Search

Conflict research has recently found that increased inequality weakens institutional conditions, opening the door for terrorism. While this research often accounts for endogeneity, or the possibility of a reverse causal relationship, there has yet to be an empirical investigation of the impact of terrorism on income inequality. Using a sample of 139 countries between 1994 and 2018, we show that both domestic and transnational terrorism result in higher levels of income inequality. Our results are consistent for both pre- and post-tax and transfer inequality as well as multiple model specifications. Additionally, we explore multiple potential causal mechanisms that link terrorism and income inequality finding that the effect is, in part, due to terrorism's negative effects on institutional stability, increased military expenditure, possibly to fund counterterrorism operations, and reduced foreign capital, especially for greenfield investment. Our analysis indicates a positive relationship between terrorism and inequality and the mechanisms that produce the effect, contributing to the terrorism and inequality literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) on domestic terrorism. Using a cross-national, time-series analysis of 114 countries from 1991–2017, and employing structural equation modeling to test a number of mediating factors, we find that the impact of FDI on domestic terrorism depends on the host state's level of economic development. For host countries at higher-income levels, FDI boosts economic development and global integration promoting prosperity, increasing counterterrorism resources, and reducing the economic grievances that foster terrorism. Conversely, for lower-income host countries, increased FDI fuels higher domestic terrorism, as it intensifies clashes between traditional and modern elements within society, raises economic discrimination, heightens perceptions of economic insecurity, and subsequently leads to grievances directed against the state. Our results indicate a curvilinear relationship between FDI inflows and domestic terrorism, suggesting that FDI produces a double-edged sword between promoting economic development and increasing domestic terrorism in host states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An emerging field of scholarship in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and computing posits that AI has the potential to significantly alter political and economic landscapes within states by reconfiguring labor markets, economies, and political alliances, leading to possible societal disruptions. Thus, this study examines the potential destabilizing economic and political effects AI technology can have on societies and the resulting implications for domestic conflict based on research within the fields of political science, sociology, economics, and artificial intelligence. In addition, we conduct interviews with 10 international AI experts from think tanks, academia, multinational technology companies, the military, and cyber to assess the possible disruptive effects of AI and how they can affect domestic conflict. Lastly, the study offers steps governments can take to mitigate the potentially destabilizing effects of AI technology to reduce the likelihood of civil conflict and domestic terrorism within states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past three decades have seen an increase in both domestic terrorist attacks and loans issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this study, we investigate the connection between IMF loan arrangements and domestic terrorism. We find that countries under IMF loans tend to observe fewer domestic terrorist incidents, especially when the borrowers are democracies. We contend that, while the IMF pressures borrower countries to prevent money laundering and combat the financing of terrorism, this effect is most pronounced in democracies, whose large selectorates incentivize the provision of public goods in a manner that works to reduce domestic terrorism. Our research shows how domestic and international institutions together can possibly help lower incidents of domestic terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the electoral consequences for ideologically right-leaning political parties in the wake of terrorist attacks by employing an original dataset that captures political party vote shares and multiple terrorist indicators. Our analysis extends the partisan voting hypothesis to 56 democracies from multiple regions and levels of development between 1975–2014. Specifically, we find that the origins of terrorist perpetrators, the severity of terrorist attacks, and the frequency of terrorist incidents decrease right-party vote shares in legislative contests when incorporating standard controls. All told, these findings reinforce political psychological reasoning that contends terrorist attacks impact citizens' emotions and voting calculations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars and policymakers often make noticeable distinctions between acts of terrorism and mass shooting incidents. In order to assess if these distinctions are generally accurate, we identity four key criteria from standard international and domestic definitions of terrorism. The criteria include: a political, religious, ideological, or social motivation; intent to reach a larger audience; the motivation not involving personal monetary gain; and the manifestation of an 'enemy/other'. We analyze 105 mass shooting events in the United States from 1982 through October 2018 to assess whether they meet these criteria and find that 41 (39%) incidents meet all four criteria and another 45 (43%) incidents meet three of the criteria to be classified as acts of terrorism. Thus, we contend that mass shooting incidents fit the standard definitions of terrorism to a greater degree than is often reported by government officials, academics, and media outlets. We contend that researchers must be more persistent in investigating the motivations behind mass shooting events in order to accurately label and counter them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A small number of studies have investigated how terrorism influences government policies such as military spending through individual case-study analyses. However, scholars have yet to investigate how terrorism influences defense funding across multiple states and regions. This is surprising since prior research has found that terrorism influences political outcomes a number ways by affecting citizens' emotions such as anxiety and fear. Therefore, this study examines the effect domestic and international terrorism has on military expenditures in 119 states from 1989 to 2012. A cross-sectional time series analysis indicates that terrorism positively affects military spending. However, democratic states are more likely to increase defense funding following terrorist attacks than authoritarian states. Furthermore, international terrorist attacks have the largest effect on defense funding in democracies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through case study analyses a small body of research has focused on the role the internet plays in radicalizing potential lone wolf terrorists. However, scholars have yet to examine how internet connectivity influences terrorism cross-nationally. Thus, this project attempts to address that limitation. This paper examines the effect internet connectivity has on domestic terrorism in 80 democracies from 1992–2012. Using standard controls and multiple connectivity indicators, we find that greater connectivity is associated with increased domestic terrorism. However, the effects of internet connectivity on domestic terrorism are conditioned by levels of state wealth and domestic turmoil within democracies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European far-right parties have enjoyed mixed success in the past few years. The primary elements in many of these parties' policy platforms centre on security, terrorism, and foreign persons. Naturally, these platforms are designed to attract electoral support that these actors can parlay into governing positions. Our study offers an important test to ascertain how voters respond to terrorist attacks with respect to centre- and far-right parties. We contend that far-right parties are to likely benefit from terrorist attacks more than centre-right parties. The results from more than 30 European countries, spanning 1975–2013, affirm our hypothesis. The implications for partisanship, governance, and terrorism are explored in this paper as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have found that terrorism can influence political behavior in democracies by affecting citizens' emotions such as anxiety and fear. However, researchers have yet to examine how terrorism affects vote choice cross‐nationally. The few studies that have investigated terrorism's effect on vote choice have only examined single states through case study analysis. While informative, researchers lack an understanding regarding how terrorism influences vote choice cross‐nationally based on the nature of terrorist attacks and the ideology of political parties. Thus, using a unique dataset that incorporates political party ideology, this study examines the effect the number and severity of terrorist attacks have on vote choice in legislative elections in 56 democracies from multiple regions and levels of development from 1975 to 2014. Preliminary results indicate that terrorist attacks are critical events that significantly affect vote choice in the democratic states included in this analysis. Our analysis indicates that center parties are more likely to increase their vote shares following terrorist attacks compared with right and leftist parties. In addition, contrary to the assumption that terrorism benefits rightist parties, rightist parties appear to suffer the most electorally following both international and domestic attacks whereas leftist parties lose support following domestic attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In democracies with stable party systems, voters can more easily trace policy decisions from parties and representatives within the government to specific policy outcomes. Consequently, party system stability (PSS) has been reportedly linked to a variety of factors including economic conditions, democratic performance, political institutions, and socioeconomic cleavages. While informative, these lessons offer precious little insight into other factors that can destabilize a party system. In this work, we surmise that terrorist attacks have important implications for two commonly used measures of PSS. The results of a pooled, cross-sectional time series analysis confirm our hypothesis: deadly attacks proximate to elections destabilize party systems, even when controlling for multiple standard controls. In addition, the level of democratic consolidation within states also influences the degree that fatal terrorist attacks affect party system stability. These findings are based on terrorism data collected from the Global Terrorism Database and from PSS data compiled by the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the effect terrorism has on civil liberties and political rights across a wide range of democracies and regions. This study includes an analysis of the influence domestic and international terrorist attacks have on civil liberties and political rights in 48 democratic states from 1971–2007. The results from a time series cross-national analysis reveal that terrorism weakens civil liberties and political rights. However, certain types of democracies are more affected by terrorism than others. These findings have important implications for democracy and counterterrorism strategies in democratic states. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]