www.csua.org/u/j39 -> economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/lack-of-civil-l.html
Princeton Economist Says Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism, by David Wessel, Capital, WSJ (Free): When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn't shocked. "Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor," he says. It's appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it's wrong. "As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year... There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. Data on which all this relies are hardly perfect: Terrorists don't fill out elaborate questionnaires. Better-off, better-educated individuals could be motivated if not by their own circumstances, then by the conditions of their impoverished countrymen. Interviews of terrorists in Pakistan by Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern reveal recruiters there found the poorest neighborhoods to be the most fertile ground, particularly among those who feel Muslims are humiliated by the West. She says Mr Krueger and like-minded scholars don't yet have enough evidence to prove anything. "We are only just beginning to do really serious large studies in terrorism," she says. But the conventional wisdom that poverty breeds terrorism is backed by surprisingly little hard evidence. The 9/11 Commission stated flatly: Terrorism is not caused by poverty. Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."
from Graeme's This evidence appears to show that the main cause of terrorism is the lack of civil liberties (as discussed in this blog post). So where does that leave governments whose war on terror involves getting rid of civil liberties?
Tracked on July 05, 2007 at 06:30 AM Comments Al Buono says... for who are most denied their civil liberties than the impoverished; who are treated more basely than those most suffering from inequality; and who most likely to resort to revolution as the only recourse to restore their civil liberties.
Could it be that wealthier terrorists committ acts requiring more planning and more travel, less well off terrorists committ simpler acts closer to home (IEDs in Iraq)?
July 05, 2007 at 05:28 AM real person from the real world says... The people leading the terrorists are well educated, AlQaeda's second-in-command is trained as a doctor as were the recent doctors arrested in the UK. The pressure by terorist groups is for others to join in. Anyone can join, certainly the less educated make for better "amunition" and help confuse the westerners into buying into these ideas, but so many other, poorer people just move into crime, not blowing themselves and others up. We in western countries have been sold so much hype on multi-culturalism, that these terrorist use to their advantage, that we become sitting ducks.
I remain unconvinced by the thesis that the cause of terrorism is simply identifiable. It is a lack of an appreciation for the joys of diversity (especially of opinions) that is the problem. But ideas have consequences and to ignore the ideological part of the problem is pure naivity.
How does that fit with the British terro rists,who certainly had greater liberty in Britain than in their ancestral countries. Their are a number of factors, but IMO the principal motivation is a profound sense of injustice - often humiliation, probably shared by all terrorists.
I rarely see mentioned what seems to be one of the larger possibilities and that is clan culture, in particular those clans who make their 'living' from kidnap and/or murder within a larger culture in which that form of livelihood is not actively rooted out and/or may even confer 'respect' (fear); eg, IIRC nearly half the kidnappings in Lebanon can be traced to three clans and, of course, the kidnap of and recent release (possibly w/o ransom*) of a British journalist in Gaza was traced to a Palestinian clan noted for form of livelihood. This is a genetic argument but not necessarily an argument for the influence of genes and is probably not confined to a specific geographic locale or belief system although it doubtless finds (some of) its roots there. I'm actually thinking specifically here of Fox Butterfield's (1995) book, All God's Children, in which he traces the Bosket family 'tradition' through its latest scion, Willie James Bosket, a double murderer by the age of 15 and 'the most violent criminal in New York State history,' back to origins in the southern folkways of 'bloody Edgefield,' a region of ante bellum South Carolina famed for its violent feuds.
Measuring the economic status of people who are caught (or recognized) committing terrorist acts seems like a pretty stupid way to estimate the status of all members of terrorist organisations. It's rather like me measuring the economic status of workers in various industries by estimating from the salaries of those who I see on TV. Why is no-one picking at his ridiculously small samples or the self-selection problem in his generalisation? Finally of course, why is no-one pointing out that there's a lot more to a successful terror campaign than the suicide bomber who drives the car into the building or whatever?
Spencer: It does not involve travel through customs, and/or fake ID, long distance communications, long-term operational secrecy, extensive planning time, extensive target survelliance, funds transfer, etc.
"Terrorism is not driven by economic conditions" The statement seems to follow in the vein that economics, CB policy, and up and coming economists remain separate from public policy. If a rich guy in a poor country is more likely to commit terrorism, doesn't that indicate that economic conditions could be playing a role just a different role then what conventional wisdom suggests?
If I remember correctly, scientific studies by psychologists have found that there is a tendencey to violent behavior among people who have high but fragile self-esteem. G W Bush is one example -- an absurdly high level of self-esteem (delusions he is competent to be President) so fragile that he cannot tolerate any dissent and must surround himself with people loyalty is ensured by their total dependence on him for their status (as they lack the competence to attain equivalent positions on their own). That he is from a well-to-do family has exacerbated these tendencies by further fostering his self-esteem while also giving him the means retaliate against anyone who threatens it. As doctors also frequently have absurdly high levels of self-esteem together with more than the usual means to engage in antisocial, and doctors of Muslim ethnicity in Britain probably find their self-esteem threatened to some degree, perhaps their involvement should not be surprising.
Funny thing about dogma, there are those who will defend it to the death. A new religion is here and thriving, mark my word, and deniality is its name. Failure to grasp the warehousing in prisons, low-income housing, homelessness, and poverty others. The very existence of the blacks in the black ghettos, another. Thinking there are jobs aplenty and all needs be done is look, another.
Terrorism is not an alternative to nonviolent protest or economic opportunity. On the other hand, the poor have sometimes rioted, even when they otherwise wanted to live in the system -- so that isn't war. You can give all the money for all the terrorism studies to me, because here is the answer: Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is idealist religious pu...
|
http://csua.com/feed/