What is the difference between haiti and japan earthquake

Although there are still over 10, people missing in Japan, the death toll will more than likely not rise above 20, The Japanese quake happened in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, whereas the Haitian earthquake happened in one of the poorest.

The Japanese have a long history of earthquakes and tsunamis and the government long ago established national guidelines for building construction quality. Japan had the money and power to do so, hence why such a dramatic difference in infrastructure damage in the aftermath of the two earthquakes. In Haiti, sub-standard building quality was a major source of casualty. While the vast majority of deaths in Japan were due to the tsunami.

The number of people killed by collapsed buildings in Haiti is over , The Haitian Red Cross has fewer than 10, volunteers and employees. Although the Japanese Red Cross has not asked for international aid, they will accept offers. Before the quake, the country had 2. Following the quake, 1. Their homes and other buildings crumbled into million cubic feet of rubble. Sources: GameAid. The differences between the aftermath of the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan.

But does that mean that wealthier economies are hit harder than poorer ones? Obviously, the toll in Japan seems much worse. Because the Japanese economy is more than times larger than the Haitian economy, it can withstand a bigger hit. Not so for Haiti. The economy there has essentially no buffering capacity. Because of the perverse way economies are measured, Haiti may not look like its economy has suffered very much.

Meanwhile, Japan is well on the way to recovery. It now looks like the anniversary date will be one on which the nation can celebrate a return to near normal. It took Toyota only six months to get back to 95 percent production. The dire warnings of economic collapse in Japan and a global ripple effect have proven unfounded. How can such a devastating natural disaster be dealt with so swiftly?

The answer is twofold: Japan dodged a bullet — the disaster did not strike in a region that was key to its economy, but in a relatively isolated and largely rural region — and its economy, despite showing almost no growth for decades, is still large and has huge buffering capacity. Our hope is that this information can be used to reduce the risk of harm from these events.

But the harm they bring does not end with the trauma of the event itself, and their magnitude does not predict their harm. Their coda can be long or short. Harm can be quickly repaired or permanent. Furthermore, we must also prepare for the many months and years of recovery and rebuilding after a devastating event happens. In all three countries, Japan, Haiti and Nepal, the earthquakes happened during the day at times when people were not asleep in their homes or concentrated in buildings or schools — no doubt, this reduced the death toll, as people were less at risk of being trapped or injured by building collapse.

It could have been so much worse. But now we must study these disasters and learn from them, in partnership with those who were most heavily affected, and the local organizations and government agencies that serve them.

Third is how local churches and NGOs, along with international NGOs, can support community-based preparedness recovery and rebuilding. Robinson, given to me by one of my board members. At the risk of vastly over simplifying this masterful tome, the central thesis is that politics and political institutions determine the overall success of a nation. The more inclusive politics are the more the political institutions will serve the economic and other needs of the populace and the more a country will succeed.

The inverse is true as well: the less inclusive the politics and economics of a nation are, the more likely it is that the nation will fail. There are stark warnings in this book for Haiti, Nepal and Japan. It is also rich food for thought during our own political season here in the United States. Churches or other faith communities are often the only reliable social institutions in remote and underserved areas.

As such, they have an increased connection to and responsibility for the people for whom they care — whether those people are members of the faith community or not. If governments want to do their job, improving opportunities and quality of life for their constituents, they need to interact with and support local institutions to understand the context and collaborate on long-term solutions.

They also need to appreciate the position of local faith institutions in community life, and the trust our presence engenders. On my final day in Japan, one woman shared her earthquake story with me. She was a Buddhist who had lived her entire life at the bottom of the hill where the local Episcopal church was located. Not being a Christian, she had never visited the church. At the time of the earthquake, she had been out doing errands.

Once the tremors stopped, she raced home to check on her family.