Building codes are important for natural disaster mitigation. Typical
public policy approach to building safety is the 'command-and-control'
mechanism. Local government sets minimum standards that every new bui
lding must attain. Because a proposed change in the requirements is st
ated in terms of additional safety, the marginal cost would be differe
nt for each building. Those with high marginal cost are over-represent
ed in the deliberations because for these buildings the cost is highly
salient. Thus, many good proposals are defeated, and no buildings are
made safer. The 'marketable risk permits' approach uses a market mech
anism to encourage efficient safety upgrade. The building code would h
ave two levels of safety, the lower level corresponding to the status
quo. Each new building would be endowed with a quantity of risk permit
s. Developers who construct to the lower code level must purchase addi
tional risk permits. Developers who build to the higher code level cou
ld sell their risk permits. Thus, for the few buildings for which the
higher code level is expensive, developers could avoid high costs by p
urchasing risk permits instead. Government policy would determine the
endowment of risk permits, as a fraction of total risk-reduction poten
tial of the higher code level. The market would determine the price of
risk permits, as well as which buildings get constructed to the highe
r code level. Under a risk permit policy, the marginal cost of safety
would be considerably less than under a command-control policy. In sit
uations where corruption already operates as a mechanism for providing
relief to developers with high costs, a risk permit policy has little
effect on the number of bribes, but the interaction drives down the p
rice of both bribes and risk permits.