INTRODUCTION
This essay is in line with the explanations of the analysis of terrorist behavior. Upon the identification of the analysis, main policy recommendations were drawn by the many authors who wrote about terrorism. Further, this essay will evaluate how these analyses address the profound causes of terrorism. The analysis is either from a psychological, rational or economical point of view in which neither of the three can explain the whole essence of terrorism but they all contribute to the better understanding of terrorism in their respective fields.
The definition of terrorism comes from all sorts of definition. Even countries have their own definition of terrorism. In the United States, which is a favorite target of terrorism, defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents ( 1999). Similarly, in its Terrorism Act 2000, British government defines it as “the use of threat .. designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and .. made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause ( 2000). Terrorism as a form of political behavior that results from the voluntary choice of a rational actor considered as the terrorist organization. Terrorist violence communicates a political message; its ends go beyond damaging an enemy’s material resources (1969). Definition of terrorism is broad; therefore there is no need to discuss all the definition that is attached to it.
MAIN PART
(a) the main theoretical tools used by orthodox economists to analyze terrorist behavior
In terms of analyzing behavior, psychological viewpoint seems to be more appropriate. However, the analysis of terrorist behavior does not have its limits. Thus, an economist’s viewpoint will be as valuable as the psychological viewpoint in relation to the analysis of terrorist behavior.
In the field of economics, the choice-theoretic situation encompasses the individual behavior; specifically in this essay is the terrorist behavior. Subject to constraints, terrorist attempts to maximize their goals. The terrorist is being depicted as a rational being that as well maximizes returns and minimizes cost in response to the great constraints that is scarce. To put it into simpler terms, a terrorist is like a businessman, venturing into a grave risk in spite of the scarcity of resources with the hope of bringing in valuable returns in exchange for, perhaps freedom, in such a way that they won’t be spending too much that would be too costly. For example, in the September 11 bombing that happened in New York, Al Queda terrorist group attacked the United States. The resources that was used was not plainly in the expenditure of Al Queda because they only spent money for the plain ticket for their “brother” whom they have task to carry out their mission, the primary resource they used was an American airline that is from the United States, that was set to hit the World Tower. Al Queda in the scenario was able to minimize the attack mode cost at the same time reaping the benefit of sending an impact to the world and most especially sending a political message to the United States. Further, if the condition of the constraints changes, the intrinsic response or the behavior to the constraints follows. Thus, the alteration of the former behavior of an individual occurs. Economist’s point of view of rationality of behavior is in the appropriateness of the response to constraints. Going back to the September 11 bombing where the airplane boarded by terrorist attackers crashed into a rural field of Pennsylvania, the terrorists may have hijacked the plane but in response to the confrontation of the passengers on board, the terrorist was not able to aim the crash to the designated target but instead crashes it into a rural field. The reaction of the terrorist to the constraints has been considered as rational.
The allocation of the scarce resources of a terrorist group is divided between terrorist and non-terrorist activities to cope with and come to terms of the scarcity and the attainment to continue what they have been fighting for. It is obvious that the scarcity of its resources does not permits them to have interaction from the world, aside from being a palatable prey by government authorities that has been chasing them, and such that they have been isolating themselves and the alienation could in turn strengthen their commitment to each other in spite of being perceived by the world as killers and murderers.
Moreover, the alienation they have been experiencing makes them susceptible to tolerate high risk because of intense commitment that engulfs them to the extent that gratifies their cause. The commitment they are emotionally attached into is strong enough such that it outweighs the cost of rejection from the society that they have once belonged.
The constant interactions among the terrorist group are deemed more important in determining behavior. From the commitment they have for each other grows the trust they can confide only to each other since they feel like they are better understand and that they have a confidant to their beliefs and goals. Therefore, a mutual reassurance tends to often occur and comradeship tends to be deeper. Because of the real danger terrorists confront, the strain they live under and the moral conflicts they undergo, they value solidarity highly (1970)
(b) the main policy recommendations that follow from their analyses. Do these analyses address basic causes of terrorism?
The main policy recommendations from orthodox economists do not to the full extent address the basic causes of terrorism. Although, the choice-theoretical model showed some testable behavior with respect to terrorist because if governments addresses these problem by increasing the relative cost of one kind of terrorist attack, the terrorist will find alternative attack mode in response to the move by the government. Not even the behavior that poverty, which is an economic condition, directly implies that it leads to terrorism. (2002b) quoted in his Monterrey speech in 2002 says “poverty does not transform poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, corruption and repression are a toxic combination in many societies, leading to weak governments that are unable to enforce order or patrol their borders and are vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartel”.
References:
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment