Disaster recovery has become big business in the United States, with private companies like Bright Harbor offering white-glove services to help individuals navigate the complex process of rebuilding their lives after a disaster. As climate change accelerates and the country faces more frequent and severe catastrophes, the role of the private sector in disaster recovery has grown, raising questions about the balance between public and private interests.
Bright Harbor, a luxury disaster recovery service that gained popularity after the wildfires in Los Angeles, offers a range of services to help clients navigate the challenges of rebuilding after a disaster. From freezing mortgage payments to securing low-interest loans, the company aims to ease the financial burden on victims. However, these services come at a cost that not all victims can afford, highlighting the need for government support in disaster recovery efforts.
The government does provide funding for disaster relief nonprofits, which in turn hire case managers to assist victims in the recovery process. However, with FEMA funding being slashed and aid being withheld, many organizations feel unprepared to meet the growing needs of disaster victims. As the administration shifts more responsibility onto individual states, the shortage of case managers is expected to worsen, creating additional challenges for those in need of assistance.
The influence of the private sector in disaster recovery has been growing since at least 2007, when Naomi Klein introduced the concept of “disaster capitalism” in her book, “The Shock Doctrine.” Privatization of disaster recovery efforts can mobilize resources quickly, but it also raises concerns about the erosion of public institutions and the potential exploitation of vulnerable communities.
Hurricane Katrina was a pivotal moment for disaster capitalism, with conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation advocating for policies that prioritized private interests over public welfare. The aftermath of the storm saw public services being replaced by private entities, setting a precedent for future disaster recovery efforts.
As the United States grapples with the increasing impact of climate change, the role of the private sector in disaster recovery is likely to continue to evolve. Finding the right balance between public and private interests will be crucial in ensuring that all individuals have access to the support they need to rebuild their lives after a disaster.
Over 7,000 teachers and staff members were fired in New Orleans, forcing veteran educators to reapply for their jobs. They were competing against a flood of Teach for America recruits who were largely whiter, less experienced, and from outside the city. This move was seen by many residents as a mercenary response to the storm, made possible by decades of disinvestment in city services.
The school district before Katrina was severely underfunded. Teachers didn’t have enough books and desks for their students, and the graduation rate was only around 50 percent. Truancy was rampant, and corruption was widespread. The FBI even had an office within the New Orleans Parish school board due to the extent of corruption.
After the storm, the charter network was established, bringing with it some improvements. Private philanthropy poured money into the new schools, and test scores and graduation rates saw significant improvements. However, the system was marked by instability. Schools that performed well received increased funding, while struggling schools were closed down, leading to the transfer of students. This model led to criticisms and a lawsuit alleging inadequate special education services, which resulted in federal monitoring of the city’s charter schools for 15 years.
While charter schools showed some success in improving test scores, critics argue that this success was due to an influx of money rather than the charter system itself. The charter schools were criticized for paying employees poorly, lack of transparency, and providing uneven and inequitable education. The siloed nature of charter schools also weakened the teachers’ union.
Despite the challenges, some experts caution against undoing the charter system entirely and starting from scratch. The city opened its first district-run public school since the storm, but it is already facing significant challenges.
Charter schools were not the only service affected by the shock doctrine in post-Katrina New Orleans. The Department of Housing and Urban Development shut public housing residents out of their buildings shortly after the storm. Protests erupted, but residents’ pleas for help went unanswered. Seventy percent of public housing was ultimately destroyed and replaced with mixed-income developments built by private developers, leading to the permanent displacement of roughly half of public housing residents.
More than 20 years later and 2000 miles away, Puerto Rico is also experiencing disaster capitalism. After Hurricane Maria struck in 2017, many residents couldn’t prove they owned the land they lived on for years, preventing them from collecting disaster relief funds. Puerto Rico’s electrical grid was severely damaged by the hurricane, leading to prolonged blackouts for residents. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority declared bankruptcy and faced corruption scandals, including handing a $300 million contract to a small Montana-based company with ties to Trump’s administration.
Recovery in both New Orleans and Puerto Rico has been slow and fraught with challenges. The impact of disaster capitalism continues to be felt by residents who are still struggling to rebuild their lives and communities.
” said Chandrasekhar. “There’s a lot of room for manipulation and discrimination in these systems, and we need to be vigilant in protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable populations.”
In the case of Puerto Rico, the privatization of the grid has not only failed to deliver on its promises of reliability and affordability but has also exacerbated existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. The island, already burdened by debt and political turmoil, has now become a playground for private interests seeking to profit off its misfortunes. As residents continue to struggle with unreliable electricity, high bills, and environmental degradation, questions remain about the future of Puerto Rico’s energy system and the role of privatization in shaping it.
Shahrzad Habibi, the research and policy director at In the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization focused on studying public goods and services, recently raised concerns about the potential problems that could arise from the privatization of essential services. “I mean, that could be really problematic,” she said, highlighting the philosophical questions surrounding public goods and societal entitlements.
Habibi’s comments bring to light a critical debate about the role of government and the extent to which certain services should be provided to all members of society. Public goods, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, are typically considered essential for the well-being of a community. However, the trend towards privatization raises questions about who should have access to these services and who is responsible for providing them.
The concept of public goods is rooted in the idea that certain resources are necessary for the functioning of society as a whole, rather than for individual profit. This includes services that benefit everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. When these services are privatized, they may no longer be accessible to those who cannot afford them, leading to increased inequality and social division.
Habibi’s concerns highlight the need for a thoughtful and deliberate approach to the privatization of public goods and services. It is important for society to consider what it deems essential for all individuals to have access to, and to ensure that these services are provided in a way that promotes equity and fairness.
As Habibi aptly points out, the debate over public goods is not just about economics or efficiency – it is also a question of values and priorities. What do we, as a society, believe everyone should be entitled to? And at what point do we draw the line and say that individuals are responsible for their own well-being?
These are complex and challenging questions that require careful consideration and open dialogue. By engaging in these discussions, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where essential services are accessible to all, regardless of their financial resources.
