This keynote paper examines how game-theoretic analyses of terrorism have provided some policy insights that do not follow from nonstrategic analyses. Some new game-theoretic applications are indicated that concern terrorist targeting of businesses, officials, and the general public, where targets can work at cross-purposes as they attempt to deflect the attack. Other novel applications involve government choice among alternative antiterrorism policies, and government concessionary policy when terrorists are either hardliners or moderates in their viewpoint. Directions for future research are also indicated.

No abstract

We analyse a dynamic model linking terrorist activities to popular support through a recruitment mechanism. It is shown that anti-terrorism policies focusing on liberal ideals (reducing repression, increasing economic opportunity) are effective at abating recruitment, thereby affecting the dynamic stability of terrorist attacks. In contrast, deterrence's comparative advantage is in counteracting hard-core members, implying that terror eradication itself requires an emphasis on hard-core membership, rather than popular support for terror activities.Terrorist networks, Anti-terrorist policies, Terrorist recruitment,

Weaker-link and better-shot public goods are prevalent in examples of transnational collective action. Instances include dike building, atmospheric monitoring, cyberspace virus control, deforestation, disease control, and peacekeeping. This paper analyzes essential game-theoretic features of such public goods, which allow correlated strategies to provide Pareto-improving alternatives to Nash equilibria. Correlation is justified as providing a formal structure for the veil of uncertainty and political leadership. Weaker-link and better-shot public goods differ in terms of the appropriate institutional design. We also consider the consequences of diminishing returns on game forms and institutional prescriptions.JEL classification: H41, D70.