Difference between revisions of "Economic effects of anti-terrorism security measures"
| (70 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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. |
||
| + | ==Description== |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" |
||
| + | Estimation of the economic impact of counter-terrorism measures includes accounting for [[Primary economic impact|direct (primary)]] and [[Secondary economic impact|indirect (secondary)]] effects, including both the costs and the benefits. Security measures, for example, make urban objects more resilient against terror attacks, but will also alter behaviour of economic agents (see the clickable map below). Moreover, security measures create positive spillover effects for the local economy, as the impact of a future terror event will be less unpredictable. Finally, also the actual impact on [[The economics of terrorist behaviour|terrorist behaviour]] should be taken into account in order to measure the effectiveness of the chosen security measures. The economic impact of counter terrorism measures can be estimated with the help of [[economic tools]]. |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! WORK IN PROGRESS |
||
| − | |} |
||
| + | <imagemap> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | Image:Economic_impact_counter_terrorism.jpg.png|550px |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | rect 2 148 265 295 [[Urban terrorism|Terror event]] |
||
| + | rect 274 146 510 293 [[Economic effects of terrorism#Primary economic impact of terrorism|Primary economic impact of terrorism]] |
||
| + | rect 542 147 768 293 [[Economic effects of terrorism#Secondary economic impact of terrorism|Secondary economic impact]] |
||
| + | rect 773 149 1047 291 [[Economic impact|Total economic impact]] |
||
| + | rect 275 327 772 435 [[Economic effects of anti-terrorism security measures|Economic effects of security measures]] |
||
| + | rect 540 4 772 123 [[Economic effects of anti-terrorism security measures|Economic effects of security measures]] |
||
| + | desc bottom-left |
||
| − | ===Terrorism displacement=== |
||
| + | </imagemap> |
||
| − | The displacement of terrorism is the relocation of terrorism from one place, time, target, offense, or tactic to another as a result of some terrorism prevention initiative. The (by far) most common type of displacement is ‘spatial displacement’ when offenders move their criminal activities to another location. There are, however, in total six types of displacement: |
||
| − | * Temporal: offenders change the time at which they commit the criminal activities, |
||
| − | * Target: offenders change the choice of target to another, |
||
| − | * Tactical: offenders change their choice of methods used to carry out their criminal activities, |
||
| − | * Spatial: offender replace their criminal activities to another location, |
||
| − | * Offense: offenders switch the form of criminal activity, |
||
| − | * Offender: a change in person when one offender is faced with reduced opportunities<ref>Center for Problem-Orienting Policing http://www.popcenter.org/tools/displacement/2 </ref>. |
||
| + | There is not much literature available on the economic impact of counter-terrorism measures and little definite conclusions can be drawn. Still, it is possible to illustrate that the economic impact of security measures vary greatly, depending on the type of measures and the way they are implemented (and in which context). |
||
| − | Displacement has long been viewed as a negative side effect of criminal and terrorist prevention efforts. But just like with crime, the current view on this topic is that terrorism prevention is effective and for most cases without the consequence of displacement <ref>See, e.g.: Hsu, Henda Yao (2011). ''A Closer look at terrorism displacement''. State University of New York at Albany.</ref>. |
||
| + | ==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. |
||
| + | ===Direct (primary) costs of security=== |
||
| − | = MAP = |
||
| + | Defensive security measures entail financial investments in security technologies, surveillance, etc. Pro-active security measures entail the resources needed to finance intelligence operations, military strikes, development aid, etc. Direct security costs can have both a temporary and permanent character. |
||
| − | <websiteFrame> |
||
| − | website=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> |
||
| + | ===Indirect (secondary) costs of security=== |
||
| − | <headertabs/> |
||
| + | 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== |
||
| + | ===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>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 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> |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | *[[Economic|Economic main page]] |
||
| + | * [[Economic impact]] |
||
| + | **[[Economic impact of urban planning]] |
||
| + | **[[Economic impact of security threats]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | **[[The economics of criminal and terrorist behaviour|Economics of criminal and terrorist behaviour]] |
||
| + | *[[Economic tools]] |
||
| + | *[[Economic output]] |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 20 January 2018
Security measures which intend to manage the risk of urban terrorism, impose economic effects on society, the so-called economic effects of anti-terrorism measures. In essence, they can be classified as the 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.
Contents
Description
Estimation of the economic impact of counter-terrorism measures includes accounting for direct (primary) and indirect (secondary) effects, including both the costs and the benefits. Security measures, for example, make urban objects more resilient against terror attacks, but will also alter behaviour of economic agents (see the clickable map below). Moreover, security measures create positive spillover effects for the local economy, as the impact of a future terror event will be less unpredictable. Finally, also the actual impact on terrorist behaviour should be taken into account in order to measure the effectiveness of the chosen security measures. The economic impact of counter terrorism measures can be estimated with the help of economic tools.
There is not much literature available on the economic impact of counter-terrorism measures and little definite conclusions can be drawn. Still, it is possible to illustrate that the economic impact of security measures vary greatly, depending on the type of measures and the way they are implemented (and in which context).
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)[1] 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
Defensive security measures entail financial investments in security technologies, surveillance, etc. Pro-active security measures entail the resources needed to finance intelligence operations, military strikes, development aid, etc. Direct security costs can have both a temporary and permanent character.
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 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[2]. For instance, Rose et al (2009)[3] 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[4]. Examples of direct impacts of terror events are: loss of life and injuries, property damage, business interruption, and damage to iconic objects[4].
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[4]. 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.[4]
Related subjects
- Economic main page
- Economic impact
- Economic impact of urban planning
- Economic impact of security threats
- Economic impact of security measures
- Economic effects of anti-crime security measures
- Economic effects of anti-terrorism security measures
- Economics of criminal and terrorist behaviour
- Economic tools
- Economic output
Footnotes and references
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Rose, A. and S. Chatterjee (2011): Benefits and Costs of Counter-Terrorism Security Measures in urban Areas.
