then compute annual total rainfall for a given county. In counties with multiple weather stations, we average precipitations for all stations to create total rainfall in a county. This approach has been undertaken in other climate economics research (e.g., Deryugina and Hsiang, 2014).

  12. We used ln(damage + 1) log transformation to keep counties and years not experiencing damages.

  13. In the sample with a large number of time periods using all available lags as instruments may compromise model efficiency and overfit the model indicated by probabilities close to one associated with Hansen test statistic (Roodman, 2009a). Although overfitting is not a concern for our models, the models in which instruments are limited to lags 5–7, 5–8, and 5–10 comparable results. These results are reported in Appendix Table A.14.

  14. As part of diagnostics test, we performed the unit root tests for all establishment sizes used as dependent variables in our estimable models, employing the Levin–Lin–Chu (LLC) unit root test for panel data. The null hypothesis of the LLC test is that panels contain unit root or that series are nonstationary, while the alternative hypothesis suggests stationarity series (Levin, Lin and Chu 2002). Bias adjusted LLC t-statistics with and without trend are reported in Appendix Table A.1 and suggest no evidence of unit root.

  15. Details can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx.

  16. Similarly, Blundell and Bond (2000) investigate the estimation of a production function using panel data with large cross-sectional units for a small number of time-periods and conclude that the system GMM generates preferable estimates.

  17. Summary statistics for these three samples are provided in Appendix Tables A.2–A.4, respectively. Furthermore, results for smaller establishment sizes are also reported in Appendix Tables A.5–A.7.

  18. Appendix Tables A.8 and A.9 report summary statistics and the results from this sample, respectively, for relatively smaller establishment sizes.

  19. Roodman (2009b) shows similar findings across models.

  20. National Flood Insurance Policy Program (NFIP) is the only federally backed program available to insure against flood losses. As of October 30, 2016 only 5.3% of policies in force were issued for non-residential type establishments.

  21. See Van Praag and Versloot (2007) for an extensive literature review on entrepreneurs and their contribution to productivity and growth.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Bloom, N., & Kerr, W. (2013). Innovation, reallocation and growth, NBER Working Paper No. 18993. doi:10.3386/w18993.

  • Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesch, D. J., Holly, J. N., Mittler, E., & Nagy, R. (2001). Organizations at risk: what happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters (p. 105). Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesch, D. J., Taylor, C., Ghanty, A. S., & Nagy, R. A. (1993). Earthquake risk reduction and small business. In K. J. Tierney & J. M. Nigg (Eds.), National earthquake conference monograph 5: socioeconomic impacts (pp. 133–160). Memphis, TN: Central United States Earthquake Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, R. P., & Soden, B. J. (2008). Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science, 321(5895), 1481–1484. doi:10.1126/science.1160787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. W., & Hsiao, C. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 18(1), 47–82. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(82)90095-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anttila-Hughes, J. K., & Hsiang, S. M. (2013). Destruction, disinvestment, and death: economic and human losses following environmental disaster. Available at SSRN 2220501.

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. doi:10.2307/2297968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D.

  • Bahk, B., & Gort, M. (1993). Decomposing learning by doing. Journal of Political Economics, 101, 561–583 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baily, M. N., Charles H. and Campbell, D. (1992). Productivity dynamics in manufacturing establishments, Brookings papers on economic activity: microeconomics, 187–249.

  • Barro, R. J. (1981). Output effects of government purchases. Journal of Political Economy, 89(6), 1086–1121. doi:10.1086/261024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J., & Redlick, C. J. (2011). Macroeconomic effects from government purchases and taxes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 51–102. doi:10.1093/qje/qjq002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E., & Dhrymes, P. J. (1998). Productivity dynamics: U.S. manufacturing plants, 1972–1986. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 9(1), 5–34. doi:10.1023/A:1018383629341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelsman, E. J., & Doms, M. (2000). Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 569–595. doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartik, T. J. (1989). Small business start-ups in the United States: estimates of the effects of characteristics of states. Southern Economic Journal, 54(4), 1004–1018. doi:10.2307/1059479.

  • Bartik, T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, P., De Kok, J., & Fris, P. (2005). Can firm age account for productivity differences? EIM SCALES-paper N200421, Zoetermeer, Netherlands. http://ondernemerschap.panteia.nl/pdf-ez/n200421.pdf.

  • Brixy, U. (2014). The significance of entry and exit for regional productivity growth. Regional Studies, 48(6), 1051–1070. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.895804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America: how our smallest companies put the most people to work (p. 1987). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (2000). GMM estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions. Econometric Reviews, 19(3), 321–340. doi:10.1080/07474930008800475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S., & Meghir, C. (1994). Dynamic investment models and the firm’s financial policy. The Review of Economic Studies, 61(2), 197–222 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2297978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boustan, L. P., Kahn, M. E., & Rhode, P. W. (2012). Moving to higher ground: migration response to natural disasters in the early twentieth century. The American Economic Review, 238–244. doi:10.1257/aer.102.3.238.

  • Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Maghelal, P., Grover, H., & Highfield, W. E. (2007). The rising costs of floods: examining the impact of planning and development decisions on property damage in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(3), 330–345. doi:10.1080/01944360708977981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D., & Earle, J. S. (2013). Do SBA loans create jobs? (No. 7544). IZA Discussion Paper. http://ftp.iza.org/dp7544.pdf.

  • Burns, L. S. (1977). The location of headquarters of industrial companies: a comment. Urban Studies, 14, 211–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, E., & Noy, I. (2011). Natural disasters and the economy—a survey. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(1), 63–102. doi:10.1561/101.00000039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., Haltiwanger, J. C., & Power, L. (1999). Machine replacement and the business cycle: lumps and bumps. American Economic Review, 89(4), 921–946. doi:10.1257/aer.89.4.921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, B. R., Jackson III, W. E., & Thomson, J. B. (2008). Credit market failure intervention: do government sponsored small business credit programs enrich poorer areas? Small Business Economics, 30(4), 345–360. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9050-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, B. R., Jackson, W. E., & Thomson, J. B. (2009). The economic impact of the small business administration’s intervention in the small firm credit market: a review of the research literature. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(2), 221–231. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00269.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunado J., & Ferreira, S. (2011). The macroeconomic impacts of natural disasters: new evidence from floods. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 24–26, 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/103721.

  • Dahlhamer, J. M., & Tierney, K. J. (1996). Winners and losers: predicting business disaster recovery outcomes following the Northridge earthquake (Preliminary Paper #243). University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center.

  • Davis, S., Haltiwanger, J., & Schuh, S. (1996). Job creation and destruction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davlasheridze, M., Fisher-Vanden, K., & Allen Klaiber, H. (2017). The effects of adaptation measures on hurricane induced property losses: which FEMA investments have the highest returns? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 93–114. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2016.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deryugina, T. (2013). The role of transfer payments in mitigating shocks: evidence from the impact of hurricanes. Available at SSRN 2314663.

  • Deryugina, T., & Hsiang, S. M. (2014). Does the environment still matter? Daily temperature and income in the United States (no. w20750). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w20750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T., Roberts, M., & Samuelson, L. (1988). Patterns of firm entry and exit in US manufacturing industries. RAND Journal of Economics, 19, 495–515 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T., Roberts, M., & Samuelson, L. (1989). The growth and failure of US manufacturing plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 671–698. doi:10.2307/2937862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2001). Trade in capital goods. European Economic Review, 45, 1195–1235. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00103-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, K. A. (2013). Downscaling CMIP5 climate models shows increased tropical cyclone activity over the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(30), 12219–12224. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301293110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: a framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 53–82 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2297841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. (1987a). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 567–581. doi:10.2307/2098588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. (1987b). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95, 657–674 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felbermayr, G., & Gröschl, J. (2014). Naturally negative: the growth effects of natural disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 111, 92–106. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. & Krizan, C. J. (2001). Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomic evidence. In C. R. Hulten, E. R. Dean, M. J. Harper (Eds.), New developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press.

  • Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Krizan, C. J. (2006). Market selection, reallocation, and restructuring in the U.S. retail trade sector in the 1990s. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 748–758. doi:10.1162/rest.88.4.748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, firm turnover and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability? American Economic Review, 98, 394–425. doi:10.1257/aer.98.1.394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2008). The effect of new business formation on regional development over time: the case of Germany. Small Business Economics, 30, 15–29. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9067-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabe, T. M., & Bell, K. P. (2004). Tradeoffs between local taxes and government spending as determinants of business location. Journal of Regional Science, 44, 21–41. doi:10.1111/j.1085-9489.2004.00326.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. (2014). Learning about an infrequent event: evidence from flood insurance take-up in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(3), 206–233. doi:10.1257/app.6.3.206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geylani, C. P., & Stefanou, S. E. (2013). Linking investment spikes and productivity growth. Empirical Economics, 45, 1157–1178. doi:10.1007/s00181-012-0599-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 583–606. doi:10.2307/2098589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatiwanger, J., Jarmin, R., & Miranda, J. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, K., Ries, J., & Swenson, D. (1995). Agglomeration benefits and location choice: evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States. Journal of International Economics, 38, 223–247. doi:10.1016/0022-1996(94)01351-R.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbeck, R. (2012). The enduring impact of the American dust bowl: short- and long-run adjustments to environmental catastrophe. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1477–1507. doi:10.1257/aer.102.4.1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbeck, R., & Naidu, S. (2014). When the levee breaks: black migration and economic development in the American south. American Economic Review, 104(3), 963–990. doi:10.1257/aer.104.3.963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiang, S. M., & Jina, A. S. (2014). The causal effect of environmental catastrophe on long-run economic growth: evidence from 6,700 cyclones (No. w20352). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w20352.

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670. doi:10.2307/1912606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson, R. A., & Owen, A. L. (1999). Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists. Economics Letters, 65(1), 9–15. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00130-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousky, C. (2014). Informing climate adaptation: a review of the economic costs of natural disasters. Energy Economics, 46, 576–592. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousky, C. (2016). Disasters as learning experiences or disasters as policy opportunities? Examining flood insurance purchases after hurricanes. Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.12646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousky, C., Luttmer, E. F., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2006). Private investment and government protection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33(1–2), 73–100. doi:10.1007/s11166-006-0172-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499. doi:10.1086/261763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., & Rose, A. (2004). The economics of natural hazards. Volume I. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

  • Landry, C. E., & Li, J. (2011). Participation in the community rating system of NFIP: empirical analysis of North Carolina counties. Natural Hazards Review, 13(3), 205–220. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000073.

  • Lee, Y. (2008). Geographic redistribution of US manufacturing and the role of state development policy. Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 436–450. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2008.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, A. M., Oberhofer, H., & Raschky, P. A. (2009). Creative disasters? Flooding effects on capital, labour and productivity within European firms. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(3), 333–350. doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9273-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loayza, N. V., Olaberria, E., Rigolini, J., & Christiaensen, L. (2012). Natural disasters and growth: going beyond the averages. World Development, 40(7), 1317–1336. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGranahan, D. A. (1998). Can manufacturing reverse rural great plains depopulation?. Rural development perspectives, Washington, DC: 1984 (USA).

  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695–1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao, Q., & Popp, D. (2014). Necessity as the mother of invention: innovative responses to natural disasters. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(2), 280–295. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2014.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. J., & Sullivan, D. H. (1988). Econometric analysis of business tax impacts on industrial location: what do we know, and how do we know it? Journal of Urban Economics, 23(2), 215–234. doi:10.1016/0094-1190(88)90015-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumark, D., Wall, B., & Zhang, J. (2011). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the United States from the national establishment time series. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(6), 1417–1426. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecm:emetrp:v:49:y:1981:i:6:p:1417-26.

  • NOAA. (2011). NOAA’s list of coastal counties for the Bureau of the Census Statistical Abstract Series. Available from http://www.census.gov/geo/landview/lv6help/coastal_cty.pdf.

  • Hopenhayn, H. A. (1992). Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium. Econometrica, 60(5), 1127–1150. doi:10.2307/2951541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olley, G. S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunication equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263–1297. doi:10.2307/2171831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C. A. (2000). Significant floods in the United States during the 20th century USGS measures a century of floods, USGS Fact Sheet 024–00, U. S. Geological Society.

  • Power, L. (1998). The missing link: technology, investment, and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(2), 300–313. doi:10.1162/003465398557393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupasingha, A. (2016). Local business ownership and local economic performance: evidence from US counties. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.1119264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, D. K., Pantuosco, L. J., Parker, D. F., & Fuller, B. K. (2000). An empirical assessment of the contribution of small business employment to U.S. state economic performance. Small Business Economics, 15(4), 293–302 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40229117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009a). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009b). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runyan, R. C. (2006). Small business in the face of crisis: identifying barriers to recovery from a natural disaster. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(1), 12–26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2006.00477.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski, N. C., & Sutter, D. (2005). Hurricane fatalities and hurricane damages: are safer hurricanes more damaging? Southern Economic Journal, 422–432. doi:10.2307/20062119.

  • Sadowski, N. C., & Sutter, D. (2008). Mitigation motivated by past experience: prior hurricanes and damages. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(4), 303–313. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmenner, R. (1980). Choosing new industrial capacity: on-site expansion, branching, and relocation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(1), 103–119. doi:10.2307/1885351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmenner, R. (1982). Making Business location decisions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmenner, R. W., Huber, J. C., & Cook, R. L. (1987). Geographic differences and the location of new manufacturing facilities. Journal of Urban Economics, 21(1), 83–104. doi:10.1016/0094-1190(87)90024-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, H. L., Marshall, M. I., Hall-Phillips, A., Wiatt, R. F., & Jones, N. E. (2013). Small-business demise and recovery after Katrina: rate of survival and demise. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2353–2374. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0480-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skidmore, M., & Toya, H. (2002). Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry, 40, 664–687. doi:10.1093/ei/40.4.664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., Carbone, J. C., Pope, J. C., Hallstrom, D. G., & Darden, M. E. (2006). Adjusting to natural disasters. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33(1–2), 37–54. doi:10.1007/s11166-006-0170-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American Economic Review, 71(3), 393–410 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1802787.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Climate Change Science Program. (2008). Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • US. Small Business Administration (SBA). (2014a). Disaster planning. Available at https://www.sba.gov/content/disaster-planning. Accessed 12 Dec 2014.

  • US. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2014b. Disaster loans. Available at https://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/loans-grants/small-business-loans/disaster-loans. Accessed 12 Dec 2014.

  • Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship: a review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9074-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A., Caree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24, 311–321. doi:10.1007/sl 1187-005-1996-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villarini, G., & Vecchi, G. A. (2013). Projected increases in North Atlantic tropical cyclone intensity from CMIP5 models. Journal of Climate, 26(10). doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00441.1.

  • Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville, 2014: Ch. 2: Our changing climate. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19–67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT.

  • Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J., & Dahlhamer, J. M. (2000). Businesses and disasters: empirical patterns and unanswered questions. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 83–90. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(83).

  • Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J., & Dahlhamer, J. M. (2002). Predicting long-term business recovery from disaster: a comparison of the Loma Prieta earthquake and hurricane Andrew. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 4(2), 45–58. doi:10.1016/S1464-2867(03)00005-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida, K., & Deyle, R. E. (2005). Determinants of small business hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 6(1), 1–12. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2005)6:1(1).

  • Zhang, Y., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2009). Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters. Disasters, 33(1), 38–57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01061.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is being supported by the NSF PIRE-Coastal Flood Risk Reduction Program: Integrated, multi-scale approaches for understanding how to reduce vulnerability to damaging events (award #: 1545837).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marine Sciences, Texas A&M University, Galveston Campus, 1001 Texas Clipper Rd, Bld# 3029, Office 362, Galveston, TX, 77554, USA

    Meri Davlasheridze

  2. Palumbo-Donahue School of Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Pinar C. Geylani

Authors
  1. Meri Davlasheridze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pinar C. Geylani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meri Davlasheridze.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 78 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davlasheridze, M., Geylani, P.C. Small Business vulnerability to floods and the effects of disaster loans. Small Bus Econ 49, 865–888 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9859-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9859-5

Keywords

  • Small business disaster loans
  • SBA
  • Flood disasters
  • Business establishment

JEL classification

  • Q54
  • Q58