« How (Ideologically) Different is a Rur'l Republican Texan from an Urban Democratic New Yawker? (Update) | Main | Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? »

Conciliation, Counterterrorism, and Patterns of Terrorist Violence

Governments make concessions to terrorist organizations. This often leads to an increase in the militancy of the terrorist organizations. So why do governments make concessions to terrorist organizations if it’s going to make the terrorist organizations more militant? Ethan Bueno de Mesquita of The Harris School at the University of Chicago uses a formal (mathematical) model to shed some insight on this puzzle (article here):

The model developed in this study yields three key results. First, it suggests an explanation of the observation that government concessions often lead to an increase in the militancy of terrorist organizations. Namely, concessions draw moderate terrorists away from the terrorist movement, leaving the organization in the control of extremists. Second, it provides an answer to the question of why governments make concessions in light of the increased militancy they engender. The government’s probability of succeeding in counterterrorism improves following concessions because of the help of former terrorists that directly improves counterterror and leads the government to invest more resources in its counterterror efforts. Thus terrorist conflicts in which concessions have been made are more violent but shorter. Third, it demonstrates how the ability of former terrorists to provide counterterror aid to the government can solve the credible commitment problem that governments face when offering concessions.

Comments

This sounds like an interesting and useful paper. There was another along these lines last year in Int'l Studies Qtly by Navin Bapat; he refined the conditions under which bargaining with terror groups made sense in a game theoretic framework. As I recall, if the terror group's host nation had sufficient power to enforce a deal--i.e., so that the group did not renege--then it was in the target country's interest to try to broker said deal.

Here's the link to the paper - STATE BARGAINING WITH TRANSNATIONAL TERRORIST GROUPS