We really don't need codes; the market will take care of it.

Dangerous buildings, lax rules: why Bam death toll was so high

Many of those killed by the earthquake in Bam died only because of poor building methods and a lack of proper regulation, an expert on the devastated city said yesterday.

In Iran, as in many developing countries, tremors that ought to be survivable often bring human tragedy on a vast scale because buildings collapse on top of people.

UPDATE: Aaron Armitage (and I was just about to shut down the machine and go do some research but I'll take a moment to respond just in case I am not able for the next few days) suggests that:

...while we do really need codes, the market is capable of providing those codes. The fact that it didn't in that case hardly proves that it can't as a matter of abstract principle.

I agree entirely and my first post on the subject specifically allowed for the possibility of a free-market equivalent to government building codes (which actually are usually government-adopted codes as the code-writing agencies are all NGOs; but it boils down to the same thing: a government requirement.)

Anyway, I think that the operative phrase is "as a matter of abstract principle." Sure, it might be theoertically possible to have another system. I could offer Lloyds as an example of what I think is a private standard-setting agency. But why bother? As a matter of "abstract principle?" From a legal and historical perspective, building and fire codes are a police power. And the police power belongs to the people.

Moreover, I think the building code system that we have now actually works fairly well. Very few builders would complain about it, I believe. (Zoning and land use codes are entirely separate matter.) Sure there are always some provisions which seem and even might be excessive; all human organization is in constant need of reform. But with all the real, serious problems in the world, I just can't get too upset about building codes, except when they don't exist or are ignored and people die.

The larger question is one of having standards and the social/economic efficiency of having such standards when it comes to building structure. I think that there is little disagreement on that point, but only a question of whether those standards should be a requirement. No? As a person who is involved with building codes to make a living, I prefer a level playing field; I'd rather have everyone in my region have to adhere to the same codes (more or less) for the same type of structure. Whether the code is government's de jure requirement or an insurance company's de facto requirement makes little difference to me. (As a matter of social policy I don't believe that the average citizen and that includes me is capable of deciding whether #4 or #5 rebar should be the requirement in a footing so I would just as soon delegate that responsibility in general to experts; so the idea that we should leave things to individual bargaining between builder abd consumer strikes me as a bad idea from the get-go.)

On a whole other approach to the question, if the market is capable, why has it not? Do we really think that the insurance magnates of the early 20th century willingly & freely gave up a lucrative market to some pointy-headed bureaucrats? Government ends up doing a lot of stuff simply because no one actually can do it profitably.

Comments

[Thomas]

Uhm, do you really think that everything would have been fine if Iran only had building codes?

I mean, the issue is, why is Iran Iran and not the US, isn't it?

Would you expect 1st world building codes in Iran, if they had building codes?