Harvard Study: Poverty Does Not Cause Terrorism

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
Link


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Abadie, whose work was published in the Kennedy School's Faculty Research Working Paper Series, included both acts of international and domestic terrorism in his analysis.

Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.

"When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.

Abadie's study also found a strong connection in the data between terrorism and geographic factors, such as elevation or tropical weather.

"Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said.

In Abadie's opinion, the connection between geography and terrorism is hardly surprising.

"Areas of difficult access offer safe haven to terrorist groups, facilitate training, and provide funding through other illegal activities like the production and trafficking of cocaine and opiates," Abadie wrote in the paper.

A native of Spain's Basque region, Abadie said he has long been interested in terrorism and related issues. His past research has explored the effect of terrorism on economic activity, using the Basque country as a case study.

Abadie is turning his attention to the effect of terrorism on international capital flows. Some analysts have argued that terrorist attacks wouldn't have much of an impact on the economy, since unlike a war's widespread damage, the damage from terrorist attacks tends to be relatively small or confined to a small area.

In an era of open international capital markets, however, Abadie said terrorism may have a greater chilling effect than previously thought, since even a low risk of damage from a terrorist attack may be enough to send investors looking elsewhere.

 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,573
5,971
136
I'm sure it contributes in some cases.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: ariafrost
I'm sure it contributes in some cases.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
It has to be a contributing factor.
Just curious, and please don't take this the wrong way, but what's the motivation in wanting it to be a factor?
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Power hungry maniacs who have the ability to convince the young and stupid to kill themselves cause terrorism. Look at the money that Arrafat has socked away. Nobility in our very life time.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
So are they saying a rich person would be willing to strap a bomb to their chest. Or that rich people cause terrorism in other ways. If the latter, I am pretty sure that is stating the obvious. If the former, I'd be very surprised at seeing someone with a lot to live for throw their life away. My understanding has always been, the less a person has to live for, the more dangerous they become.

The terrorists in a more wealthy nation would be more cautious about their life and would seek tactics that would be safer to them. Whereas the terrorists in a poor nation would go to any extreme.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, isn't this how terrorism and poverty have always been linked?
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: skace
So are they saying a rich person would be willing to strap a bomb to their chest. Or that rich people cause terrorism in other ways. If the latter, I am pretty sure that is stating the obvious. If the former, I'd be very surprised at seeing someone with a lot to live for throw their life away. My understanding has always been, the less a person has to live for, the more dangerous they become.

The terrorists in a more wealthy nation would be more cautious about their life and would seek tactics that would be safer to them. Whereas the terrorists in a poor nation would go to any extreme.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, isn't this how terrorism and poverty have always been linked?

It's middle & upper class that do this crap.

When you poor, you're more fatalistic, less proactive, and as Winston Smith once mentioned, a heck of a lot more interested in making sure they had a meal in the near future.

I'd like to see this study validated or duplicated so the idiots that did Root Cause Analysis studies that proved otherwise would STFU..
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
It sounds like he's talking about national poverty not individual poverty within nations. The existence of right-wing American terrorists is in line with his conclusion that it isn't the only factor.
 

imported_tss4

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: skace
So are they saying a rich person would be willing to strap a bomb to their chest. Or that rich people cause terrorism in other ways. If the latter, I am pretty sure that is stating the obvious. If the former, I'd be very surprised at seeing someone with a lot to live for throw their life away. My understanding has always been, the less a person has to live for, the more dangerous they become.

The terrorists in a more wealthy nation would be more cautious about their life and would seek tactics that would be safer to them. Whereas the terrorists in a poor nation would go to any extreme.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, isn't this how terrorism and poverty have always been linked?

Not necessarily. The 9/11 hijackers were not poor.
 

StormRider

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2000
8,324
2
0
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: skace
So are they saying a rich person would be willing to strap a bomb to their chest. Or that rich people cause terrorism in other ways. If the latter, I am pretty sure that is stating the obvious. If the former, I'd be very surprised at seeing someone with a lot to live for throw their life away. My understanding has always been, the less a person has to live for, the more dangerous they become.

The terrorists in a more wealthy nation would be more cautious about their life and would seek tactics that would be safer to them. Whereas the terrorists in a poor nation would go to any extreme.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, isn't this how terrorism and poverty have always been linked?

Not necessarily. The 9/11 hijackers were not poor.

That's precisely the reason why I never bought into the Poverty == Terrorism crap. There are so many other poor regions of the world that don't have poor people commiting terrorism. Terrorism is politically/idologically based -- not poverty based.

And as mentioned, many of the 9/11 hijackers were not poor. Muhammed Atta had a graduate degree.