Economic effects of anti-terrorism security measures - Revision history

Albert at 23:06, 19 January 2018

2018-01-19T23:06:37Z

John P: /* Costs of security */

2013-10-30T10:26:14Z

Costs of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) costs of security */

2013-10-30T10:25:52Z

Indirect (secondary) costs of security

John P: /* Direct (primary) benefits of security */

2013-10-30T10:24:16Z

Direct (primary) benefits of security

John P at 10:23, 30 October 2013

2013-10-30T10:23:53Z

John P: /* Direct (primary) benefits of security */

2013-05-30T15:00:17Z

Direct (primary) benefits of security

Albert at 22:37, 30 January 2013

2013-01-30T22:37:07Z

Albert: Text replace - "website=(.*)" to ""

2013-01-30T18:46:28Z

Text replace - "website=(.*)" to ""

Albert: Text replace - "(.*)" to ""

2013-01-30T17:08:12Z

Text replace - "<websiteFrame>(.*)" to ""

Albert: Text replace - "= MAP =" to ""

2013-01-30T16:30:09Z

Text replace - "= MAP =" to ""

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ==Related subjects==
 *[[Economic|Economic main page]]
-* [[belongs to::Economic impact]]
+* [[Economic impact]]
 **[[Economic impact of urban planning]]
 **[[Economic impact of security threats]]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Costs of security==
-The costs of security measures depend on the actual type of counter-terrorist measures. American economists (and specialists in security economics) Enders and Sandler (2006)<ref>Enders, W. and T. Sandler (2006): The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. In: Brück, T., M. Karaisl, and F. Schneider (2008): A survey of the Economics of Security Economics of Security Working Paper 1. Economics-of-Security.eu. p.37</ref> differentiate between defensive and pro-active security measures. Defensive security measures protect urban objects from attacks or mitigate the impact. Pro-active measures are meant to prevent terrorism itself, e.g. by undermining the financial resources of terrorist groups.
+The costs of security measures depend on the actual type of counter-terrorist measures. American economists (and specialists in security economics) Enders and Sandler (2006)<ref>Enders, W. and T. Sandler (2006): The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. In: Brück, T., M. Karaisl, and F. Schneider (2008): A survey of the Economics of Security Economics of Security Working Paper 1. Economics-of-Security.eu. p.37.</ref> differentiate between defensive and pro-active security measures. Defensive security measures protect urban objects from attacks or mitigate the impact. Pro-active measures are meant to prevent terrorism itself, e.g. by undermining the financial resources of terrorist groups.
 ===Direct (primary) costs of security===

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ===Indirect (secondary) costs of security===
-Indirect costs of counter-terrorism measures are distributed throughout society as a result of changed economic behaviour of agents (behavioural adjustment) and the impact on [[Function|functionality of urban objects]] (e.g. travel delays as a result of security on airports and roads, changes in property values). A prime example of behavioural adjustment is that protection measures such as barricading, surveillance, security announcements and access-restricting security checkpoints may also enhance fear and anxiety (the "fear factor"), which can have negative health consequences, and, hence, also create negative consequences for the economy due to changes in economic behaviour<ref>Mueller, J. (2008): The Quixotic quest for invulnerability: Assessing the costs, benefits, and probabilities of protecting the Homeland.</ref>. For instance, Rose et al (2009)<ref>Rose, A., G. Oladosu, B. Lee, and G. Beeler Asay (2009): The Economic Impacts of the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 15(2), Article 4.</ref> estimated the effect of the nearly 2-year downturn in air travel and related tourism in the U.S. following 9/11 at $85 billion.
+Indirect costs of counter-terrorism measures are distributed throughout society as a result of changed economic behaviour of agents (behavioural adjustment) and the impact on [[Function|functionality of urban objects]] (e.g. travel delays as a result of security on airports and roads, changes in property values). A prime example of behavioural adjustment is that protection measures such as barricading, surveillance, security announcements and access-restricting security checkpoints may also enhance fear and anxiety (the "fear factor"), which can have negative health consequences, and, hence, also create negative consequences for the economy due to changes in economic behaviour<ref>Mueller, J. (2008): The Quixotic quest for invulnerability: Assessing the costs, benefits, and probabilities of protecting the Homeland. Prepared for the National Convention of the International Studies Association.</ref>. For instance, Rose et al (2009)<ref>Rose, A., G. Oladosu, B. Lee, and G. Beeler Asay (2009): The Economic Impacts of the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 15(2), Article 4.</ref> estimated the effect of the nearly 2-year downturn in air travel and related tourism in the U.S. following 9/11 at $85 billion.
 ==Benefits of security==

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==Benefits of security==
 ===Direct (primary) benefits of security===
-The inflicted economic damage of a terror event is the start of an estimation of the benefits of security measures since they constitute the direct benefits of the mitigation measures<Ref name=Rose>See: Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011): Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas.</ref>. Examples of [[Economic effects of terrorism#Primary economic impact of terrorism|direct impacts of terror events]] are: loss of life and injuries, property damage, business interruption, and damage to iconic objects<ref name=Rose></ref>.
+The inflicted economic damage of a terror event is the start of an estimation of the benefits of security measures since they constitute the direct benefits of the mitigation measures<Ref name=Rose>Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011): Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas.</ref>. Examples of [[Economic effects of terrorism#Primary economic impact of terrorism|direct impacts of terror events]] are: loss of life and injuries, property damage, business interruption, and damage to iconic objects<ref name=Rose></ref>.
 ===Indirect (secondary) benefits of security===

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Costs of security==
-The costs of security measure depend on the actual type of counter-terrorist measures. Enders and Sandler (2006)<ref>See: Brück, T., M. Karaisl, and F. Schneider (2008). ''A survey of the Economics of Security''. Economics of Security Working Paper 1. Economics-of-Security.eu.</ref> differentiate between defensive and pro-active security measures. Defensive security measures protect urban objects from attacks or mitigate the impact. Pro-active measures are meant to prevent terrorism itself, e.g. by undermining the financial resources of terrorist groups.
+The costs of security measures depend on the actual type of counter-terrorist measures. American economists (and specialists in security economics) Enders and Sandler (2006)<ref>Enders, W. and T. Sandler (2006): The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. In: Brück, T., M. Karaisl, and F. Schneider (2008): A survey of the Economics of Security Economics of Security Working Paper 1. Economics-of-Security.eu. p.37</ref> differentiate between defensive and pro-active security measures. Defensive security measures protect urban objects from attacks or mitigate the impact. Pro-active measures are meant to prevent terrorism itself, e.g. by undermining the financial resources of terrorist groups.
 ===Direct (primary) costs of security===
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ===Indirect (secondary) costs of security===
-Indirect costs of counter-terrorism measures are distributed throughout society as a result of changed economic behaviour of agents (behavioural adjustment) and the impact on [[Function|functionality of urban objects]] (e.g. travel delays as a result of security on airports and roads, changes in property values). A prime example of behavioural adjustment is that protection measures such as barricading, surveillance, security announcements and access-restricting security checkpoints may also enhance fear and anxiety (the "fear factor"), which can have negative health consequences, and, hence, also create negative consequences for the economy due to changes in economic behaviour<ref>Mueller, J. (2008).''The Quixotic quest for invulnerability: Assessing the costs, benefits, and probabilities of protecting the Homeland''.</ref>. For instance, Rose et al (2009)<ref>Rose, A., G. Oladosu, B. Lee, and G. Beeler Asay (2009). The Economic Impacts of the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. ''Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy'', 15(2), Article 4.</ref> estimated the effect of the nearly 2-year downturn in air travel and related tourism in the U.S. following 9/11 at $85 billion.
+Indirect costs of counter-terrorism measures are distributed throughout society as a result of changed economic behaviour of agents (behavioural adjustment) and the impact on [[Function|functionality of urban objects]] (e.g. travel delays as a result of security on airports and roads, changes in property values). A prime example of behavioural adjustment is that protection measures such as barricading, surveillance, security announcements and access-restricting security checkpoints may also enhance fear and anxiety (the "fear factor"), which can have negative health consequences, and, hence, also create negative consequences for the economy due to changes in economic behaviour<ref>Mueller, J. (2008): The Quixotic quest for invulnerability: Assessing the costs, benefits, and probabilities of protecting the Homeland.</ref>. For instance, Rose et al (2009)<ref>Rose, A., G. Oladosu, B. Lee, and G. Beeler Asay (2009): The Economic Impacts of the 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 15(2), Article 4.</ref> estimated the effect of the nearly 2-year downturn in air travel and related tourism in the U.S. following 9/11 at $85 billion.
 ==Benefits of security==
 ===Direct (primary) benefits of security===
-The inflicted economic damage of a terror event is the start of an estimation of the benefits of security measures since they constitute the direct benefits of the mitigation measures<Ref>See: Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011). ''Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas'', p.7.</ref>. Examples of [[Economic effects of terrorism#Primary economic impact of terrorism|direct impacts of terror events]] are: loss of life and injuries, property damage, business interruption, and damage to iconic objects<ref>Ibid.</ref>.
+The inflicted economic damage of a terror event is the start of an estimation of the benefits of security measures since they constitute the direct benefits of the mitigation measures<Ref name=Rose>See: Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011): Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas.</ref>. Examples of [[Economic effects of terrorism#Primary economic impact of terrorism|direct impacts of terror events]] are: loss of life and injuries, property damage, business interruption, and damage to iconic objects<ref name=Rose></ref>.
 ===Indirect (secondary) benefits of security===
-Anti-terrorism security measures have positive spillover effects since they also mitigate normal criminal activity and make people feel more at ease in their environment<ref>Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011). Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas.</ref>. In addition, security programs attract investments (e.g. foreign direct investments) and security measures aiming to improve the resilience of societies, reduce not only the direct losses, but also make private and public agents more resilient, improving the speed of recovery, mental health of individuals, and capability of businesses to resume their economic activities.<ref>Ibid</ref>
+Anti-terrorism security measures have positive spillover effects since they also mitigate normal criminal activity and make people feel more at ease in their environment<ref name=Rose></ref>. In addition, security programs attract investments (e.g. foreign direct investments) and security measures aiming to improve the resilience of societies, reduce not only the direct losses, but also make private and public agents more resilient, improving the speed of recovery, mental health of individuals, and capability of businesses to resume their economic activities.<ref name=Rose></ref>
 ==Related subjects==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Economic]][[Category:Safety]][[Category:Measure]]
 [[Measure|Security measures]] which intend to manage the risk of [[Urban terrorism|urban terrorism]], impose [[Economic impact|economic effects]] on society, the so-called '''economic effects of anti-terrorism measures'''. In essence, they can be classified as the [[Economic effects of terrorism#costs of terrorism|costs of terrorism]] since they result from the actions of private and public agents in an attempt to prevent a terror event to occur, or at least to mitigate the effects of such an event.
@@ Line 50: / Line 49: @@
 {{references}}
-http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Economic_effects_of_ant-terrorism_security_measures
-height=1023
-width=100%
-border=0
-scroll=auto
-align=middle
-</websiteFrame>
-<headertabs/>

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
-<websiteFrame>
 website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Economic_effects_of_ant-terrorism_security_measures
 height=1023