The Economics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: A Survey (Part II)

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Economics of Security Working Paper SeriesEconomics of Security is an initiative managed by DIW Berlin AbstractThis survey provides an in-depth analysis of existing research on the economic analysis of terrorism and counter-terrorist measures. First the existing evidence on the causes of terrorism is analyzed, then we consider the evidence of the consequences of terrorism and we demonstrate why it is important to regarding of the issue of counter-terrorism policy. Moreover the survey presents the existing knowledge on the interrelation between the economy and the issue of security and it incorporates analysis the level of knowledge about the causal chains between security and the economy. Also it focuses on perspective and methodologies from the discipline of economics but also refers to research from related disciplines (sociology, political science). It also assembles the knowledge on the impact of terrorism on the economy as reflected in macro-economic variables and its impact on specific sectors. Furthermore it assesses how potential an actual terrorist event determine consumer and producer behaviour, public policy, as well as terrorist responses to these policies. Finally a European perspective on the terrorism security annexes is discussed and here we analyze the causes of terrorism in Europe.JEL-Code: K42, H56, O17.Keywords: risk, insecurity, survey, terrorism, counter-terrorism, security economics This paper consists of two parts. Part I comprises chapters 1 to 4 and part II comprises chapters 5 to 9 -including the references.

‘Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t’: mimicking behaviour of growth-oriented terrorist organizations

“…and $US 500,000 (9/11 Commission Report, 2003), while the resulting direct costs in capital and human losses alone supposedly lie between $US 20 and $US 60 billion (Schneider et al, 2010). Including further costs which are dicult to measure such as distortions in consumption behaviour, additional unproductive protection spending and expenditures for the War on Terror which, one could argue, served partly as propaganda for terrorists, makes it clear that the 9/11 attacks had an unprecedented net benet for the terrorists.…”

“…2 For an extensive overview over terrorism-related economic research, see Schneider et al (2010). The impact of terrorism on individual happiness has been the subject of research by Frey et al (2007).…”

The Economics of Security: A European Perspective

“…As mentioned, research on security economics continues to be focused on various aspects of terrorism and counterterrorism (Brück 2007;Schneider, Brück, and Meierrieks, 2010). But, as Llussá and Tavares (this issue) show, research on terrorism has not uniformly covered all relevant aspects.…”

“…Most of the papers of this special issue reflect the general emphasis on various aspects of terrorism and counterterrorism in research on security economics (Schneider, Brück, and Meierrieks, 2010). Several of the authors also address further sources of insecurity including considerations of organized crime and political violence.…”

Socio-economic Inequality or Demographic Conditions: A Micro-level Analysis of Terrorism in Jharkhand

“…In this article on Naxalite violence in India, we will use Enders and Sandler's 17 definition of terrorism as 'the premeditated use or threat of use of extra-normal violence or brutality by sub-national groups to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective through intimidation of a huge audience, usually not directly involved with the policymaking that the terrorists seek to influence'. As pointed out by, 18 the definition has been used by different scholars but has its own limitations that include the inadequate consideration of the type of terrorism that takes place and its failure to convey specific political characteristics associated with a terrorist act.…”