1. WATCH – Martha Crenshaw, Understanding Terrorism: Does Terrorism Succeed? This video, by Martha Crenshaw, provides an accessible introduction to the topic of “terrorism effectiveness.” I have a feeling that, at this point in the semester, you either can’t stand Martha Crenshaw anymore, or you love her! LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI20dfaNWMs (about 9 minutes; click on “cc” for subtitles). FOCUS: The video starts with a broad overview of the topic but the most important information is covered from min 3:50 onwards, so make sure to watch it until the end. Notice that the video mentions the tactical success vs. strategical success distinction. Do not be thrown off by the terminology: these goals are similar to the process vs. outcome goals distinction (see my introduction above). 2. READ – Richard English (Working Paper) “Does Terrorism Work? Debates, Problems, and a Framework for Future Research” This working paper is written by Richard English, Professor of Politics in the School of International Relations, and Director of the Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV), at the University of St Andrews. I assigned this paper because I think it provides a clear and comprehensive overview of the issue. As I mentioned above, this paper summarizes the current academic debate in two main schools of thought (p.15). The first camp, which sustains that terrorism is effective, is represented by the following scholars: Dershowitz, Pape, Walter, Kydd, Gould, Berrebi, Klor, Merari, Elad. The other camp, which contends that terrorism does not work, is represented by scholars such as Abrahms, Rapoport, Neumann, Smith, Chenoweth, Stephan, Cronin. FOCUS: Read it all (it looks long, but it is not!). I do not expect you to memorize all these authors’ names and positions BUT, as you read it, pay particular attention to the main arguments advanced by the scholars of each camp (i.e. terrorism is effective vs. terrorism is not effective) and at the empirical evidence they provide to support their argument. The paper is attached as a pdf at the end of the page. 3. READ – Pick ONE of the following two readings Pick only ONE of the following two readings: (3.1) Gould & Klor OR (3.2) Abrahms. These two studies are among the most known studies on this topic and they reflect the two different schools of thought: the first paper, by Gould and Klor argues that terrorism can be effective in terms of outcome goals. The second paper, by Abrahms, strongly contends that terrorism is never effective in terms of outcome goals. Notice that both of these articles (and authors) are mentioned by Richard English in his paper. 3.1 Gould & Klor (2010) “Does Terrorism Work?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics This article, by Gould and Klor, provides evidence to support the argument that terrorism can be effective when it comes to achieving outcome goals. The authors collect data on terror attacks over time (1988-2006) and across locations in Israel to measure whether they are politically effective. They find that terrorist attacks cause Israelis to be: more willing to grant territorial concessions to the Palestinians; more willing to accept a Palestinian state; less likely to identify oneself as being right-win; and that these effects are especially stronger within demographic groups that are traditionally right-wing in their political views. However, and this is where the article gets interesting, they also found that: (a) terror attacks beyond a certain “threshold” level of deaths backfire, causing Israeli attitudes to become more hardline, and (b) that terrorism causes Israelis to vote increasingly for right-wing parties. The authors conclude that terrorism, at least in Israel, appears to be an effective strategy in terms of shifting the entire Israeli political landscape to the left. But the effectiveness of terror attacks declines after bypassing a certain threshold. FOCUS: You can skim some of it, but pay particular attention to the introduction, the main paper goal, its main findings, and the authors’ conclusions. 3.2 Abrahms (2012) “The Political Effectiveness of Terrorism Revisited”, Comparative Political Studies This article, by Abrahms, provides evidence to support the argument that terrorism is not effective when it comes to achieving outcome goals. After an introductory overview of previous research on the topic (pp. 367-370), the article tests whether terrorist campaigns are an effective tactic for achieving outcome goals (see my introduction above for the distinction between process and outcome goals). To do test this hypothesis, the author focuses on violent campaigns waged by every group designated as “FTOs”, which are groups designated by the US State Department as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations”. In total, Abrahms analyzes 125 campaigns waged by 54 FTOs. Abrahms finds that: FTOs success rate is low (under 10%, compared to other tactics); that terrorist groups often use a hybrid of tactics and that successful FTOs used terrorism only as a secondary tactic; that all of the political winners directed their violence against military targets, not civilian ones; that terrorist campaigns are an effective tactic to achieve process goals, but not to achieve outcome goals FOCUS: You can skim some of it, but pay particular attention to the introduction, the main paper goal, its main findings, and the author’s conclusions. This week there is only one question with three parts (each part must be answered). Submit one single document (word, pdf, or a format that can be opened with a pc) with a separate answer for each question. The expected length of the submitted document is min 1 and 1/2 page and max 2 pages in total (single-space and regular 1-inch margins). QUESTION: DOES TERRORISM WORK? Using this week’s material (Crenshaw’s video, Robert English’s article, and the article you selected between the two options) provide an overview of the current state of research on this topic: (1) Explain the problem (i.e. what does terrorism effectiveness even mean, why should we care, process/outcome goals and why is it important to distinguish them, etc.). (2) Relying on English’s article and on the article you picked (either Gould&Klor or Abrahms), summarize the different positions and findings on this issue. Make sure to provide the main arguments for each camp and to provide a few examples of empirical studies that support each side of the debate. This part should be the bulk of your answer; provide in-text citations. (3) Conclude with your assessment of the topic: Do you think terrorism work? Which argument or/and piece of evidence did convince you the most, and why? Which article have you read between Gould&Klor and Abrahms, and what is your assessment of it? Please share a novel concept you learned or something found interesting/useful or not convincing, and explain why. Thank you! MIN 1 1/2 page – MAX 2 pages. Single spaced 1-inch margins. Provide in-text citations.
Hide
