Terrorism and Migration: An Overview

Helbling, Marc; Meierrieks, Daniel

doi:10.1017/s0007123420000587

Cited by 56 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on the consequences of terrorism has identified various effects on public attitudes like trust in government, migration, and security preferences (e.g., Panagopoulos 2006 ; Mondak and Hurwitz 2012 ; Brouard, Vasilopoulos, and Foucault 2018 ; Nussio, Bove, and Steele 2019 ; Helbling and Meierrieks 2020a ), with important downstream implications for security regulations ( Bove, Rivera, and Ruffa 2019 ; Bove, Böhmelt, and Nussio 2020 ), radicalization ( Mitts 2019 ), and war-making ( Hetherington and Suhay 2011 ). The reactions to terrorism uncovered by these studies are often assumed to be due to an accrued salience of threat perception, particularly through feelings of imminent danger.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Terrorists Get the Attention They Want?

Nussio¹,

Böhmelt²,

Bove³

2021

Public Opinion Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrorists aim at influencing audiences beyond their immediate victims, but can only achieve this if an attack receives sufficient public attention. Previous research shows that terrorism can affect public opinion, but these studies are mainly based on emblematic single cases and relate to varying measures of influence, which are difficult to compare. This research focuses on the first-order effect of terrorism: attention. To analyze whether terrorists get attention, we combine a quasi-experimental approach for causal identification with a comparative design. We compile data from Eurobarometer surveys and contrast responses of more than 80,000 individuals surveyed before and after five diverse Islamist attacks in Europe in 2013–2019. Attention to terrorism increases in all targeted countries, regardless of attack size. Yet, while all incidents raise attention to terrorism, only larger attacks exert a meaningful impact across Europe.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Terrorists Get the Attention They Want?

Nussio¹,

Böhmelt²,

Bove³

2021

Public Opinion Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on the electoral consequences of terrorism has tended to examine whether attacks benefit conservative ('hawkish') or progressive ('dovish') parties, rather than focusing on the incumbent-versus-opposition logic. In general, these studies conclude that terror attacks appear to benefit conservative and authoritarian parties (Berrebi and Klor 2006;Berrebi and Klor 2008;Getmansky and Zeitzoff 2014;Gould and Klor 2010;Helbling and Meierrieks 2022;Kibris 2011). This is often attributed to the salience of law and order, a type of issue generally owned by the Right, and the sense of threat leading to seek protection from hard-line leaders.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Double-Edged Bullets: The Conditional Effect of Terrorism on Vote for the Incumbent

Falcó-Gimeno

Muñoz

Pannico

2022

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrorism often seeks to impact democratic politics. This article explores how it can influence the electoral fortunes of the incumbent. Existing research is contradictory. Models of retrospective voting predict a negative impact, as terrorism is detrimental to voters' welfare. However, the well-known ‘rally around the flag’ effect suggests otherwise: following a terrorist attack, voters often cling to the incumbent. We reconcile these arguments and argue that while both effects can coexist, the retrospective assessment is more durable than the rally around the flag. Using data on all deadly domestic terrorist attacks in Spain between 1977 and 2008, matched with municipal-level national election results, we show how exposure to strikes that occur during the last quarter of the term benefit the incumbent, while more temporally distant attacks are electorally harmful. In line with our theory, we find a more pronounced temporal heterogeneity for indiscriminate attacks and those that target civilians.

show abstract

“…An emerging literature on the terrorism‐immigration linkage addresses the associated myths (see the excellent survey by Helbling & Meierrieks, 2020). In a game‐theoretic framework, Bandyopadhyay and Sandler (2014) formulate a model with a developing country hosing a terrorist group that attacks at home and abroad.…”

Section: Myth 7: Greater Immigration Implies More Transnational Terro...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common myths of terrorism

Gaibulloev

Sandler

2022

Journal of Economic Surveys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing from statements by politicians, the media, policy analysts, and researchers, the current study identifies nine myths associated with terrorism and the practice of counterterrorism. We focus on those myths that have special policy relevance since the four al‐Qaida hijackings on September 11, 2001, and the ensuing heightened security concern. Many of those myths generated research articles that, at times, come to contradictory conclusions. Our goal is to provide recent statistics and a literature evaluation to sort out such contradictory results. In the case of the alleged macroeconomic consequences of terrorism to a typical country, we supply updated estimations. Throughout our presentation, we draw from the post‐2001 literature or statistical evidence. Often, empirical methods and procedures have evolved to a point where more clear‐cut and robust findings are now available through better identification and advanced estimation procedures.

show abstract

Terrorism and Migration: An Overview

Cited by 56 publications

References 109 publications

Do Terrorists Get the Attention They Want?

Do Terrorists Get the Attention They Want?

Double-Edged Bullets: The Conditional Effect of Terrorism on Vote for the Incumbent

Common myths of terrorism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About