Suchergebnisse

This study tests three categories of motivations for domestic right-wing terrorism in the USA: economic grievances, particularly those produced by economic restructuring; societal changes that challenge notions of white male privilege; and political and public policy elements that stoke resentments. Executing a series of negative binomial regression estimations on state-level data in the USA for the period 1970–2011, I find that measures of societal factors—specifically increase in abortion rates and growing female participation in the labor force—and political indicators such as Democratic Party control of the White House, precipitate right-wing terrorist attacks. Factors associated with economic hardships—such as poverty, the decline of manufacturing employment and the "Farm Crisis"—as well as growth of the non-white population, control of state government by the Democratic Party and growth of average Federal Income Tax rates—are not found to be significant predictors of right-wing terrorism.

Does the U.S. public's support for the use of harsh interrogation and detention practices against terrorism suspects depend upon the religious identity of the alleged perpetrators? Some scholarly research indicates greater public acceptance for abridging the rights of Muslims after 9/11. This is consistent with literature suggesting that heightened perception of threat decreases popular tolerance for racial, ethnic, and religious outgroups. This study executes a survey experiment and finds respondents to be more permissive of the use of extraordinary detention practices, such as indefinite detention and denying suspects access to legal counsel and civilian criminal courts, against terror suspects identified as Muslims. Furthermore, the study reveals that respondents are significantly less likely to treat domestic, right‐wing terrorist suspects with extraordinary detention, suggesting ingroup leniency.

One of the earlier empirical studies of the relationship between. - regime type and terrorism published in International Interactions. - determined that while established democracies were significantly. - less likely to experience terrorist attacks than were nondemocratic. - countries, newly established democracies were highly vulnerable to. - terrorism. Subsequent empirical studies have routinely controlled. - for both regime type and age, but scholarly understanding of the. - effect of regime longevity on terrorism remains underdeveloped.. - This study revisits the relationship between terrorism and regime. - type and regime age using updated data, analytical techniques,. - and time-series and finds that while young democracies experience. - more terrorism than older democracies, dictatorships of any age. - experience less terrorism than any other type of regime. (International Interactions (London)/ FUB)

Qualitative research suggests that discrimination against minority groups precipitates terrorism in countries. This study adds to this body of research by determining which specific manifestations of minority discrimination—political, socioeconomic or cultural—are important and substantive predictors of terrorist activity. To do so, I conduct a series of negative binomial estimations and substantive effects simulations on a cross-national dataset of terrorist attacks and the treatment of minority groups in four specific areas: political participation and representation, economic status, religious and language rights. The results indicate that socioeconomic discrimination against minorities is the only consistently significant and highly substantive predictor of terrorism. The study concludes by discussing the implications of these findings to the scholarly literature on terrorism.