"Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism"

These results have been noted here before, but they're worth highlighting again. Terrorism is not driven by economic conditions:

Princeton Economist Says Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism, by David Wessel, Capital, WSJ (Free): When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn't shocked. He wasn't even surprised.

"Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor," he says. "But this misconception doesn't die."

Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror." ... Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, "The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty...."

The analysis is plausible. It's appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it's wrong.

"As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year...

There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia. ...

Data on which all this relies are hardly perfect: Terrorists don't fill out elaborate questionnaires. Better-off, better-educated individuals could be motivated if not by their own circumstances, then by the conditions of their impoverished countrymen. Interviews of terrorists in Pakistan by Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern reveal recruiters there found the poorest neighborhoods to be the most fertile ground, particularly among those who feel Muslims are humiliated by the West. She says Mr. Krueger and like-minded scholars don't yet have enough evidence to prove anything. "We are only just beginning to do really serious large studies in terrorism," she says.

But the conventional wisdom that poverty breeds terrorism is backed by surprisingly little hard evidence. ... The 9/11 Commission stated flatly: Terrorism is not caused by poverty.

So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics." ...

Comments

[Al Buono]

Lack of civil liberties AND poverty; for who are most denied their civil liberties than the impoverished; who are treated more basely than those most suffering from inequality; and who most likely to resort to revolution as the only recourse to restore their civil liberties.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Could it be that wealthier terrorists committ acts requiring more planning and more travel, less well off terrorists committ simpler acts closer to home (IEDs in Iraq)?

[spencer]

Is an IED in Iraq a simpler act ?

Why?

[real person from the real world]

The people leading the terrorists are well educated, AlQaeda's second-in-command is trained as a doctor as were the recent doctors arrested in the UK. The pressure by terorist groups is for others to join in. Anyone can join, certainly the less educated make for better "amunition" and help confuse the westerners into buying into these ideas, but so many other, poorer people just move into crime, not blowing themselves and others up. We in western countries have been sold so much hype on multi-culturalism, that these terrorist use to their advantage, that we become sitting ducks.

[reason]

I remain unconvinced by the thesis that the cause of terrorism is simply identifiable. How does this particular thesis explain the IRA? Or the Unabomber?

I think he is partly right. It is a lack of an appreciation for the joys of diversity (especially of opinions) that is the problem. But ideas have consequences and to ignore the ideological part of the problem is pure naivity.

[Farrar Richardson]

Lack of civil liberties? How does that fit with the British terro rists,who certainly had greater liberty in Britain than in their ancestral countries.

Their are a number of factors, but IMO the principal motivation is a profound sense of injustice - often humiliation, probably shared by all terrorists.

[RW]

I rarely see mentioned what seems to be one of the larger possibilities and that is clan culture, in particular those clans who make their 'living' from kidnap and/or murder within a larger culture in which that form of livelihood is not actively rooted out and/or may even confer 'respect' (fear); e.g., IIRC nearly half the kidnappings in Lebanon can be traced to three clans and, of course, the kidnap of and recent release (possibly w/o ransom*) of a British journalist in Gaza was traced to a Palestinian clan noted for form of livelihood.

This is a genetic argument but not necessarily an argument for the influence of genes and is probably not confined to a specific geographic locale or belief system although it doubtless finds (some of) its roots there. I'm actually thinking specifically here of Fox Butterfield's (1995) book, All God's Children, in which he traces the Bosket family 'tradition' through its latest scion, Willie James Bosket, a double murderer by the age of 15 and 'the most violent criminal in New York State history,' back to origins in the southern folkways of 'bloody Edgefield,' a region of ante bellum South Carolina famed for its violent feuds.

*one news story, BBC I think, indicated Hamas had kidnapped members of this clan in order to force the release and the released captive commented that the only time he was badly treated or abused was at the end of his captivity.

[Meh]

Measuring the economic status of people who are caught (or recognized) committing terrorist acts seems like a pretty stupid way to estimate the status of all members of terrorist organisations.

It's rather like me measuring the economic status of workers in various industries by estimating from the salaries of those who I see on TV. (i.e. mostly Exec Board members giving press conferences.)

Why is this economist not being laughed at by his peers? Why is no-one picking at his ridiculously small samples or the self-selection problem in his generalisation?

Finally of course, why is no-one pointing out that there's a lot more to a successful terror campaign than the suicide bomber who drives the car into the building or whatever?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Spencer:

It does not involve travel through customs, and/or fake ID, long distance communications, long-term operational secrecy, extensive planning time, extensive target survelliance, funds transfer, etc.

My thoughts anyway.

[Winslow R.]

Is this a statement of Mark's beliefs or of Alan's?

"Terrorism is not driven by economic conditions"

The statement seems to follow in the vein that economics, CB policy, and up and coming economists remain separate from public policy.

If a rich guy in a poor country is more likely to commit terrorism, doesn't that indicate that economic conditions could be playing a role just a different role then what conventional wisdom suggests?

[jm]

If I remember correctly, scientific studies by psychologists have found that there is a tendencey to violent behavior among people who have high but fragile self-esteem.

G. W. Bush is one example -- an absurdly high level of self-esteem (delusions he is competent to be President) so fragile that he cannot tolerate any dissent and must surround himself with people loyalty is ensured by their total dependence on him for their status (as they lack the competence to attain equivalent positions on their own). That he is from a well-to-do family has exacerbated these tendencies by further fostering his self-esteem while also giving him the means retaliate against anyone who threatens it.

As doctors also frequently have absurdly high levels of self-esteem together with more than the usual means to engage in antisocial, and doctors of Muslim ethnicity in Britain probably find their self-esteem threatened to some degree, perhaps their involvement should not be surprising.

[ken melvin]

Damn, and I thought they were jealous of our freedoms. Must be a simple-arsed answer in here somewheres. Funny thing about dogma, there are those who will defend it to the death. Both its and theirs. Here and there. A new religion is here and thriving, mark my word, and deniality is its name. Blaming Islamifascism is one form. Blaming poverty on the poor another. Failure to grasp the warehousing in prisons, low-income housing, homelessness, and poverty others. The very existence of the blacks in the black ghettos, another. Thinking there are jobs aplenty and all needs be done is look, another.

[mp]

I still prefer the practical model put forth many years ago by Ted Robert Gurr in Why Men Rebel.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Rich or poor? Lack of civil liberties? "Terrorism" isn't even defined here. Terrorism is not an alternative to nonviolent protest or economic opportunity. It is a form of war.

War is waged for all sorts of reasons. On the other hand, the poor have sometimes rioted, even when they otherwise wanted to live in the system -- so that isn't war.

You can give all the money for all the terrorism studies to me, because here is the answer:

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is idealist religious purism, further insulted and accelerated by the oil geopolitics of the West. It is "terroilism."

So yes, it is driven partly by economic conditions. But US economists should NOT stand up for the Iraqi oil law, since it would be "good for the people." No one but a quisling, soon to lose his head at the hands of his outraged brethren, will see it as "good for the people." Because it's not poverty economics, it is geopolitical economics.

Lack of civil liberties? The US can't stop terroilism without stopping certain forms of Muslim teaching, and the US can't do that without curtailing liberties. In fact the West can't solve it at all. About the only thing to do is stand by the sidelines, detect the perps before they attack, and wait until Islam undergoes a reformation from within. About a hundred years.

The US can't even take stop its own fundamentalists. Jim Jones' People's Temple, Koresh at Waco, Oklahoma City, white supremacists. The problem is poverty or civil liberties?

[Nate]

Wonder if any of this has to do with 'blowback' of foreign occupation?
Just thinking of this from a game theory perspective. The US and Britain have the most targeted and they are the two staunchest supporters of Israel and have the most troops stationed in the Middle East. Lets try to put ourselves in their position. Another country has troops stationed in your country and your government does not have the military capabilities to put up a fight, so what do you do?
Terrorism sounds like a logical response to me. I personally might not choose to blow myself up, but fighting back in a form of guerilla warfare has historically been effective.
I find it irrational for the US and Britain to come to the conclusion that the Nash Equilibrium move is foreign military occupation.
Then again, as Lee kind of alluded to, certain people stand to benefit at the expense of others, namely oil companies, haliburton, etc.

[kthomas]

Poverty is a perfect breeding ground for terrorism.

Krueger is off, way off.

[Bruce Wilder]

The hypothesis that "terrorism is driven by economic conditions" involves an undefined "driven" as well as the overly broad concept of "economic conditions". Thanks to the current political regime in Washington, even the concept of "terrorism" and "terrorist" may be overly broad.

I would think that the conventional wisdom among political scientists, anthropologists, historians and sociologists would be that the consequences of forced development and the associated "fear of modernity" are the driving forces generating Islamic unrest, political instability and aggression.

I don't know if you would call it "economic conditions", but the processes of economic, social and political development associated with the emergence of the modern world, which includes the industrial revolution(s), has occasioned a great deal of violence, historically. Most societies have had to experience at least one civil war and/or an international war of catastrophic consequence, before embarking on that path of development.

(I doubt that Mr. Sachs or anyone from the World Bank is going to recommend a massive, revolutionary civil war as a development strategy, but history indicates that such is practically sine qua non.)

Much of the Islamic world -- Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, as well as the Arab countries -- are having rapid economic, political and social change thrust upon them. Rapid birth rates have driven the average age into the teens, so that these countries are overwhelmed with youthful energy and testosterone. Satellite television brings visions of a very different world into view. Authoritarianism is much in demand, but rests on traditional views and "knowledge" that, in a modern context, qualify as psychotic.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are very near collapse into political chaos. Calling that, "economic conditions", would seem oddly denatured. But, in an important sense, these are "economic conditions", economic conditions analogous to those that triggered the Dutch Revolt, the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the numerous convulsions in China from Sun Yet-sen through Mao and Deng.

[Mstessyrue]

Terrorism isn't neccessary a cause of lack of civil liberty nor poverty. However, the increase of these two fundamental necessity in life, would allow people to be more equip to think and consider their violent actions. As for this presidency, who has pledge to flight and end world poverty, they have done very little. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight world poverty, the US gov has already pourred $340 billion dollars into the war on "terror." However, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to stop world hunger and poverty. With all the money already spent in this fruitless war, we could have stopped 17 years of hunger, violence and poverty. It is defintiely time for this governement to rethink its direction and purpose.

[ken melvin]

Couldn't be poverty. No, mustn't be poverty. Poverty is good; good for the economy.

[Alex Tolley]

I think one getrs a better perspective looking at terrorism and revolutions through history rather than focusing on the current Islamic terrorism. Mention has been made of the IRA, which clearly was not originally motivated by economic conditions directly. Likewise, we had home grown terrorists in Europe like Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade which were not grounded in poverty. One only has to read the vitriol in, dare I say it, economics blogs, to sense that it is perceived injustice and the lack of means to do anything that motivates the extremists to take violent action. The educated will be the rabble-rousers.

[YORK VAN NIXON III]

Terrorism comes in many shades and configurations. The conventional wisdom, which explains terrorism as a result of economic despair, may also explain the desperation of those possessing education and economic wherewithal, by giving another voice to those screaming to be heard; albeit for ideals countervailing our conception of freedom and right to individual pursuit.

York Van Nixon III 7/4/07 YorkVanNixonIII.Com

[robertdfeinman]

It pays to study history, to wit:
The effort to overthrow the Czar in Russia started in about the 1850's and extended through to 1917. Those most involved in the effort were the intelligentsia. A good example being Bakunin who came from a wealthy landowning family. He could have lived out his life on the family estate, but chose exile and prison instead. Why?

The French Revolution was guided by a similar educated class and the philosophical basis was set by the all the well-known Enlightenment figures (Voltaire, Rousseau, etc.). Why didn't they just mind their knitting?

Even the American Revolution was led my men of property and status.

Peasants don't have the wherewithal to start movements for social transformation they just riot. Successful revolutions always come from the better off classes.

I see nothing different this time. The catchall of "terrorist" is used as a way to avoid examining the motivations of a varied group of discontents. This exactly parallels the period when anyone opposing the status quo was called an anarchist.

I've yet to hear what economic wrong motivated Bin Laden. It is too easy to brand these people as religious fanatics, it oversimplifies and makes it harder to discover what the true dynamics of a situation are.

[T-Bone]

I agree with Save The Rustbelt... I actually know from a friend who's a soldier in Iraq that the people placing IEDs are not "terrorists" as in they are committing acts for a greater purpose. Instead, they are just doing it for the money (these people are poor). So to say poverty isn't the sole cause terrorism might be true, but it seems to be a factor at least in the success and acceptance of terrorism.

I wonder how supportive of terrorism the populace would be if the populace were somewhat economically well-off? I mean, right now the populace might be saying "I like the way things are now, the traditions we have, and like that these terrorists help protect my way of life". But perhaps if they were more economically well-off, and accepted more western culture, they'd say "Hey, I like what I have, and I don't want to risk losing it because of these terrorists".

I think I saw it was in Dubai that night clubs were popular due to the number of young Europeans working in Dubai. Some of the indigenous people might be opposed to such Westernization, but I think with time, the younger generations won't even think twice about it. Now that is a clash of civilizations that is peaceful, and perhaps leads to acceptance rather than violence.

[Lafayette]

ab: Lack of civil liberties AND poverty; for who are most denied their civil liberties than the impoverished; who are treated more basely than those most suffering from inequality; and who most likely to resort to revolution as the only recourse to restore their civil liberties.

Well said and spot on. The two are intermingled.

Karl Marx did not have to be a proletariat to see that they were exploited. And terrorists do not have to be poor to see the poverty of their Muslim brothers.

Anyone who does not want to believe the plight of the Palestinians, their abject poverty which leads to despair and suicide, is not a major promoter of terrorism is smoking pot.

Bin Laden is far from poor, very far, and yet he leads the uprising that scares the hell out of most Americans. Worse, the ideology that leads them to hate America the most is wrapped in a firm belief that America's dominant commercial strength is the reason for their poverty and a menace to their way of life and religious belief.

It is a warped sense of reality. The Salafist Saudis, who were made rich by American oil purchases, are/were the primary donors to al Qaeda. Now, why should they do that to their most devoted client for Saudi oil?

[oops]

the psychiatrist that profiled individuals involved in the more famous recent attacks, dr. marc sageman, has a video that can be seen here: http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking06/video.cfm

rather than looking at the level of civil liberties enjoyed by those that are terrorists a better common thread to look at would be the fact that whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, these people fall prey to a cult of personality that preaches against them.

they don't believe that there should be civil liberties but instead, authoritarian rule by what most agree is a misinterpretation of the muslim faith. various people from all walks of life have joined in this belief.

[Lindsey]

I'm in agreement with Farrar Richardson and AlexToley that injustice is the common thread, but really it's not too hard to figure out why terrorists do what they do, because they tell us.
Al Qaeda, the IRA, Hezbollah, every terrorist group (loners like the Unabomber are a little different) you can name, says up front what their problem is.

Our problem is how we handle it. Al Qaeda could hate on us all day as long as they didn't manage to hurt anybody we cared about. Until they showed they could do some harm they weren't an issue for 99% of Americans.

[Cheerful Iconoclast]

Well, Krueger's "civil liberties" theory doesn't work very well for British terrorists -- after all, Brits have plenty of civili liberties. If they want to speak out or remonstrate against the West, they are free to do so. If nothing else, British Muslims have civil rights up the wazoo.

I propose a different idea: the envy theory. When these doctors went to medical school, they studied a whole scientific field developed by people who aren't Muslim. Going to work every day and using their skills rubbed their noses in their own civilizational incompetence.

The result is irrational anger against the West, and pointless violence.

[Lafayette]

oops : rather than looking at the level of civil liberties enjoyed by those that are terrorists a better common thread to look at would be the fact that whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, these people fall prey to a cult of personality that preaches against them.

Profiling (or Our Habit of Classify EVERYTHING)

And, there are NO AMERICANS who fall into this category?

That is the problem with profiling … we always apply OUR cultural criteria to profile THEM. And, they are using THEIR criteria to profile US.

That’s the disconnect. Some people call this “racism”, others “bigotry”. For whatever the reason, it is certainly "intolerance".

If we must, for security purposes, let’s use biometric identification to sort out “possible perpetrators”. Afterwards, the police can sort the chaff from the wheat by whatever method suits them.

It is evident, like the Japanese Americans before them, Arab Americans are in for some maltreatment. Let’s hope it will be minimized, but avoiding it going to be impossible.

[Lafayette]

l: Until they showed they could do some harm they weren't an issue for 99% of Americans.

Yes, the FINALLY did understand how to get our attention, didn't they. Spectacular result, it was.

What does 9/11 tell us? My suggestion: That we are an intolerant people who do not understand that, for however much we profess religious freedom and civil liberties, other people have the right to believe/govern themselves otherwise.

Arab terrorism is born of the abject poverty of the large masses of Muslims in just about every country from the Middle East to the Far East. In the Middle East it is particularly directed towards America because of the Palestinian situation. The Palestinian Cause has become a role model, and America is the scapegoat.

Lead-head decided he would fight fire with fire. OK, 3500 body bags later, where are in the progress towards a definitive solution?

Would there have been a better alternative? Like a bit more neutrality in America's relationship with Israel? After all, Israel is NOT candidate for the 52nd state.

We supply Israel with a great deal of its defense needs (including the cluster bombs that are still killing kids today in parts of Lebanon), so it is natural that, in Palestinian/Muslim eyes, the "friend of my enemy" is also "my enemy".

There is plenty of fault to find in both camps, Palestinian and Israeli. If we can only get beyond the finger pointing, maybe a Palestinian State and civil liberties of Palestinians (but above all, economic development) the means of breaking the image of Palestine as a "cause célebré" of the Muslim world?

Perhaps it would have been a lot cheaper and more effective doing some "nation building" on behalf of the Palestinians (meaning arm-twisting Israel) than raining fire down upon Iraq?

[oops]

Lafayette which americans fall into this group to the degree that the salafists do?

might want to check this out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

[Lafayette]

oopps: Lafayette which americans fall into this group to the degree that the salafists do?

When a cluster bomb drops where kids play, does it matter where it was made or the plane it was flown on or the nationality of the pilot who released it? It's still an act of terror, isn't it?

Terrorism has a wide variety of faces, not just the barbed guy wearing the explosive belt, an AK-47 in one hand and the Koran in the other.

Believe what you want to believe. But, if you are basing your opinion on what you see on TV or read in the newspapers (in the West) you are not getting the entire picture.

says...

don't confuse the desire of most arabs to live under more freedom and opportunity with the desire of the salfi jihadist to turn all muslim lands into another afghanistan. while many arabs respected the salfist ability to strike the u.s. most don't want to live by their rules. that is why they are laregly being rejected in the arab peninsula and moving on to africa. these people are considered radical by their fellow muslims so be careful of the lumping.

[evagrius]

"I propose a different idea: the envy theory. When these doctors went to medical school, they studied a whole scientific field developed by people who aren't Muslim. Going to work every day and using their skills rubbed their noses in their own civilizational incompetence.

The result is irrational anger against the West, and pointless violence."

I've got to laugh at this. I suppose the author doesn't know much about the history of medicine.

[baileyman]

So, the terrorists are generally of elite ranks, and they are from countries whose internal politics is dominated by outside powers. Could it be that they desire power where without the outside dominance they could look forward to growing into it?

[Lafayette]

evg: I've got to laugh at this. I suppose the author doesn't know much about the history of medicine.

Or, al-gebra.

Let's remember, bin Laden wants to restore the caliphate, under which Muslim culture flourished - the sciences, mathematics, even the arts developed considerably. And, Baghdad was the cultural center of the Middle East, not Istanbul.

Tis a pity what's happened. But, they never really got over the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

[oops]

don't kid yourself that he wants that type of caliphate. he wants nothing of an open society. you saw afghanistan. he wants a bigger one and the people there know it (and are rejecting it) even if you don't. that's what really counts.

[real person from the real world]

BTW, "arabic numerals" were stolen from the Hindus and the arabs picked up a lot of science from the old Greek sources they looted while building their empire.

[Lafayette]

op: don't kid yourself that he wants that type of caliphate. he wants nothing of an open society.

Oh, you know the guy, do you? Ever hear of the $25M price on his head? Go for it!

Like it or not, he has the right to believe in running up a hill and pissing on a rock three times a day. It's no one's business but his.

Regardless of who he is and what he has done, his religious beliefs are his business. George Washington was considered a "terrorist" by the Brits because he would not stand and fight.

[BJ Feng]

From www.impleader.com

Humm, how come other countries with very few civil liberties or political rights like China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea don’t produce terrorists then? Why is it that the vast majority of terrorists just happen to be Middle Eastern Muslim fundamentalists? And is it just coincidence that this type of Islam, which preaches death and destruction, is precisely the kind that is being taught in the Middle East? Strange isn’t it, that even when fundamentalists move to countries that allow non-violent forms of protest and a great deal of freedom, they still resort to terrorism. Could it be that fundamentalist Islam itself is the source and cause of terrorism in the world? Nah, I’m sure Mr. Krueger already considered that conclusion and dismissed it as absolutely crazy and unworthy of further thought. After all, Islam is the religion of peace.

[Lafayette]

bjf: how come other countries with very few civil liberties or political rights like China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea don’t produce terrorists then?

You think al Qaeda is a "country"? It is an insurgency "without a country" and against the established order throughout. It is, also, a terrorist outfit and must be dealt with.

As regards, the countries you mention, do you not think that in their insurgencies against the established order (the communists against the Tsar, the Chinese against the Japanese, the North Koreans against the Japanese, and Castro against Batista) didn't employ "terrorist" tactics? I do.

The Israeli underground (Haganah) didn't blow up the King David hotel housing the British Authority?

We'd like to think that terrorism is going to go away only if bin Laden and al Qaeda are defeated/annihilated. It isn't. It is going to be around a long, long time ... because it is an excessive means of expression (of discontent) that gets attention, which is precisely what the terrorist wants.

And, to believe that, at the root of the terrorists movement, is the lack of civil liberties, I suggest, is naive. It is long-term poverty that motivates them, and particularly a nihilstic desperation that prompts them to commit suicide to further their cause. For the Palestinians, their "struggle" for a Palestinian state began at about the same time as Israel's did - meaning it has been on-going for more than half a century.

I maintain that if these people are given "economic opportunity" to live normal, middle-class lives (whatever that means in THEIR context), only then will they give up the suicide belts.