An Analysis of the statistical basis of TERRORISM

In recent years the threat of terrorism has increased domestically and internationally with endless vigour. Due to this, efforts have been made by political scientists and government officials to study this phenomenon so that it can be combated. However, problems have arisen in the efforts of studying this concept due to the inability of finding a consistent definition for terrorism and a consistent methodology to analyze it. In the article Analytic Models and Policy Prescription: Understanding Recent Innovation in U.S. Counterterrosim, Falkenrath (the author) discusses what efforts have been made in political sciences to study terrorism. More specifically, he evaluates the United States domestic preparedness program, which is a series of initiatives, aimed at reducing America's vulnerability to a "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) terrorist attack (Falkenrath, 159).

Falkenrath further presents a debate that is ongoing between terrorism studies specialists and policy makers. He states that terrorism studies specialists use an internal model that analyzes the root causes, motives, and historical patterns of terrorism and concludes that the threat of WMD terrorism against the United States is not sufficient to warrant the domestic preparedness budget (Falkenrath, 159). However, policy makers and national security experts rely on an external risk assessment model that considers terrorism within the context of the many risks and consequences, and reaches a logical conclusion that the potential for mass destruction not only merits, but also requires a level of domestic preparedness (Falkenrath, 159). Consequently, the author provides an alternative explanation of the discrepancy between the two models and hypothesizes that a policy prescription that is illogical according to one analytic model of a problem may be perfectly logical according to another (Falkenrath, 161).

Terrorism Studies - Internal Model

The internal model used by terrorism studies specialists looks at the specifics of the problem itself, that is, at statistical data on the frequency of similar types of incidents and at case studies of particularly interesting incidents (Falkenrath, 169). However, the ability to statistically analyze terrorism has been limited due to the fact that it is hard to quantify. Researches have found it difficult to categorize this particular violence and determine its variables. The author mentions that there are several organizations in the U.S. that maintain statistical databases of terrorist incidents (Falkenrath, 163). Yet, he feels that the statistical information is incomplete and inconsistent due to the following reasons: (1) Without a universally accepted definition, there can be no consistent counting rules for developing terrorism statistics (2) The statistics provided by nongovernmental organizations rely on data culled from news reports. Hence they are biased toward the most newsworthy forms of terrorism and against less newsworthy forms (3) Databases on terrorism are not perfectly consistent over time: they cover different time periods, and once in awhile the counting rules may change (4) The inability to identify the parties responsible for some attacks may complicate data classification or determination of a terrorist event (Falkenrath, 163). Thus one possible analysis of the origins of terrorism can be found by observing single terrorist movement or an individual terrorist (dependant variables) rooted in particular social and psychological circumstances (independent variables) (Falkenrath, 164). With the limitation of the methodology of the internal model, the results presented usually from these types of studies are also limited. As a consequence of this narrow scope, terrorism studies provides little if any basis for determining the priority that a government should attach to its counterterriosm program relative to other policy areas (Falkenrath, 167)

External Analysis of Terrorism: Risk Management

In this model terrorism is assessed in terms of consequences and probabilities. As a technique for analysis, this model is decidedly different from internal model, which examines only terrorist phenomena and does not seek to compare these phenomena to non-terroristic problems (Falkenrath, 169). By analyzing terrorism as risk among many that face society (externally), the author feels that the U.S. domestic preparedness program is more easily understood (Falkenrath, 169). In this model efforts are made to analyze human death/injury, worldwide causalities from terrorism, frequency of terrorist incidents, and their average lethality. Nevertheless, based on the raw empirical evidence, terrorism is statistically insignificant as a source of human suffering (refer to Table 3 in the article) (Falkenrath, 169). Despite this, terrorism is still considered a risk based on public opinion polling done by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 1998-99. The author contends that the general public and the political leadership tend to perceive the threat of terrorism as a greater problem than the available evidence would indicate (Falkenrath, 170). People tend to believe that extreme outcomes are more likely than they actually are (Falkenrath, 172). In addition, the media tends to play a significant role in exaggerating the risk of terrorism (refer to Table 5 in the article). As such, due to the results of opinion polls, limited statistical data, and the influence of media, policy makers try to generate counterterrorism programs to alleviate societal stress. Hence, the reason for the implementation of the domestic preparedness program in the U.S.


In summary, the author valiantly demonstrated two current models of how terrorism is analyzed empirically. He explored how analytic models can affect positive as well as normative conclusions by examining a recent innovation in U.S. counterterrorism practices (Falkenrath, 176). Although the author failed to provide an alternate methodology to study terrorism and its results, he did however provide a critical analysis of the current theories relating to terrorism and possible solutions in which terrorism can be more effectively studied empirically.

REFERENCE

Falkenrath, Richard. (2001) Analytical Models and Policy Prescription: Understanding Recent Innovation in U.S. Counterterrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24, 159-181.