Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Things We Know That Aren’t True, Poverty and Terrorism Edition

• August 16, 2012 • 3:53 PM

You might think that poverty breeds terrorism. It’s a fairly intuitive view, and it has been trumpeted by some major figures. Here’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for instance: “You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate — poverty, disease, ignorance.” And here’s Colin Powell: “We can’t just stop with a single terrorist or a single terrorist organization; we have to go and root out the whole system. We have to go after poverty.”

God knows, there are far, far worse outlets for the energy that has hummed and crackled around the issue of terrorism since 9/11. But here’s the thing: the more research from the field rolls in, the less it looks like poverty actually breeds terrorism. At least not in anything like a straightforward way.

A new paper in the American Journal of Political Science details some on-the-ground evidence from Pakistan. The researchers surveyed a nationally representative sample of 6,000 people, asking them how they felt towards four different militant groups. Controlling for a bunch of confounding factors, the researchers found that, in fact, poor Pakistanis generally hold militants in lower esteem than middle class folk do.

It is not that people are vulnerable to militants’ appeals because they are poor and dissatisfied. Instead, it appears that the urban poor suffer most from militants’ violent activities and so most intensely dislike them.

This doesn’t come out of the blue. A few years ago, the Harvard economist Alberto Abadie found – looking across different countries — that per-capita national income was not a great indicator of likely terrorism one way or another. Political rights, however, were.

But even there, the relationship wasn’t what you might think: countries with the most freedoms were, as you would guess, not at the greatest risk of spawning terrorism; but nor were those with the most severe and restrictive authoritarian regimes! It was the countries in the middle range that had the most potential for emerging militancy. “Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions,” writes Abadie. “When governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism.” Which may explain why we saw official Western reactions like these after the Arab Spring. (h/t to Chris Blattman.)

 

 

John Gravois
John Gravois is Pacific Standard's deputy editor.

More From John Gravois

Tags: , , , ,

If you would like to comment on this post, or anything else on Pacific Standard, visit our Facebook or Google+ page, or send us a message on Twitter. You can also follow our regular updates and other stories on both LinkedIn and Tumblr.

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Follow us


Subscribe Now

Quick Studies

Banning Chocolate Milk Was a Bad Choice

The costs of banning America's favorite kids drink from schools may outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In Battle Against Climate Change, Cities Are Left All Alone

Cities must play a critical role in shifting the world to a fossil fuel-free future. So why won't anybody help them?

When a Romance Is Threatened, People Rebound With God

And when they feel God might reject them, they buddy up to their partner.

How Can We Protect Open Ocean That Does Not Yet Exist?

As global warming melts ice and ushers in a wave of commercial activity in the Arctic, scientists are thinking about how to protect environments of the future.

What Kind of Beat Makes You Want to Groove?

The science behind the rhythms that get you on the dance floor.

The Big One

One state—Pennsylvania—logs 52 percent of all sales, shipments, and receipts for the chocolate manufacturing industry. March/April 2014