Expecting Floods: Firm Entry, Employment, and Aggregate Implications

Layer 1: Overview

This paper studies how the expectation of rising flood risk — distinct from realized flood events — reshapes where firms locate, where workers live and how much they work, and what this implies for U.S. aggregate output. The motivation is climate-driven: roughly 6 million Americans lived within a 100-year flood zone in 1998, rising to 13 million by 2018, and FEMA floodplains are projected to grow about 45% by century’s end. Prior work largely studied actual floods or housing-price effects; this is among the first to examine firm entry and employment responses to anticipated risk.

Data and design: The authors digitize FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone maps (historic Q3 maps tied to 1998 Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and 2018 National Flood Hazard Layer), measuring flood risk as the share of land area within flood zones at the county and ZIP-code (ZCTA) level. Average flood-zone share rose 1.5 percentage points from 1998 to 2018, with a 20-pp increase at the 90th percentile of ZIP-level changes. Firm entry/exit, employment, population and county real GDP come from Census Business Dynamics Statistics, ZIP Codes Business Patterns, and BEA; actual flood events come from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory. The baseline specification is a two-period (1998, 2018) fixed-effects regression with county (or ZCTA) fixed effects, state-by-year fixed effects, demographic/economic controls (female labor share, manufacturing share, population density, China import-penetration change), and a control for actual flooded area.

Main reduced-form findings: A one-standard-deviation (7-percentage-point) increase in flood risk over 1998-2018 reduced firm entry by 1.2%, employment by 1.2%, population by 0.8% (smaller than employment, implying both relocation and labor-supply margins), and real GDP by 2.4%. Firm exits also declined with higher risk (smaller magnitude), reflecting reduced business dynamism. A county at the 90th percentile of risk increase saw a 3.3% drop in firm entry. ZIP-level estimates are similar. An IV using the interaction of rest-of-state risk change with local geo-climatic conditions (rainfall, temperature, evaporation) yields comparable magnitudes (entry -1.2%, employment -1.4%, GDP -2.2%); a placebo (1990-1998 outcomes) test is insignificant. In sharp contrast, actual flood events had negligible effects on entry, exit, employment and population, but a one-SD (0.4) increase in flooded-area share lowered real GDP by 0.2% in the same year, driven by current-year shocks (lagged effects negligible).

Model and quantification: The authors build a spatial-equilibrium model (McFadden 1978 location choice, Krugman 1980 monopolistic competition) with M = 2,772 counties (96% of 2018 GDP), σ = 5, exit rate κ = 0.08. Flood risk operates through three channels: direct damage, an employment channel (relocation + endogenous labor supply), and a love-of-variety channel (fewer firms). Damage parameters are disciplined by reduced-form evidence (δ = 0.005, δκ = 0.003) and Barrage (2020) (η = 0.002); labor-supply elasticities φL = 1.55, φM = 0.83 are set by indirect inference targeting employment and population responses. Non-targeted moments (output, entry, exit) match the data.

Counterfactuals: Eliminating 2018 flood risk shows it reduced aggregate output by 0.52% (employment -0.31%, firm entry -0.30%, welfare -0.51%). Decomposition: direct damage -0.11% (21%), labor relocation 0%, labor supply -0.33% (63%), variety -0.08% (15%) — so about 80% of the loss is expectation-driven and 20% direct damage. Effects are highly unequal: top-5% and top-1% counties (by output loss) lost 7.9% and 13.9% of output. A projected 4.5% rise in at-risk properties (2020-2050) would cut output 0.12%. Extensions (entry costs in goods, interregional trade, capital and land) yield somewhat larger losses (0.57%, 0.62%, 0.67%). Policy implication: counting only direct damages badly understates disaster costs and the social cost of carbon, because firms and workers rationally adjust to anticipated risk.

Layer 2: Deep Dive

What is the identification strategy, and what are the main threats to it?

The core design is a two-period (1998 and 2018) fixed-effects regression of log outcomes (firm entry, exit, employment, population, real GDP) on the share of land in FEMA flood zones, absorbing locality fixed effects (time-invariant characteristics like industry composition), state-by-year fixed effects (statewide growth/business cycles), demographic/economic controls, and a control for actual flooded area. The main threat is measurement error in FEMA risk maps: some underlying data are outdated, and political-economy incentives lead politicians and homeowners to resist map updates to avoid higher insurance premiums, so designations may reflect politics rather than true risk. A second threat is omitted local economic trends correlated with both risk and outcomes. The authors address measurement error with a Bartik-type IV (rest-of-state average risk change interacted with own geo-climatic features — satellite temperature, cumulative rainfall, evaporation), controlling for cumulative past flooded area. IV estimates are close to the fixed-effects ones (entry -1.2%, employment -1.4%, GDP -2.2%), with first-stage KP F-statistics around 63-66. A placebo/pre-trend test (regressing 1990-1998 changes on 1998-2018 risk changes, following Goldsmith-Pinkham et al. 2020) yields small, insignificant coefficients, arguing against omitted-trend confounding.

What are the main mechanisms, and how are they distinguished empirically and in the model?

Three channels: (1) direct damage — realized floods lower firm productivity and firm survival; (2) employment channel — anticipated risk lowers real wages/amenities, prompting out-migration and reduced labor supply per household; (3) love-of-variety — fewer firms enter, reducing the variety component of welfare/output. Empirically, the authors distinguish flood risk (long-run anticipation) from flood events (short-run realization) by estimating both: risk hits entry/employment/population strongly while events do not, but events hit current-year GDP (productivity) while risk hits it more through adjustment. In the model, direct damages are calibrated from the actual-flood GDP and exit responses (δ, δκ); the employment and variety channels are separated in the counterfactual by sequentially allowing population shares, then labor supply, then variety to respond. The decomposition attributes -0.11% to direct damage, ~0% to labor relocation (offsetting in- and out-migration), -0.33% to labor supply, and -0.08% to variety.

Why does population fall less than employment, and why do firm exits decline?

Employment falls 1.2% while population falls only 0.8% for a one-SD risk increase, implying the response is not purely relocation — remaining households also reduce labor supply. This motivates introducing a positive labor-supply elasticity φL alongside migration elasticity φM, capturing ‘immobile labor’ (as in Autor et al. 2013) where some workers cut hours rather than move. Firm exits decline with higher risk even though floods mechanically raise closures, because higher risk deters entry so much that the stock of firms shrinks, lowering the base of firms that can exit — reflecting reduced business dynamism rather than greater firm survival.

What heterogeneity is documented?

Large regional dispersion. While national output fell 0.52%, the top-5% and top-1% counties by output loss lost 7.9% and 13.9% of output respectively (the abstract describes top-5% losses of 7-14%). The hardest-hit counties — coastal and riverine areas in southern and eastern regions (e.g., Cape May NJ, Marion County FL, Sharkey County MS) — lost population, labor supply per household, and firms (top-1% counties: -6.1% population, -4.7% labor supply per household, -10.8% firms). Conversely, mildly affected counties (some Midwestern) were ‘winners,’ gaining in-migration, more firm entry, and higher labor supply per worker. For the 2020-2050 projection, direct damages play a smaller relative role (12% vs 21% for 2018) because projected risk increases are more positively correlated with regional productivity, amplifying aggregate adjustment effects.

What robustness checks are run?

(1) Controlling vs. not controlling for actual flooded area leaves risk estimates stable. (2) ZIP-code-level regressions exploiting finer spatial variation give similar magnitudes (establishments -0.233, employment -0.240, payroll -0.221). (3) Restricting to counties with available Q3 (1998) FEMA maps gives qualitatively similar, slightly larger estimates (Appendix Table A.2); the authors conservatively use baseline estimates for calibration. (4) IV estimation and (5) placebo pre-trend tests as above. (6) Lagged flood shocks (Appendix A.4) have negligible effects, confirming floods act through current-year productivity. (7) Model non-targeted moments (output, entry, exit) match data, and model-data correlations of regional GDP, population, emp-to-pop ratio, and firm count are near unity. (8) The implied regional-population-to-real-wage elasticity φM(1+φL) ≈ 2.1 lies within the 1.1-2.5 range from Fajgelbaum et al. (2018).

What model extensions are explored and how do results change?

Four extensions, all yielding somewhat larger output losses than the 0.52% baseline: (1) entry costs paid partly/fully in final goods rather than labor — with α=1 the loss is 0.57%, because final-goods prices respond more to risk than wages; (2) interregional trade with traded/nontraded sectors — requires a larger labor-supply elasticity (φL=1.72) to match data, giving a 0.62% loss; (3) capital (mobile, rented at constant global rate) and land (fixed, congestion force) in production — 0.67% loss, since risk also lowers the capital-to-labor ratio (by 0.34%) as capital becomes relatively more expensive, outweighing land congestion (small land share). The authors read the modest size of these differences as evidence the simplified baseline captures the key forces.

How does this paper relate to and differ from closely related prior work?

It contributes to climate-spatial-economics work (Costinot et al. 2016, Desmet et al. 2021, Alvarez & Rossi-Hansberg 2021, Rudik et al. 2021). Closest are three flood-aggregate studies: Desmet et al. (2021) on coastal-flooding costs via migration and local technology investment; Balboni (2019) on infrastructure misallocation under sea-level risk; Lin et al. (2021) on coastal housing construction. Differences: prior work focuses mainly on coastal land inundation from sea-level rise, whereas this paper uses historic flood-zone designation maps capturing overall flood risk and studies production damage rather than land loss; and it reconciles structural estimates with reduced-form evidence showing firm/worker responses to risk differ from responses to actual floods. Relative to Kocornik-Mina et al. (2020) (satellite-nightlight evidence that floods reduce output transiently), this paper confirms the short-run finding but shows risk has larger, longer-run effects via behavioral adjustment. It relates to Hino & Burke (2020) (same risk data; floods cut property values 1-2%), interpreting housing-price effects as amenity changes; their estimate implies a 0.3-0.6% utility loss, comparable to the paper’s calibrated amenity loss of 0.2%.

What are the policy implications and their scope conditions?

The central implication is that evaluations counting only direct flood damages substantially understate true costs, since about 80% of the 0.52% 2018 output loss comes from expectation-driven adjustments (labor supply, migration, fewer firms) rather than the 20% direct damage. Direct damages (-0.11%) match FEMA’s ~$17B/year (~0.1% of GDP) estimate, validating the model’s lower bound. Policies addressing climate damage — and estimates of the social cost of carbon — should incorporate firms’ and workers’ long-run general-equilibrium adjustments. Scope conditions: the analysis is U.S.-specific (chosen for systematic flood-risk data), uses establishments as ‘firms,’ abstracts from flood insurance (justified by near-actuarially-fair pricing evidence) and from explicit housing, treats unmapped areas as zero-risk, and assumes observed FEMA designations are the risk signal agents act on despite measurement error. The authors note the approach generalizes to other natural disasters.

What are notable caveats or limitations?

GDP data do not capture variety/welfare changes, so the love-of-variety channel matters for welfare but is invisible in GDP-based estimates. The amenity parameter η is not directly estimated but imported from Barrage (2020) (output-to-utility damage ratio ~3); the authors note η has little effect on national productivity impact because amenity mostly drives offsetting migration. Labor supply is assumed fixed before shocks (micro-founded by job-search frictions). Flood insurance and housing are not modeled explicitly. Risk is measured by flood-zone land share, which is converted to flood probabilities {rm} via a regression of 2015-2019 actual flooded shares on 2018 zone shares. The two-period long-run design limits dynamics, and counties without FEMA maps are assigned zero risk.

Key Concepts

Flood risk vs. flood events: The paper sharply separates anticipated flood risk (the share of local land in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zones, a long-run signal firms/workers observe and act on) from realized flood events (the share of area actually flooded in a given year, from Dartmouth data). Risk drives firm-entry and employment relocation; events drive transient productivity/GDP losses.

Expectation effects (vs. direct damages): Output losses arising because firms and workers rationally adjust location, entry, and labor supply in anticipation of flood risk — comprising the employment and variety channels. In 2018 these accounted for about 80% (the employment channel 0.33% plus variety 0.08% of the 0.52% loss), four times the 20% from direct physical damage.

Employment channel: In the model, the mechanism by which higher flood risk lowers real wages and amenities, inducing both out-migration (relocation, ~0% net aggregate effect due to offsetting regions) and reduced labor supply per household (the dominant -0.33% component), governed by elasticities φM (migration) and φL (labor supply).

Love-of-variety channel: The output/welfare loss from fewer firms entering under higher risk, operating through the CES variety term (agglomeration force 1/(σ-1)). It reduced 2018 output by 0.08% and matters for welfare but is not captured in GDP data.

Direct damage channel: The component of flood losses from realized floods lowering firm productivity (parameter δ=0.005) and destroying a fraction of firms (δκ=0.003) plus amenity loss (η=0.002), calibrated from the short-run actual-flood reduced-form estimates; it caused a 0.11% output decline in 2018 (21% of the total).

Indirect inference calibration: The simulated-method-of-moments procedure (Gouriéroux & Monfort 1996) used to set labor-supply elasticities φL=1.55 and φM=0.83: running the same 1998-vs-2018 panel regressions on model-generated data and choosing elasticities so model employment and population responses to flood risk match the empirical coefficients.

Immobile labor: Following Autor et al. (2013), the model feature that some households respond to local flood risk by reducing labor supply rather than relocating, which is why employment falls more (1.2%) than population (0.8%) and motivates a positive labor-supply elasticity φL.