Alberto Mingardi  

Can regulations stop terrorism?

New Reflections on the Evoluti... The Curious Absence of America...

terrorism.jpg The attack in Barcelona has been the latest in a chain of terrorist acts performed following a similar modus operandi to the one in Nice which happened more than one year ago, when a truck was deliberately driven over the crowd celebrating Bastille Day. In its turn, this was a "copycat" of the Palestinian terrorist campaign started in Israel in 2014. Terrorism is all the more shocking and frightening when it uses means that are seemingly cheap and ordinary.

In an earlier post, I made the point that over-regulation would not greatly affect terrorist behaviour. My understanding is that engaging in a terrorist act, particularly a suicidal terrorist act, involves such a commitment that it would easily override existing bans or regulations, as the terrorist sets to put his (as terrorists are almost invariably young males) will into practice. Commentators seem not to agree with me very much, and they raised some interesting points. JFA, in particular, argues that "a person decides to participate given the costs and benefits" and therefore "if those costs are raised, those marginal terrorists will not commit the act." JFA strikes a point, alluding to the fact libertarians are all too eager to abandon the economic way of thinking when they want to defend their preference for little or no regulation.

And yet I would propose the opposite may be true too: a certain widespread belief in the powers of regulation, the view by which government can effectively engineer people's behaviour, may be so strong as to make terrorism nothing else than another matter which can be "fixed" with a proper regulatory arrangement. I wish it was so, but I fear this attitude may divert attention and resources from more needed anti-terrorist activities.

Co-blogger Bryan Caplan has one of his great papers on the subject, "Terrorism: the relevance of the rational choice model". Bryan distinguishes between three types--sympathizers, active terrorists, and suicidal terrorists--and considers their different "rationality." The point which is relevant to our discussion is the responsiveness to incentives. Building on the findings of qualitative literature, Bryan acknowledges that "the common sense view that suicide attacks are self-destructive, not self interested, is probably correct." His paper is a much worth reading defense of the rational choice model, updated with his own analysis of irrationality, applied to terrorism.."

I didn't want, however, to argue on terrorists' rationality, but only on the likelihood that regulations on purchases of some specific items may be good in deterring them. This is different from anti-terrorist deterrence, of the sort which is practiced, every day, by police and intelligence forces. My post was actually sparked by the idea, emerging from British left wing circles, that the London attacks were made easier by some deregulation of sales of chemicals.

Now, after Barcelona, I find myself reading comments from fellow Italians who want to make van hire all the more difficult, of course with the very good reason of making terrorism harder. It seems that a similar notion was aired in England a few months ago.

This may be a car hire version of the "if you see something, say something" principle.

Stricter regulation, that applies uniformly to anybody renting a car or a van, seems to me a different matter. For one thing, how could such "stricter" regulation actually help in identifying, let alone fighting, terrorists? I would suppose that document forgery is something a person that plans to kill tens of people would see no problem in getting: which is my original point.

Let's put it in other terms: if you despise the established order, legality, and human life to the point of becoming a terrorist, do we really think that, being prohibited to hire a van, you would not simply steal one? I know some may argue that this way the police force can catch you because of such a stolen property: but, at least in my part of the world, I would doubt that policemen are better at retrieving stolen cars than they are at fighting terrorism.

It's true that incentives matter, but let's think for a moment about non-suicidal terrorists. The sanctions they face are far higher than those faced by a car thief. Can we really believe that the extra time in jail for stealing a car would affect their behaviour?

Sure,s regulation can make it harder for everybody to hire a van: this "everybody" includes criminals and terrorists. But their motivations seem to me to be such that they would have little hesitation in resorting to substitutes.

Comments and Sharing


COMMENTS (4 to date)
Shane L writes:

I have read that part of Al Qaeda's strategy was to use the "West's" own defences against it, in something called Operation Hemorrhage. The idea was explained in Al Qaeda magazine Inspire, following a foiled plot to put bombs inside printer cartridges onto a plane:

"On the other hand this supposedly ‘foiled plot’, as some of our enemies would like to call [it], will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures.”

When terrorist groups are typically small, weak and decentralised, they may calculate that their victims' own attempts to avoid terrorism may be far more harmful than the attacks themselves. This should be considered when discussing plans to reduce terrorist capabilities; those plans may be the terrorists' primary objective anyway. They want our immune systems to harm us.

If I have one quibble, though, it is to suggest that some acts of terrorist violence have an element of opportunism. Consider the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. Following a failed first attempt that wounded several bystanders, Ferdinand decided to change his plan and drive to the hospital to visit the victims. There was a mix-up in communicating this to his driver, so the driver had to stop and turn the car slowly, by chance near the position of assassin Gavrilo Princip, who shot him and precipitated the crisis that started World War I. No mix-up in the route and Princip would not have been able to take advantage of the opportunity.

Hence I suggest that there may be less desperate conviction behind some terrorist attacks, and small inconveniences may be enough to throw some off. They may be at the margin of conviction.

ZC writes:

"Can regulations stop terrorism?"


baconbacon writes:
JFA, in particular, argues that "a person decides to participate given the costs and benefits" and therefore "if those costs are raised, those marginal terrorists will not commit the act." JFA strikes a point, alluding to the fact libertarians are all too eager to abandon the economic way of thinking when they want to defend their preference for little or no regulation.

JFA holds constant the rewards portion, but if your goal is resistance or an attack on a society then a successful attack on a fortified position has different (increased) benefits than one on an unfortified position. Security theater is to make people feel more secure, a successful attack will make people feel less secure, the stronger the edifice then the more successful the attack will be in making people feel less secure.

mike shupp writes:

Hmmmm. Tell you what, let's commit some terrorism in your new Tesla. Get in the car, turn the engine on, engage the autopilot, point the car at a batch of pedestrians, and .....

Um. Um um um. Oh shucks! Dammit I wanted to destroy people! Why is it suddenly so hard?

You want to tell me you are smart enough to drive a car without using a pedestrian-recognizing autopilot? Sure, you can in 2017. But in 2027 or 2037? My bet is the cops will show up immediately if you try to move out of a parking spot using your own human resources. They wouldn't necessarily arrest you for such an antisocial act, but they'd probably insist on seeing your (very expensive) human driving permit. And they might bill you for the "service."

Let's be clear, I'm not suggesting autopiloted automobiles will be intentionally required as an anti-terrorist measure. I think we'll get them as a general public safety measure -- bad drivers kill 40,000 people a year in America! -- and the anti-terrorism side effect will be a bonus.

Progress. Isn't it just terrible?

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top