On the heterogeneity of terror

Highlights

• The first paper to propose to look at terrorism not as a uniform phenomenon.

• Classifies terror according to ideology (left, right, separatist, Islamist, etc.).

• Argues why terror patterns are different across ideologies.

• Shows strong differences in the determinants of terror across terror types.

• Shows major shifts over time.

Abstract

Most of the existing literature on the determinants of terrorism treats terror as a uniform phenomenon and does not distinguish between different types of terror. We argue that terror of different ideological types should have different determinants as the terror groups cater to different grievances, engage in compromise to different degrees and have different organizational constraints. We explicitly address the heterogeneity of terror by classifying groups according to their ideologies and, using the Global Terrorism Database, show that the determinants of terror differ strongly between terror types.

Introduction

Terrorism yields terrible consequences, first and foremost, the loss of life, and of physical and psychological integrity. Second, terrorism disrupts economic activity, it slows economic growth (Blomberg et al., 2004, Tavares, 2004), reduces foreign direct investment (Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2008), disrupts trade (Nitsch and Schumacher, 2004), hurts tourism (Neumayer, 2004), and affects stock markets (Arin et al., 2008, Chen and Siems, 2004). Third, terror affects the political system by influencing voting behavior (Berrebi and Klor, 2008), reelection probabilities (Gassebner et al., 2008), and cabinet duration (Gassebner et al., 2011); moreover, through states׳ reactions to terror it may also limit civil liberties (Dreher et al., 2010). In short, terrorism is very costly for the affected societies.

To design an effective counter-terrorism strategy, it is necessary to understand the root causes of terrorism and to empirically validate them. The question, whether terrorism is rooted in poverty and lacking education, lacking political freedom, or instable or failing states, has been at the center of the scientific debate. A small literature has analyzed micro-data on deceased terrorists and found that they are better educated and better off than the pool from which they were drawn (Krueger and Malečkova, 2003, Berrebi, 2007, Krueger, 2008a, Krueger, 2008b, all for Islamist terrorists). Kis-Katos et al. (2011b) show a countercyclical and a core-periphery pattern of PKK recruitment; Benmelech et al. (2012) find that the education and experience of Palestinian suicide terrorists are positively correlated with local unemployment rates. Yet, as there are not sufficient data on individual terrorists, these micro-empirical studies are sparse and their results are limited to the specific context they study.

A second, macro-empirical approach seeks to explain the number of terror incidents originating from (or targeting) a specific country in a given year by relevant country characteristics in that year. As extensive data sources on terror incidents have become available, a large number of studies have appeared. Yet, these studies disagree on all major determinants for terror, i.e., the role of poverty, democracy and state stability for the occurrence of terror.¹ Part of the large divergence in results may be explained by the use of different databases.² In particular, many studies analyze international terror only, even though domestic terror is the most frequent form of terror.³ However, since the determinants of domestic and international terror are relatively similar on average (Kis-Katos et al., 2011a), the difference between these two concepts will not be able to explain the dimension of divergence.

We argue that a major reason for the diverging results in the literature is that studies on terrorism treat all terror acts equally, independent of the type of terror group, and thus do not take the heterogeneity of terrorism into account. If terror groups with different ideologies behave differently, the determinants of terror so derived are only determinants of the “average” terror and do not explain the behavior of actual terror groups. If the composition of terror changes significantly over time, the “average” determinants depend strongly on the time frame used. In this paper we show both to be true; we thus provide evidence for a strong heterogeneity of terrorism.

Essentially, terrorism describes a strategy, not a specific belief system.⁴ We argue that ideologically different terrorist groups are likely to have different determinants for the use of this strategy; thus, treating terror as a homogeneous phenomenon yields uninformative results. Terror occurs if potential terror groups are willing and able to carry out attacks; that is they must react to existing specific grievances, they must regard terror as an appropriate strategy, and they must not be persuaded to pursue their goals through non-violent means or be appeased by concessions. Different types of terror groups may cater to different grievances and they may differ in their organizational ability, which depends on the support base of people sharing these grievances and on strategies to enforce commitment and to prevent defection. This may be especially different for religious and non-religious groups (Berman and Laitin, 2008, Berman, 2009). Moreover, terror groups may respond very differently to counter-terrorism measures and may differ in their willingness to compromise. Bernholz, 2004, Bernholz, 2006 and Wintrobe (2006) argue that terrorists who adhere to “supreme value ideologies” will not be responsive to incentives provided by a carrot-stick counter-terrorism strategy as in their understanding they are following divine orders—deterrence and political compromise may thus not work for these groups, but may work for others.⁵

This calls for a disaggregate approach to the empirical analysis of terrorism. Yet, while the distinguishing features of different types of terrorism have frequently been noted (Shughart, 2006, Post, 2008, Zimmermann, 2009), very few macro-empirical analyses have made an attempt to classify terror incidents by the type of terror group. Freytag et al. (2011) run separate regressions for different world regions, and find marked differences in results by region. Meierrieks and Gries (2013) explore variations in the causal relationship between economic growth and terrorism across time periods (before and after the Cold War) and across different regions. Enders et al. (2013) show that the (nonlinear) income-terror relationship has changed significantly over time. Given that the composition of terror differs across regions and time, the results of these studies point to different behavior of different types of terror groups. Yet, they do not address the role of the ideology for the determinants of terror. Feldman and Ruffle (2008) distinguish nationalist, communist, and religious terror and regress the number of domestic terror attacks (or victims) per group per geographical base. Their analysis covers 91 areas, 460 groups and 609 observations in the period 1998–2007. In contrast, we base our estimates on a much more extensive database and compare global patterns of terror. We employ data from 1258 terror groups responsible for more than 40,000 attacks or 80% of all attacks in the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) with known perpetrators, covering 160 countries and 4730 observations over the period of 1975–2008. We find indeed that terror groups with different ideologies have systematically different determinants for their terror activities, which can be explained by their different ideologies.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces our reasoning on why different terror types are likely to have empirically distinguishable determinants. Section 3 explains our encoding procedure and describes the trends in overall terror and its composition. Section 4 presents our empirical models and the explanatory variables. Section 5 presents the results on terror, disaggregated by ideology type, and addresses the robustness of our data encoding procedure. Section 6 characterizes the different terror types on the basis of our findings. Section 7 concludes.