Search

One enduring question about terrorism is why individuals choose to join terrorist groups. Past studies have shown that terrorists are not always poor, and they can in fact come from more privileged groups in society. Risk sensitivity and prospect theory are approaches that can help explain some of the anomalies. They suggest that two types of group are likely to supply members for terrorist organizations in disproportionate numbers. One group consists of those who face a loss of status or position due to ongoing changes in society. A second group consists of those who have an opportunity to gain a major advance in status or position. Both groups are thus more likely or more willing to take risks such as joining dissident terrorists – either to maintain their position or to improve it. An analysis of the situation of Palestinian nationalists, nationalists in Northern Ireland and the Tamils in Sri Lanka provides support for the idea that sensitivity to risk can be an important factor in explaining the willingness of individuals to join terrorist groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In what came to be controversial cases in the 1970s, British courts convicted individuals involved with IRA bombing campaigns and sent them to prison. The Guildford Four, Maquire Seven, and Birmingham Six were all convicted with faulty evidence and/or coerced confessions. Obtaining convictions for the bombings was important for the British government and British public opinion, since the guilty persons were caught and punished. There are few indications, however, that the government as a matter of policy decided to convict and imprison innocent people in order to mollify the public and achieve other political objectives. The original convictions were miscarriages of justice but not government policy. The delay in rectifying the original convictions, however, displayed more concern about potential negative effects for the political system if judicial errors were admitted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growth in urban places in Ireland from 1966 to 1991 has been greatly influenced by proximity to Dublin. In fact, the best predictor of growth has been such relative proximity. Government efforts to disperse growth to other areas of the Republic, however, have had some effects. Centres in the north-west and west of the country have grown more than would otherwise have been expected. While the growth in these areas may not be sustainable, the effects of previous government policies have been obvious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Irish urban system has evolved over time. Urban centres have moved up and down the urban hierarchy, and the delineation of urban spheres of influence for the top levels of the urban hierarchy in 1966, 1971 and 1981 indicates that hinterlands have also changed. New centres in the upper tiers of the hierarchy developed in areas where the hinterlands of the older centres in that tier had previously converged. The analysis of such spheres of influences and urban attraction over time can be used as an important aid for a variety of types of government planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]