Fraternal Twin Quakes

Even before the dust seemed to settle following the 8.8 magnitude earthquake that rocked Chile Saturday early morning, news anchors were already comparing it with the catastrophic quake that struck Haiti in January. In the initial hours, at least on CNN, coverage seemed to focus not only on reporting the latest breaking news from Chile, but drawing parallels between the two events, without making apparent to viewers the immense differences between the two countries. I waited at least 45 minutes before hearing some sort of qualification to that effect (provided by CNN's Rick Sanchez, who also took it upon himself to simultaneously translate broadcasts from the network's sister channel, CNN Chile).

As someone intimately familiar with the Latin American and Caribbean region, the contrasts struck me even before I heard reports of the damage; on the one hand you have Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest country and, on the other, Chile, Latin America's poster child of economic success and now a member of the OECD, an elite grouping of the world's most developed countries. But I am also aware of the American public's widespread lack of knowledge about countries south of the border. CNN's coverage of the Chile quake seemed to focus mostly on the devastation, the damage, the human tragedy (having already proven itself an expert in tugging America's heartstrings in the wake of the Haiti disaster)—all of which are necessary but not sufficient in explaining a massive and complex event such as a natural disaster.

What made Haiti's 7.0-magnitude quake so much more devastating than Chile's?

While maybe not as soon as I'd hoped, the press later began trying to unravel this question—with a vengeance. Here are articles on this from the AP, TIME, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Christian Science Monitor and CNN (this not an exhaustive list). News report have zeroed in on a few points, including Chile's preparedness as a nation chronically hit by quakes, particularly in its establishment of sound building codes. But to say that Chile was better prepared because its buildings were made of reinforced steel and concrete barely scratches the surface. I think fundamentally you have to take into account a number of factors, which eventually all boil down to Chile be a richer, more developed country and thus having a government with the capacity to respond to a disaster of this magnitude.

Here is where I disagree with Tim Padgett of TIME, who wrote, "Chile can do things right, Haiti defenders argue, because it's more developed. Wrong. It's the other way around: Chile is more developed because it's doing things right." Wrong, Tim. It's because of both things, which are mutually reinforcing.

So let me present (in order of importance) the factors that I believe adequately explain the differences between the two events. Before doing that, I'd like to reiterate that are both significant tragedies and shouldn't be minimized.

1) Geoseismic factors. The quake in Haiti struck near from the capital city of Port-au-Prince, home to the country's greatest concentration of population and economic activity. Its epicenter was only 8 miles from the surface. Chile's temblor was centered 21 miles below the surface off the coast in a relatively unpopulated area (which led, unfortunately, to the tsunami that caused the greatest number of deaths), although close to Concepcion, the second-largest metropolitan area.

2) Economic development means a government capacity to respond quickly. Chile is a richer country than Haiti by a factor of ten, with a per capita income of $14,900 versus $1,300. Not only does it have well-developed infrastructure such as roads, a power grid and telecommunications system, but its citizens have a higher standard of living: they can afford basic necessities, well-built homes, cars, cable TV, etc,. and they pay taxes to the Chilean government. Chile is home to large companies—both private and state-owned—that also help fill the government's coffers with pesos through taxes. And sound macroeconomic policies have helped sustain modest growth for the past 20 years. Government institutions are therefore not only strong and trusted, but they have the capacity to react by deploying emergency responders, police and national troops. Compare this to Haiti, whose government struggled to provide anything for its citizens even before the earthquake. Afterwards, that capacity was essentially reduced to zero, compounded by the destruction of a large number of government buildings.

3) Earthquakes on the brain. Chile was struck by a massive earthquake in 1960—the largest ever on record—and Chileans, like Californians, have built their homes and lives on ground they know is a little bit shaky. This led to the development of sound building codes, put into practice because Chileans could afford their relatively high cost and enforced because of the capacity of the government to do so with minimal corruption. Haiti, on the other hand, had not suffered a major quake since the 18th century, and instead perpetually prepared (albeit not well) for hurricanes. As some have pointed out, Haitians were used to building dwellings with heavy, concrete roofs to resist high hurricane winds, a practice that turned deadly when those same roofs crumbled.

4) Capacity for recovery. Chile strong economy will be able to bounce back and grow following the earthquake. It is broad and more spread out geographically (obviously Chile is a bigger country), while Port-au-Prince essentially was Haiti and its entire economy. Chile's government will be able to step in and help fund rebuilding efforts—initial estimates of losses range between $15 and 30 billion, Chile's ambassador to the U.N. told the Latin America Advisor—as will the private sector. Early estimates cited by Dow Jones suggest insured losses are within the range of $3 billion to $8 billion, reaching potentially 25 percent of the total. In Haiti, recovery and reconstruction will be funded entirely by foreign donors and remittances from abroad.

Let me close with two additional thoughts.

First, let me address a factor that has factored heavily today in news coverage of the quake in Chile: looting and "a widespread breakdown of social order" in Concepcion (as WSJ put it). While this appears to differ from in Haiti (which did see sporadic looting and unrest at food distribution points), it could just be because in Chile there's actually something to steal, as my IAD colleagues noted today.

Second, it's true that even developed countries can be unprepared and suffer devastation from natural disasters, with Katrina of course being the textbook example. (But who would have expected a flood in New Orleans, really?) So I guess I would argue that being a more developed country gives you the capacity to respond, but doesn't necessarily ensure that you will do so diligently. The U.S. can learn from the quakes in Chile and Haiti—not only to aid other countries in responding to natural disasters, but to help protect our citizens from future calamities.

As one colleague noted today, if the Chilean earthquake shows us anything, it's what California's Big One might look like.

Follow me on Twitter here.