A little terrorism research:):):)...
I can't sleep:):):)...
So I'm doing some really fascinating terrorism research, in the meantime:):):)...
Some important links and scholarship:
A link to Brookings' Institution's Kenneth Pollack's ideas on Iraq, published in a July 1, 2005 column in the New York Times:):)...hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the link:):):)...
Brookings' Institution's Kenneth Pollack's ideas on terrorism...
Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism...a brilliant terrorism paper written by Alberto Abadie of Harvard University and the NBER (I assume the National Bureau of Economic Research, a very reputable economics group, in October 2004)...
Alberto Abadie's Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism...Harvard and NBER, October 2004...
On-line Newshour has a Terrorism Index, which features all of their most recent terrorism reports:):):)...
On-Line Newshour's Terrorism Index...
And, specifically...PBS hosted a terrorism discussion on September 7th, 2004, during the election, between Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright anf former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger...of particular interest to me was Henry's unexpected but not altogether unsurprising defense of the Administration's handling of terrorism issues and Iraq, specifically...much more than he had hinted at in previous work I had read of Henry's in his book Diplomacy...and in his endorsement of Joe Nye's concerns about multilateralism in Joe's book, The Paradox of American Power...in fact, Henry seems to run away from many of the ideas he expressed in both Diplomacy and in Joe's book in this interview, unfortunately, but, in the heat of an election, not altogether unsurprising...
Jim Lehrer's Newshour's interview with Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger...September 7, 2004...
Abadie's work, among this list, is the most impressive...I very much agree with his conclusions and was very excited to see Abadie make use of the World Markets Research Centre's Global Terrorism Index of 2003/4 to draw his conclusions...
He has many conclusions that those interested would need to read his report in full to get a complete grasp on:):):)...but...one of the most important is that political freedom is a much better predictor of transnational terrorism than is poverty (a conclusion I VERY MUCH agree with...though even Abadie acknowledges, as would I, that relative wealth inequities clearly have impact since rich nations are much more disproportionately the targets of transnational terrorism, even if they are not where it originates)...
But, Abadie argues...political freedom as a variable in assessing terrorism risk is, as he quite creatively and brilliantly refers to it, "non-monotonic"...as in not monotone...the reason, he argues, is that terrorism is most likely to be bred in countries with medium-levels of political freedom...meaning, Abadie argues quite convincingly, that terrorism is a function of authoritarian regimes making transitions to freer societies and that such terrorism spikes temporarily and then decreases significantly...
I also hypothesize, as I'm reading his brilliant article...if a similar argument could be made that domestic terrorism is also a function of less authoritarian but still less than ideally free, democratic, and equitable domestic arrangements (the contemporary issues of right-wing terrorism in the United States being a critical example)...and that international terrorism, similarly, is a function of less autocratic but still less than ideally free, democratic and equitable distribution of international power and/or wealth (September 11th being a prime example)...I do think that these additional hypotheses might better account for why terrorism is not just facilitated in countries in transition from authoritarian arrangements, but why they seem to strike out at more powerful and wealthy free and democratic nations, peoples, and cultures...I think this would offer a fuller explanation of what we've seen in terms of transnational terrorism, especially since September 11th, 2001, than Abadie's hypothesis alone...though I need to spend more time with Abadie's and the
WMRC-GTI 2003/4 data to draw any firm conclusions...
Something to keep my attention while I try to go back to sleep before I have to work, tonight:):):):):)...
I hope everyone's having a great day:):):)...
Love,
Ben
Addendum: I'll have to look at the WMRC-GTI 2003/04 data myself, I think, to consider the hypotheses I explore up above:):):)...Abadie doesn't provide enough of that data, really, at all, to draw any conclusions around those hypotheses...but it's something I'll keep in mind as I continue my mission to track down a copy of the very expensive data collected as part of the World Markets Research Centre - Global Terrorism Index, 2003/04...and, as Abadie argues...some of the better and more rare data of its kind on terrorism (I did just find indices from a group calling themselves Macroknow, today...though their indices, at this point, do not look as credible to me as do the World Markets Research Centre data...though it might be well worth knowing that they rank the U.S. at a comparable though slightly lower risk of terrorist attack, today, as on September 11th...though, as I said...I don't, at all, at this point, vouch for the credibility of that data)...
It is also important to note, as well, I think, that I believe that Abadie minimizes some of the empirical support for alternative explanations for terrorism that I think are important enough to point out...
Linguistic fractionalization, by Abadie's own data reports -- both his Ordinary Least Squares data in Table II and his IV data, to account for reverse causation between terrorism and independent variables -- both are reported as significant at either the .05 or .10 significance levels...and MORE significant at all levels than political freedom on the same levels of the natural logarithm of the WMRC Global Terrorism Index...
Also...and more important to me...though the final table is used in Alberto's conclusions to account for reverse causation, and supports, better, his conclusions that terrorism is more highly correlated with countries of medium-range political freedom than countries of the lowest range of political freedom...the numbers on both his IV table to correct for reverse causation and his OLS table, uncorrected, on first glance, with no statistical analyses to test for significance in the numbers, do not seem to be too terribly different from the numbers, generally, for countries with medium-ranges of political freedom...and the final graph of that data seems to support that conclusion as well, I think...meaning...countries with less political freedom, generally, still do seem to have higher risks, generally, for terrorism, than do countries with more political freedom...
Meaning...
That even though the United States are near the top of the WMRC's list...at number 4...
...and North Korea is last on the list...
OVERALL...these countries appear to be anomolies...
Meaning that, GENERALLY, countries with GREATER FREEDOM appear to be at a LOWER RISK OF TERRORISM...and, GENERALLY, countries with LESS FREEDOM appear to be at a HIGHER RISK OF TERRORISM...
Lest people use this data to rationalize cracking down on civil liberties and political freedoms to reduce terrorism...
The data, though non-monotonic, as Abadie argues, does not support the idea that less political freedom leads to a lower risk of terrorism...
TOO THE CONTRARY...the data seems to pretty plainly indicate that MORE POLITICAL FREEDOM is correlated with a LOWER RISK OF TERRORISM...
Meaning...
Though North Korea may be ranked below the United States on this index...
GENERALLY...countries as autocratic as North Korea are at a HIGHER RISK OF TERRORISM as freer countries like the United States, GENERALLY...
A pretty important conclusion to take from this data, I think, lest Abadie's conclusions confuse some people, I think:):):)...
I need to do some independent statistical analyses to consider these qualitative analyses further...
But...on first glance...
1) There isn't enough data reported in Alberto's paper to draw conclusions about the levels of terrorism experienced when less than ideally free, democratic, and equitable arrangements predominate even in more democratic governing situations, domestically -- in more democratic countries like the United States, Great Britain, Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, etc., for instance -- and/or internationally -- within global more democratic arrangements...
...and...
2) That GENERALLY...even Abadie's reporting of the WMRC Global Terrorism Index data seems to support the conclusion that LESS POLITICAL FREEDOM is correlated with a HIGHER RISK OF TERRORISM...and GREATER POLITICAL FREEDOM correlates with a LOWER RISK OF FREEDOM...despite the anomolous positioning of the United States and North Korea, as important extremes, within the data...
Also...
The IV corrections that Abadie performs might also obscure a larger point...which is that the causation may be bi-directional...meaning...independent variables, like political freedom, may result in less terrorism AND terrorism may result in less political freedom, rather than an isolated causation variable, as Abadie attempts to do in these analyses...a pretty important alternative explanation for that data, I think:):):)...
I'll keep researching:):):)...
Correction: The Henry Kissinger book where I remember Henry discussing the need for multilateralism in international affairs was, "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?"...rather than "Diplomacy"...though I believe I read some of the latter book, as well...an excellent read, by the way, for anyone curious about Henry's ideas on international policy:):):)...and it is on the matter of multilateralism that Henry backtracks in this PBS interview that I cite above:):):)...