DSpace Repository

Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Comparative Cross-National Analysis

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Shcwartz, Michael en_US
dc.contributor.author Shor, Eran en_US
dc.contributor.other Department of Sociology en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-05-15T18:06:50Z
dc.date.accessioned 2015-04-24T14:45:02Z
dc.date.available 2012-05-15T18:06:50Z
dc.date.available 2015-04-24T14:45:02Z
dc.date.issued 2010-08-01 en_US
dc.identifier Shor_grad.sunysb_0771E_10160.pdf en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1951/55624 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11401/70898 en_US
dc.description.abstract What factors influence with the way in which particular countries at specific times respond to the threat of terrorism? This dissertation shows that the answer for this question is more multifaceted than the literature on state counterterrorist policies often suggests. Many scholars of terrorism follow an (often implicit) assumption that when faced with the threat of terrorism governments simply do everything they can to minimize this threat, and therefore, that declared counterterrorist policies are directed first and foremost at preventing future terrorist acts. This instrumental rational-action logic is especially dominant in the public domain, and in the rhetoric of politicians, lawyers, and the mainstream media.This thesis systematically analyzes the relationship between oppositional terrorism and state policies, using pooled time-series cross-sectional regression analyses of large-scale cross-national databases (some of which were collected especially for the current study). It examines the impact of terrorism and other important factors on state policies as well as the effects of these policies on subsequent levels of terrorism. The results demonstrate that states often fail to follow the instrumental rational-action logic postulated by most observers, in which counterterrorism policies are directly responsive to internal terrorist actions and/or successfully deter or reduce subsequent terrorism. Instead, and consistent with the logic of socio-institutional and cultural theoretical approaches, the most consistent predictors of state counterterrorist policies were spatial diffusion (i.e. the adoption of similar policies by neighboring states), cultural traditions (most notably a democratic tradition), and the existence of various domestic threats (notably non-violent internal dissent). Furthermore, the results show that the common counterterrorist policies examined in this study (many of them violent in nature) were not effective in reducing future terrorism. In fact, many of them only exacerbated the situation and produced higher levels of terrorism. Thus, this study takes an important step toward a better understanding of state policies and their formation, providing policy makers with important findings about counterterrorist policies and their effectiveness. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship This work is sponsored by the Stony Brook University Graduate School in compliance with the requirements for completion of degree. en_US
dc.format Monograph en_US
dc.format.medium Electronic Resource en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher The Graduate School, Stony Brook University: Stony Brook, NY. en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Sociology, General -- Public Policy -- Political Science, International Law and Relations en_US
dc.subject.other Counterterrorism, Legislation, Neo-institutionalism, Quantitative Analysis, State policies, Terrorism en_US
dc.title Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Comparative Cross-National Analysis en_US
dc.type Dissertation en_US
dc.mimetype Application/PDF en_US
dc.contributor.committeemember Daniel Levy en_US
dc.contributor.committeemember Joseph Schwartz en_US
dc.contributor.committeemember John Shandra en_US
dc.contributor.committeemember Jeff Goodwin. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account