Well, yes, of course, that’s true, but thinking it through shows how usefully more complex the actual points are.
Following an earthquake or major fire, infrastructure may well be rebuilt to better, current standards. Yes, it would have been more cost-effective to have done so beforehand, but that “would” is a very deceptive “would.”
The intervening variable is the well-documented prevention cycle, where preventative budgets increase only after a major disaster but thereafter taper off as the initial hype declines (Heerma van Voss 2023). I take this to mean that the counterfactual–the really-existing next best alternative–to just before the next disaster isn’t undertaking the otherwise delayed mitigation but rather experiencing different versions of the already-existing path dependency of tapered-off budgets.
If the latter is true, then the real issue of cost-effectiveness centers on undertaking the mitigation as soon as possible after the disaster, e.g., starting in immediate response and initial service restoration. Why? Because, pace the prevention cycle, more funds are likely to be available earlier rather than later.
Heerma van Voss, B. 2023. “The Prevention Cycle: State Investments in Preventing System Risks over Time.” European Journal of Risk Regulation 14(4): 656-673 (accessed online at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/prevention-cycle-state-investments-in-preventing-system-risks-over-time/E4AB5CE30C57318253ECBC98E1AF273D)
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 