[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/hdechp/2-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Terrorism: A Game-Theoretic Approach

In: Handbook of Defense Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Sandler, Todd
  • Arce, Daniel G.
Abstract
This chapter surveys the past applications of game theory to the study of terrorism. By capturing the strategic interplay between terrorists and targeted governments, game theory is an appropriate methodology for investigating terrorism and counterterrorism. Game theory has been used to examine the interaction among targeted governments, the interface between factions within a terrorist organization, and the interplay between diverse agents (e.g., rival terrorist groups). This chapter identifies a host of externalities and their strategic implications for counterterrorism policies. In addition, the chapter indicates novel directions for applying game theory to terrorism-related issues (e.g., cooperative collectives to strengthen borders). For counterterrorism, we use normal-form games to distinguish proactive from defensive policies. Although both policy types can be represented with similar games, we identify essential strategic differences between these policy classes. When targeted governments must allocate resources among antiterrorism measures, there is generally a dominance of defensive over proactive countermeasures against transnational terrorism. The resulting outcome gives a suboptimal equilibrium. The policy prognosis is much better for domestic terrorism as a central government can internalize externalities among alternative targets. For transnational terrorism, dilemmas also arise when counterterrorism is investigated for continuous choice variables. Too much action is associated with defensive measures, while too little action is associated with proactive measures. This follows because defensive responses are strategic complements, while proactive responses are strategic substitutes for targeted governments. These same strategic concepts are crucial for understanding the interaction among political and military wings of a terrorist group. Game-theoretic notions also inform about interdependent security choices where the safety achieved by one at-risk agent is dependent not only on its precautions but also on those of other agents. Coordination games are particularly appropriate for analyzing the pitfalls of numerous aspects of international cooperation - for example, freezing terrorist assets and denying safe havens. We identify many roadblocks to effective international cooperation. For hostage negotiations, we show that the never-concede policy of governments hinges on at least five unstated assumptions that seldom hold in practice. Thus, even the staunchest proponents of the no-concession policy have reneged under the right circumstances. Ways to bolster adherence are indicated. The chapter also investigates the influence of asymmetric information when terrorists are better informed about the strength of the governments than the other way around. A model is put forward that unifies two alternative approaches based on the terrorists' preferences for revenge or resolution. Recent contributions involving asymmetric information and terrorism are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandler, Todd & Arce, Daniel G., 2007. "Terrorism: A Game-Theoretic Approach," Handbook of Defense Economics, in: Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler (ed.), Handbook of Defense Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 25, pages 775-813, Elsevier.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hdechp:2-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B7RKP-4N6Y69H-8/2/3a10e231c290a41be71d5a9105567cc6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Phillips Peter J, 2011. "Lone Wolf Terrorism," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Daniel Arce & Sneha Bakshi & Rachel Croson & Catherine Eckel & Enrique Fatas & Malcolm Kass, 2011. "Counterterrorism strategies in the lab," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 465-478, December.
    3. Coyne,Christopher J., 2020. "Defense, Peace, and War Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108724036, September.
    4. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    5. Timothy Mathews & Anton D. Lowenberg, 2012. "The Interdependence Between Homeland Security Efforts of a State and a Terrorist’s Choice of Attack," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 195-218, April.
    6. James T. Bang & Atin Basuchoudhary & Aniruddha Mitra, 2021. "Validating Game-Theoretic Models of Terrorism: Insights from Machine Learning," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Holt, Charles & Kydd, Andrew & Razzolini, Laura & Sheremeta, Roman, 2014. "The Paradox of Misaligned Profiling: Theory and Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 56508, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Subhayu Bandyopadhyay & Todd Sandler, 2011. "The Interplay Between Preemptive and Defensive Counterterrorism Measures: A Two‐stage Game," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(311), pages 546-564, July.
    9. Daniel G. Arce & Todd Sandler, 2010. "Terrorist Spectaculars: Backlash Attacks and the Focus of Intelligence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(2), pages 354-373, April.
    10. Daniel G. Arce & Dan Kovenock J. & Brian Roberson, 2009. "Suicide Terrorism and the Weakest Link," CESifo Working Paper Series 2753, CESifo.
    11. Harstad, Bård, 2016. "The market for conservation and other hostages," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 124-151.
    12. Michael McBride & Gary Richardson, 2012. "Stopping Suicide Attacks: Optimal Strategies and Unintended Consequences," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 413-429, October.
    13. Daniel Jacobson & Edward H. Kaplan, 2007. "Suicide Bombings and Targeted Killings in (Counter-) Terror Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(5), pages 772-792, October.
    14. Soumyanetra Munshi, 2013. "Analysis Of Conflict Within A Contested Land: The Case Of Kashmir," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 261-292, June.
    15. João Ricardo Faria & Emilson C. D. Silva & Daniel G. Arce, 2017. "Intertemporal Versus Spatial Externalities in Counterterror Policy Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 402-421, September.
    16. Edward H. Kaplan & Moshe Kress & Roberto Szechtman, 2010. "Confronting Entrenched Insurgents," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 329-341, April.
    17. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Technology adoption for airport security: Modeling public disclosure and secrecy in an attacker-defender game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Defense in a Globalized World;

    JEL classification:

    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hdechp:2-25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.