Harvard study: Poverty does not breed terrorism

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-08 09:11pm

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.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-08 09:39pm

So terrorism is linked not to very high or very low political freedom, but an in-between state? That's bizarre. So much for the Golden Mean

But on a more serious note, since global terrorism is widely linked to the religion of Islam, isn't this just searching for some other correlation which happens to be true of most Islamic nations? It seems to me that we already have a known cause, and it should be noted that the determination of a nation's wealth is dodgy in that part of the world because the ruling class keeps virtually all of the money to itself. So the country can look fairly affluent even if poverty is widespread.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-11-09 12:41am

Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-11-09 01:19am

fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You mean the IRA isn't muslim?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-09 01:41am

Sam Or I wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
You mean the IRA isn't muslim?

Nope. They're Commies.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-09 02:30am

Sam Or I wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
You mean the IRA isn't muslim?

With all due respect, the IRA seems to stick to a very localized area. It doesn't go halfway around the world blowing up big targets.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-09 02:46am

Rogue 9 wrote:Nope. They're Commies.

As were most terrorists during the Cold War...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-11-09 04:07am

And there was me thinking it had to do with education, poverty and the Osama's of the world manipulating these conditions for there own ends..silly me

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-11-09 06:06am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Nope. They're Commies.
As were most terrorists during the Cold War...

That makes sence when looking at the article. the
RAF or the Brigade Rosse were terrorists who weren´t poor but had no freedom to enact their political views. or at least they probably percieved it that way.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-11-09 06:17am

Not surprising. The arab states are quite rich thanks to their oil wealth and yet are hotbeds of terrorism.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-09 06:18am

Not surprising. The arab states are quite rich thanks to their oil wealth and yet are hotbeds of terrorism

Isn't the wealth hoarded by the upper levels of Arab society in most of those states?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-11-09 06:21am

frigidmagi wrote:
Not surprising. The arab states are quite rich thanks to their oil wealth and yet are hotbeds of terrorism
Isn't the wealth hoarded by the upper levels of Arab society in most of those states?

The upper class in those countries is indeed very rich. However the general people arent very poor either. The ones who are really poor are the millions of foreign workers who came there to work.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-09 06:25am

It is interesting that alot of the upper level leaders only become radicals after visiting Westren Countries or attending westren schools. Is it culture shock? Anger at westren wealth? Disgust at the cultural differences in values? (I'm not suggesting that one system is better than another for the purpose of this thread, I'm merely pointing out that there is a difference in the values of both cultures).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-09 07:21am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Nope. They're Commies.
As were most terrorists during the Cold War...

where do you think the IRA got their seemingly neverending supply of semtex?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-09 07:33am

Col. Crackpot wrote:where do you think the PIRA got their seemingly neverending supply of semtex?

Fixed your quote. It's the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a fourth order splinter group of the Original IRA, which became the Irish Army in the 1920s.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-11-09 11:42am

Darth Wong wrote:
Sam Or I wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
You mean the IRA isn't muslim?
With all due respect, the IRA seems to stick to a very localized area. It doesn't go halfway around the world blowing up big targets.

So what? The study talked about domestic terrorism as well.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-09 11:46am

MKSheppard wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:where do you think the PIRA got their seemingly neverending supply of semtex?
Fixed your quote. It's the Provisional Irish Republican Army, a fourth order splinter group of the Original IRA, which became the Irish Army in the 1920s.

forgive my error, after all the IRA has had more splinters than a pine forest.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-11-09 12:04pm

I wonder how they determined what counts as an instance of terrorism, especially when they are considering domestic incidents as well, which have a sometimes vague and/or subjective delineation from instances of "crime". I remember from a thread a while back we couldn't agree upon a definition of terrorism.

I also wonder, did they include attempted terrorism, or only succesful acts.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-11-09 06:02pm

I would think that once you're below a certain level of personal poverty, you have bigger issues to think about than terrorism, like staying alive.
Only some limited wealth gives you the the freedom to let your mind wander, so to speak...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-09 06:09pm

fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The ALF for example.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-11-09 07:46pm

It doesnt sound as though he accounted for the distribution of wealth within a nation - he mentions national wealth, that does not say much about how the poorest in society are living however. New Zealand has a lower GDP in per capita terms than the US, yet the worst off in our society are in a much better situation than those in the US.

The motives for terrorism vary - ethnic tension, religious fundamentalism, enemy occupation - the French resistance for example. I think the study of terrorism should attempt to separate out differently motivated acts of terrorism and study the situations which breed them individually.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-11-09 09:19pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Terrorism isn't limited to Islam, and the other examples of terrorism seem to fit the characterisitc.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
The ALF for example.

Exactly. One group which (AFAIK) never actually killed anyone vs. a metric shit ton of fundie terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin