Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Federalism as an effective antidote to terrorism

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Frey, Bruno S.. (2010) Federalism as an effective antidote to terrorism. Review of Law & Economics, Vol.6 (No.3). pp. 161-174. ISSN 1555-5879

[img] PDF
WRAP_Frey_Federalism.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader

Download (217Kb)
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1541

Abstract

Many governments as well as terrorist experts see the use of military and police forces as the only way to effectively counter terrorism. The most effective negative sanctions are considered to be military strikes, aggressive actions (including kidnapping and killing) against individuals known or suspected of being terrorists, or against persons supporting and harboring terrorists. Overt and covert military and paramilitary action is also thought advisable to pre-empt and prevent actions by terrorist groups, as well as against states suspected of hosting or tolerating terrorists. This paper argues that decentralization constitutes a powerful antidote as it strongly reduces the incentives for terrorists to attack and because the expected damage suffered is much smaller than in a centralized society. It moreover strengthens society, as economic, political and social decentralization (or polycentricity) is an essential element of a free and vigorous society. This in turn makes a society less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Indeed, terrorism has no chance of success against a society that actively guards its fundamental liberal institutions, of which decentralized decision-making forms an essential part.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare
J Political Science > JC Political theory
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School > Behavioural Science
Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Terrorism -- Prevention, Federal government, Decentralization in government
Journal or Publication Title: Review of Law & Economics
Publisher: Berkeley Electronic Press
ISSN: 1555-5879
Date: December 2010
Volume: Vol.6
Number: No.3
Number of Pages: 14
Page Range: pp. 161-174
Identification Number: 10.2202/1555-5879.1541
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access
References: Baldwin, David A. 1999. “The Sanctions Debate and the Logic Choice,” 24(3) International Security 80-107. Bernauer, Thomas, and Dieter Ruloff, eds. 1999. The Politics of Positive Incentives in Arms Control. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Bird, Richard M. 1986. Federal Finance in Comparative Perspective. Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation. Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002. The Dynamics of Coercion. American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carr, Caleb. 2002. The Lessons of Terror. A History of Warfare against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again. New York: Random House. Chang, Nancy. 2002. Silencing Political Dissent. How Post-September 11 Anti-terrorism Measures Threaten Our Liberties. New York: Seven Stories Press. Cole, David, and James X. Dempsey. 2002. Terrorism and the Constitution. Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. New York: The New Press. Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler. 2001. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War,” Policy Research Working Paper 2355, World Bank. Dahl, Robert A., and Charles L. Lindblom. 1953. Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper. Enders, Walter, and Todd Sandler. 1993. “The Effectiveness of Antiterrorism Policies: A Vector-Autoregression-Intervention Analysis,” 87(4) American Political Science Review 829-844. Frey, Bruno S. 1988. “Fighting Political Terrorism by Refusing Recognition,” 7 Journal of Public Policy 179-188. _______ and Reiner Eichenberger. 1999. The New Democratic Federalism for Europe: Functional Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. _______ and Simon Luechinger. 2005. “Measuring Terrorism,” in A. Marciano and J.-M. Josselin, eds. Law and the State. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 142-184. _______, Simon Luechinger, and Alois Stutzer. 2007. “Calculating Tragedy: Assessing the Costs of Terrorism,” 21(1) Journal of Economic Surveys 1-24. _______, _______, and _______. 2009. “The Life Satisfaction Approach to Valuing Public Goods: The Case of Terrorism,” 138(3) Public Choice 317-345. _______ and Dominic Rohner. 2007. “Protecting Cultural Monuments against Terrorism,” 18(3) Defence and Peace Economics 245-252. George, Alexander L., and William E. Simon, eds. 1994. The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Glaeser, Edward L., and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2002. “Cities and Warfare: The Impact of Terrorism on Urban Form,” 51 Journal of Urban Economics 205-224. Goodin, Robert E., James M. Rice, Michael Bittman, and Peter Saunders. 2005. “The Time Pressure Illusion: Discretionary Time versus Free Time,” 73(1) Social Indicators Research 43-70. Hirshleifer, Jack, and Juan Carlos Martinez Coll. 2001. “Selection, Mutation and the Preservation of Diversity in Evolutionary Games,” in J. Hirshleifer, ed. The Dark Side of the Force, pp. 251-278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, Bruce. 1998. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Lesser, Ian O., Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David F. Ronfeldt, Michele Zanini, and Brian M. Jensen. 1999. Countering the New Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Oates, Wallace E. 1991. Studies in Fiscal Federalism. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Rathbone, Anne, and Charles K. Rowley. 2002a. “Editor’s Commentaries on September 11, 2001: Terrorism: Erratum,” 112(3-4) Public Choice 213. _______ and _______. 2002b. “Editor’s Commentaries on September 11, 2001: Terrorism,” 112(3-4) Public Choice 215-224. Sandler, Todd, and Harvey E. Lapan. 1988. “The Calculus of Dissent: An Analysis of Terrorists’ Choice of Targets,” 76(2) Synthese 245-261. Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. _______. 1984. “Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice,” 74(2) American Economic Review 1-11. Schmid, Alex P., and Roland D. Crelinsten, eds. 1993. Western Responses to Terror. London: Frank Cass. Sterba, James P., ed. 2003. Terrorism and International Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Viscusi, W. Kip, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. 2003. “Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks,” 26(2-3) Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 99-120. Von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1978. “Competition as Discovery Procedure,” in F.A. von Hayek, ed. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, pp. 119-130. London: Routledge and Kegan. Wilkinson, Paul. 2000. Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/3970

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us