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.available 2012-05-15T18:06:50Z
dc.date.issued 1-Aug-10 en_US
dc.date.submitted Aug-10 en_US
dc.identifier Shor_grad.sunysb_0771E_10160.pdf en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1951/55624
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 Stony Brook University Libraries. SBU Graduate School in Department of Sociology. Lawrence Martin (Dean of Graduate School). en_US
dc.format 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.description.advisor Advisor(s): Michael Shcwartz. Committee Member(s): Daniel Levy; Joseph Schwartz; John Shandra; Jeff Goodwin. en_US
dc.mimetype Application/PDF en_US
dc.embargo.release 8/1/12 en_US
dc.embargo.period 2 Years en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account