On September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta boarded American Airlines Flight 11 at
Logan Airport in Boston and sat down in seat 8D. Not long afterwards, the
plane took off on the fateful journey that left thousands of Americans dead
and changed the world.
How much do you think it would have cost to persuade Atta to change his plans,
get off the jet and go and enjoy a hearty breakfast instead of martyrdom?
What would he have taken as a bribe? A tenner? A thousand dollars? A million?
The question seems ridiculous, even offensive. But it is simply a very crude
version of a remarkably common theory – the idea that we can defeat
terrorism with money. And among those with some sympathy for this notion is
our Prime Minister.
Gordon Brown likes his big ideas, bless him, and to use them to batter his
audiences into submission with his Shock and Bore speaking style. So
naturally he has a big idea for the War on Terror. It’s economic development
through international action. This is not his only policy, of course, but it
is, if you like, chef Gordon’s signature dish. A Brown address on Iraq, the
Middle East or domestic security is not complete without some mention of
economic policy.
The notion is that by reducing poverty, by increasing the economic stake that
citizens have in the success of their society, by combating illiteracy, you
help to stop terrorism before it gets started. It is also a classic new
Labour idea. It provides a third way between neocon aggression and liberal
complacency. Tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism, that’s
Gordon Brown.
Which leaves this question – is the Prime Minister right? Is he right that
economic development would combat terrorism and improve security? And we can
ask the question sharply because it is possible to answer it sharply.
And the answer is no. No, he isn’t right.
One way of responding to the Prime Minister is as I did in the beginning of
this article. Simply by asking whether financial wellbeing was on the minds
of the terrorists as they committed suicide, it is possible to cast doubt on
the idea that you could have bought them off by making their living
conditions somewhat better.
Fortunately, we can do far better than this. For the Prime Minister’s idea is
that rare thing in politics – a testable hypothesis. Poverty, the financial
stake that individuals have in society and rates of literacy are all
measurable. So are the extent, the individual circumstances and country of
origin of terrorist activity. If the Brown big idea is correct, then the
relationships between these variables are predictable.
The tendency to be a terrorist should go up as personal wealth goes down;
terrorists will tend to come from poorer places rather than wealthier ones;
and societies with low literacy rates will tend to produce more terrorists
than those with higher literacy.
So, when you look at the data, what do you find? This week sees the
publication of an invaluable little book by Alan Krueger, a professor of
economics at Princeton. What Makes a Terrorist uses standard tools of
economics and statistical analysis to get at the truth about terrorism.
Krueger started by studying hate crimes in Germany. He regards hate crimes as
a close cousin of terrorist activity, but likely to be more spontaneous and
less well organised. He thought, therefore, that they were a good way of
looking at individual behaviour before organisations became involved.
He studied different regions of the country and found that within them there
was an inverse relationship between unemployment and ethnic violence – where
there was less unemployment there was more hate crime. It seemed also that
hate crime was less likely where standards of law enforcement were tougher.
He then created a tight definition of terrorism – “premeditated, politically
motivated violence . . . perpetrated by substate organisations and
individuals with the intent of influencing an audience beyond the immediate
victims” – and began to look at different terrorist groups. Suicide bombers
from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were less than half as likely to
come from families below the poverty line as an average Palestinian. Less
than 15 per cent of Palestinians have more than a high-school degree, while
almost 60 per cent of the suicide bombers did.
Krueger also studied Hezbollah. He found that “members of Hezbollah were
better educated than the relevant segment of the Lebanese population, less
likely to come from impoverished families”. He also provides a survey of
public opinion that shows that support for terrorism is associated with
better education, literacy and personal circumstances.
That’s all very well, but perhaps the terrorists are just a vanguard, a
politicised elite reflecting the dire economies in which they live. The
computer says no.
A study of the country of origin of terrorists reveals that lower-income
countries are no more likely to produce terrorists and, crucially for the
Brown hypothesis, “we find no significant impact of GDP growth on the
frequency of international terrorism”. Furthermore “neither the overall
literacy rate nor the female literacy rate appeared to have any effect”.
None of this means that you shouldn’t try to improve living conditions in
other countries. If it works, it’s moral, it’s right. But it is not, as the
Prime Minister argues, a counter-terrorism strategy.
What would be? Krueger finds one familiar fact in all his numbers. Countries
with fewer civil liberties tend to produce more terrorists. But that’s the
neocon contention. And we don’t want to start up with them again, now do we?
The more important question is ' How much do the Pakistani generals need for their nukes?'
Kara Swart, London, UK
This is partly premised on whether you still buy the authorised version of the 9-11 attacks. And this is becoming increasingly hard to sell; to the point that the official version is starting to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory. "Buildings fell at the speed of gravity." Only in a controlled demolition.
Many governments can identify with Osama bin Laden's overall goal. Namely, to seriously degrade US influence in the world. Face it; the US under Bush is an out-of-control global bully. My take is the attack must be economic, because this is where the US has made itself most vulnerable. America has few real friends, so if for the “â€common good†China, Russia, Europe, Middle East, Central America and others decide to short the dollar and break the petrodollar cycle, the US is looking at a world of hurt. Once a collation of those that have "got it in for America" work out a plan that doesn't involve shooting themselves in the foot, than all bets are off.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa
What's missing in the mix is the terrorist nation/group's perception that it is being oppressed and ignored by another often more powerful faction. If the cause of terrorism were poverty, Ethiopia would be one of the world's greatest incubators for suicide bombers. If the cause of terrorism were only restriction of civil liberties, wouldn't the Jews in the darkening Weimar Republic Germany have terrorized the Aryan population?
Terrorists use violence as their voice, and stealth against a foe whom they perceive as an oppressor. One only needs to look at Northern Ireland, Palestine, and the growing number of anti-American Islamic cells to see evidence of this.
So part of the solution costs very little: listening intently to those who feel they have no voice, who feel they are oppressed, who rage because they believe they are misunderstood -- and starting a dialogue -- before they are willing to die and kill others to be heard.
Susan, Los Angeles, California, US
Hell NO!! This does not just misses the wider picture. It is an intergal part of the ongoing disengenious effort to obfuscate the relationship between neocon inspired state sponsored terrorism against the indegenious peoples of the world, also known as Empire building, and the rights of the affected and disposed to push back.
D Blackman, Hararee, Zimbabwe
While poverty does not turn people into terrorists, it likely IS a contributing factor to the creation of a climate in which terrorists find widespread public support. The Isalmic world's high birthrates and high rates of poverty have created an abundance of young men with few prospects in life. That's a recipe for trouble in any society. Add a belief in holy war and rewards in the next life for death in battle and it becomes much worse.
The Islamic world needs better material conditions, democracy, and above all a faith based on love of fellow human beings and not holy war. The disaster in Iraq suggests that the time is not ripe for the second. The treatment of the Korean medical missionaries shows that there is little hope of the third. And if war and violence continue, we will not see much relief of poverty there either.
D.L. Anderson, Crossett, AR/U.S.A.
A good article as far as it goes, but connect the dots: if it's not poverty that pushes people to terrorism, it is more likely to be prosperity. It is, I submit, the confrontation with modernity and the new social possibilities that that opens up that make people become terrorists and make societies support violence. The new prosperity and social structures threaten the old social social order and family because they open up jobs for women and relatively higher paying jobs for young people with technological skills. Not surprisingly, the more educated are drawn to terrorism because, we can surmise, they feel the need to prove that their skills have not alienated them from traditional values.
If this is right, then increasing economic opportunities will exacerbate terrorism. I suspect that Gordon Brown's proposal is not just wrong, but entirely backwards.
Edward Halper, Athens, Georgia, USA
"Krueger finds one familiar fact in all his numbers. Countries with fewer civil liberties tend to produce more terrorists."
So why has the Labour Government spent 10 years eroding civil liberties in the UK?
Tamas, London,
It's not about money, if you read his last statement. There is a invitation for all non Muslims to accept Islam... or else! Money just funds the struggle (Jihad). Making fun of Osama's dyed beard as an act of vanity misses the point, to those that know and it means 'I am at war and I am serious'. The West's response is similar to that of Flanagen and Allen song in WWII "We're going to to hang out the washing on the Seigfried line". Dangerous fantasy which ended up in Europe nearly falling to a dangerous ideology!
Alan, Luton, UK
I am a muslim and I disagree with the author... strongly.
It is not a question of a bribe, but making lives better for the lower classes. In most muslim countries, there is abject poverty. These lower classes have no hope for a better future, because their governments are unable to provide them, with the opportunities to progress. However, if you look at most muslim underclasses that have come into this country, the first thing they have done is to work hard, all their lives to create a better future for their children. You only have to walk into your local surgery to see that most of the doctors there are from ethnic minority back grounds, with many of them being muslims. All muslims want is to be treated as equals, instead of their countries plundered for oil, etc for the benefit of America, or whoever.
Terrorism? There wouldn't be any if there wasn't poverty and there was more equality.
Gordon Brown is on a better thought path than Tony!
Abid Bashir, Shipley, United Kingdom
Perhaps he would have had more success if he looked at the role religion plays in promoting terrorism. More specifically the role muslim zealots play. China doesnt seem to have produced many terrorists despite having a dreadful civil liberties record.
hamish, carlisle, uk
I did a google search on Professor Krueger on hate crime.
The columnist's statement: "where there was less unemployment there was more hate crime" appears to be false. Krueger asserted that there was no link between unemployment and ethnic crimes. But there does appear to be a positive relation between education and hate crimes - the higher the proportion of high school graduates in a county the more likely hate crime was to occur.
Don , Ipswich, UK
I don't think GB would dispute the fact that any given terrorist cannot be distinguished by financial background. It is credible however that terrorism can be reduced by creating the conditions in which western political philosophy and science can take root; albeit this will not necessarily flow from literacy alone as the article points out.
SDA Sigston, London, UK
Islam is dominated by the unprovable belief that it has in some way been seriously defrauded. It relates that fraud to the United States - and is probably right, but does not know how. Since it cannot prove it, it's adherents prefers death to dishonour. I'll bet Bin Laden didn't try and trade in share futures, when the World Trade Centre was destroyed. Or did he? You tell me. Money - or it's lack - is not even part of the equation.
H. Grattan, Johannesburg, RSA
How do we explain the recent attempted attacks on Scotland, seemingly associated with highly educated, financially comfortable medical professionals?
Rebecca McGrath, Burton-on-Trent, UK
I think you sidestep the most important truth that the suicide bombers are no hopers from societies where extreme wealth is extremely visible - through a glass ceiling. To compare the actions of western idealists such as the Red Birgade to the situation in the Middle East is one eyed and arrogant. Shame on you for living in an intellectual desert.
David Stratton, Guatemala, Guatemala
Krueger finds the right answer to the wrong question. The problem with suppressing terrorism is that another fanatic sprouts from every drop of blood. You have to sterlise the ground before you start, keep on sterilising it moreover, and still the task takes forever. Ask why America is 'The Great Satan' to so very many Muslims, and fix everything that can be fixed - by any means, not just those we find agreeable. As Francis Bacon observed four centuries ago, 'No remedies cause so much pain as those that are efficacious'.
Prime Minister Brown's 'big idea' is not a counter-terror strategy but it is a necessary component of this, that will render the also-essential ruthless pursuit and rigorous prosecution of activists effective.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
I agree with the analysis that poverty is not directly related to terrorism. It is mostly related to the notion of injustice.
Educated people are appalled by the corrupt political system of their country and find the root cause to be US/Western political influence. That is why terrorism is targetted at Western countries.
The Neocon idea will never work, because the Neocons are not about democracy, but about US interests by force (access to oil and energy supplies and geopolicital positions), and educated people understand that better than the poor.
Even today, the US have no problem dealing with dictatorships as long as they favour US policies (i.e. oil/energt supplies).
Michael, Tunbridge Wells, UK
Interesting to see that Alan Krueger seems to have carefully avoided examining the correlation between intelligence operations and terrorists, which is by far the most obvious sequitur. His results would have to be indeterminate because all terrorists do is create terror. Name one terrorist operation that could be described as tactically rational. If they have no discernible aim it is fairly certain that the people involved will be equally difficult to classify.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Gordon Brown thinks money is the answer to everything.
Scary, Windsor, UK
The correct currency to 'buy off'' any terrorist is not found in banks, any more than it was for Karl Marx or any other nut case who thinks they have the secret formula for running the world without further consultation with you or consideration of your life's needs. It is about one ounce of lead, deposited somewhere in their sorry ass at a velocity of about 2300 feet per second, hopefully from about 7 yards distance.
Sounds harsh? What do you think the followers of Osama would do to you if given the chance to try to pacify you - give you silver or give you lead?
Phil, Annapolis, md, usa
I'm afraid, as usual, Gordon does't get it. First of all economics ( a topic Brown knows very little about) has at its core infinite consumption. No matter how much you have you want more. This philosophy is totally rejected by Islam.
Secondly, sadly, we have a living example that this wiil not work - Iraq. The notion (at least in public) was that a state with a secular, educated middle-class would jump at the chance of prosperity once Saddam and, therefore, sanctions had been removed. They would be the entrepreneurial core of the Iraq economy. Unless I've missed something this doesn't seem to be happening.
Eddie Reader, birmingham, uk
I would like to see how a few other variables fair in the analysis. At a guess (not having seen the study - pls post a link):
that the statistical relationship will become significantly more robust if you through Islam into the regression. Therefore: that poverty in itself is not significant, but throw Islam in with poverty - and bingo - you have a stronger relationship than poverty itself.
In which case, the questions would be (a) do we target Islamic countries, or (b) what is it that Islam provides a rallying point against.
Also - I thought there was a fairly strong correlation between poverty and absence of civil rights?
Mark, London,
As for the neocons, just because they say they want to promote civil liberties, it doesn't follow that they have any good ideas for doing so, or the insight, sensitivity and diplomatic skill to implement any ideas they do have. Nor does it follow that there is sincerity in their commitment to doing so, when there is a conflict with their other values, such as unconditional unlimited support for Zionism regardless of the consequences for peace, justice and civil liberties - which is the emotional heart of neoconservatism.
Oliver Chettle, Bedford,
How about the following deal with bin Laden/Al Quaeda - No terrorist activities in return for (i) a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestine problem in strict compliance with international law (including withdrawal by Israel from all occupied Arab/Palestinian territories; compensation for Palestinian refugess dispossed by the creation of Israel); withdrawal of all foreign forces from Arab and Muslim countries; non-interference by the US and other foreign states in the domestic affairs of Arab and Muslim countries.
The monetary investment for a resolution along these lines is likely to be much lower than the one trillion dollars and uncounted human lives that the Bush Administration has squandered through its Iraq misadventure.
Anthony Podesta, Singapore, Singapore
Mr Finklestein,
While money may not be able to influence a hardened 'terrorist', money and economic well being (or the lack of) play a huge role in the influencing of people to become suicide bombers. Take for example most ofthe suicide attacks recently in Pakistan, practically every single bomber is from a deprived background, many are illterate and have been indoctrinated into a perverse form of Islam, because they themselves could not read the Koran!
When you hear selective excerpts of any text you cannot gain teh same sense as when you read it yourself.
Gordon Brown for once is right, economic development will drain the swamp from where these groups recruit. As someone who has always been fervently against such groups, you may want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you are going into include Hezbollah in the mix, why not Israel? perfect example of foreign assisted economic development.
Armagan, London,
I find Krueger’s findings suspicious. Currently, many Middle Eastern countries have cultures that are antithetical to the likely consequences of an increase in the national income per capita. However cultural norms invariably shift with increased exposure to wealth, especially across generations. It could be that a correlation between reduced terrorist sympathy and wealth only occurs after long-term exposure to wealth, perhaps over a period of centuries. In the short-term however, increased wealth may make terrorist recruitment easier because of the increased access to telecommunication networks and weapons etc.
Krueger’s analysis of the figures may be perceptive but he may have missed many underlying trends because his data pool was not wide enough, did he include data relating to long-term exposure to wealth and education? I'm talking centuries of exposure!
Although, GDP growth was alluded to, over how long a period was it analyzed?
Stephen, Newcastle,
Another argument against rewarding terrorists is that it increases the incentive to be a terrorist. Therefore you get more terrorists. It would be the same as paying off kidnappers and blackmailers.
Brian Gilbert, HAMPTON, Middx
To further this study, perhaps you could suggest Krueger study how many of the well educated are so because of superiority of position created by the way of life to which they are accustomed (and feel strongly about being 'cheated' out of their birth-right higher status by outside influence).
In so much as the rhetoric is concerned, this appears to me to be a common theme. A set of society becoming affluent and keeping peace with a different group of society by force of law by figurehead or religion - not used to rebelion that they cannot easily deal with - suddenly having to protect their way of life against an influence which is outside of their control. This arguement seems to agree with these findings in both the case that 'countries with fewer civil liberties tend to produce more terrorists' and that it is NOT normally those that could be considered suppressed by the reduction of civil liberties that are those who are becoming involved as terrorists.
Alistair Kipling, Birmingham,
Would you therefore say Greg Mortensen's (CAI) work to provide an alternative to fundamentalist schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a waste of time?
Oliver, Hong Kong,
Maybe one of the causal links might be the other way round?
During the 20th Century both in National Socialist Germany and the USSR, a propensity toward hate crime was pretty much a sine qua non for social and economic advancement.
At first blush, it seems that the same might also be true of any country where the terrorists are establishing, or have established, a parallel social order, either in the whole country (Gaza?) or in one sectarian part of it (Lebanon?).
And how do you objectively measure civil liberties anyway? I stopped visiting the USA (and modestly helping its economy) after it started treating all visitors like criminals and finger-printing them. I guess my definition of civili liberties would predict more terrorists in the USA than yours....
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Well, I hope our dopey politicians are listening. They seem remarkably obtuse on these issues. We get so much wishful thinking from the Labour government. They should take a cool look at the facts and develop a strategy on the basis of those facts. They fail to see islamic culture for what it is: brutal, repressive and medieval. Rather than countering this awful culture, they want to help it destroy this country, for example by enabling the establishment of lots more state-funded muslim schools. Complete madness.
Mike Wood, Bradford, UK
If countries with fewer civil liberties tend to produce more terrorists, what set our home-grown terrorists on their course? And whatever the human-rights deficiencies of Pakistan, they can hardly be relevant to the al-Qaeda breeding-ground on the Afghan border, where no government's writ runs.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Oxford, UK
Muslim countries like Kuwait and UAE manage to coexist in the modern world. Bin Laden, on the other hand, demands that all American convert. The problem is that Bin Laden's vision of the future does not have a place for "disbelievers".
Joseph, NYC, USA
The West has been enormously helpful to businesses exporting luxury goods, bullet proof limousines, business jets and the like, to kleptocrat third world dictators.
Their populations have endured years of dumping surplus heavily subsidised agribiz produce, thereby impoverishing their farmers, and my personal favourite, dumping out of date pharmaceutical junk onto their markets. Isn't allopathy just dandy?
Mark Lyndon, London, UK
Here is another way to look at it. Nearly every successful revolution in history started at the top, including the US rebellion against the British Monarchy. Nearly every revolution that began at the bottom failed.
Don Granberry, Houston, Texas, USA
Professor Jonathan Haidt answers this question in his New Yorker 2007 Conference speech (at www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt). Its not about poverty, its about the way societies cultivate (or don't cultivate - in the case of the liberal West) instinctive morality factors.
Rob, Reading,
About the causes of terror,may the fact that the Western way is not as succesful as in the past be a part of the problem?
I mean:until the last decades Western people were not just the richest or most powerful in the World,but also the happiest.Or appeared to be such. In the first half of the XXth century there was still no reasonable doubt that one should have been proud to be Western,that our way was the best way.The better educated élites in the Middle East wished to imitate Western models at the time.You can see that purpose clearly in Kemal's revolution,or in the first years of Lebanese democracy.The West was desirable.
Let's look at ourself now:are we still desirable?How many people we know would say they are happy?I ask myself sometimes:were I an Islamic man,would I like to become a Western man?Would I like my children to become like our own teenagers?Maybe they sort of feel we do not deserve to be in charge anymore.And they feel someway we feel that too.They're smelling blood.
Marco, Venice, Italy
No, Oliver, it does not. You do. The fact you cite, i.e. that Islamic societies have difficulty to find their place in the modern world is in no way poverty related. It is a cultural issue and hand in hand with it an issue of lack of civil liberties. As concluded by Daniel in this GREAT article.
Andrew, London, UK
An excellent article...fascinating ideas!
As the article suggests, no amount of money would "buy off" Osama Bin Laden, because he was, allegedly, already exceedingly wealthy before he embaked on his journey of terror.
Further, it does appear, from recent photographs published on this site, that an actor is now portraying Bin Laden, in his "public appearances". This suggests that the real Bin Laden is either dead or incapaciatated.
Osama bin Laden, as the focal point of Bush's "War on Terror"...simply CANNOT be allowed to die! The symbolic raison d'etre for the war in Iraq
must be kept alive as long as it is desired to continue that multi-multi-billion dollar war: If Osama was to die ...or to be "bought off"...public opinion in the USA against the war would immediately escalate to Tsunami levels... there would be overwhelming calls to end the war immediately and to bring the troops home. That would not be acceptable to those who want to prolong that profitable war.
John Bull, New York, N.Y., USA
Isn't it about 'winning hearts and minds?' (to borrow political shorthand). Terrorism can only prosper when non-fanatics come to tolerate the fanatics in their mist. The average Palestinian (for example) does not want to be a suicide bomber. But many of them do not feel compelled to report these murderers or anyone involved in the terrorist attacks in the way that most people around the world would if they became aware of them. If they did, far more atrocities would be stopped.
I'm not going to claim to know exactly why they tolerate such behaviour but a lot of it has to do with anti-west feeling. If by reducing poverty we can decrease this then perhaps we can persuade communities to give up the terrorists in their midsts. I totally agree that you can't change a fanatic's mind. But you can change the opinions of the communities who presently tolerate them. Or at least I think it's worth giving it a go.
Nick, London,
If you understood economics then you would realize that they are the best at including the "human" factor and measuring it. Gordon Brown is misguided to think that money, poverty, and lack of education are the reasons that terrorists are created. The 9/11 hijackers were very well educated, advanced college degrees. Which aren't obtainable without the proper funds. I don't know what terrorists Brown is aiming at but the many incidents of the so called "sudden jihad syndrome," that have occurred in here in the US were done by Islamic Phd or master students.
Thomas, Logan, utah
Mr Finkelstein completely misses the point. The maladjusted violent young men will always be with us - nothing will deter them from attempting to destroy the evil society in which they live, whether they be members of a communist insurgency, the IRA, the Red Army Faction or Al Qaeda.
However, if they are to succeed, they need the support of the people - in the words of Chairman Mao, they are fish, who need a sea in which to swim. If you win around the general populace, you isolate the hard core and defeat the campaign.
This method of defeating an insurgency is well known and is frankly, obvious. It is well known by insurgents, which is why Al Qaeda destroys markets and tries to destablise the fledgling Iraqi economy, because they appreciate the valuable recruiting tool that is deprivation.
Zac Smith, London,
Money is the reason for the Iraq war but not in the way you would expect.
On Monday evening the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown on TV and for the first time I realised what George Bush's reasons were for reacting to 9/11 the way he did.
The scene of an incompetent President sitting and rocking for a whole 7 minutes in a Florida classroom just after being told the second plane had crashed into the second twin tower.
The grounding of all planes except those hurriedly evacuating Saudis with any connection to the Bin Laden family.
The singling out Iraq as the main enemy even though 15 of the 19 suicide bombers were Saudis.
The incestuous relationship the Bush family has with the Saudis, especially the Bin Ladens.
This film should be watched by Gordon Brown then he should get our boys and girls out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.
G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE
Olive's point does not invalidate Daniel's. In the Wahabbist view of Islam, the "best" Moslem is the most devout Moslem, one who lives the purist form of Islam as laid down in the Koran and as interpreted by clerics who seek to return to an imagined Islamic golden age in the middle ages. This attempt to return to life as it was in the Middle Ages, inevitably causes tensions in the present. At its most extreme, as interpreted by bin Laden and followers, these are resolved by wiping out anyone who disagrees. Economic progress will not solve this.
Hazel Jackson, Farnborough,
The idea of accepting any money from the west would be considered fund raising.
Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK
Get real. It's a Gordon Brown bandwagon that gives him an excuse to take more taxes and spend our money on his pet projects instead of our own choices. He doesn't understand the motivation of the charitable giver, but he does understand that if he has a bigger budget then he's a bigger dog in the pack. In other words, he's a politician. Possibly even worse, he's appears to be an honest politician - i.e one who actually believes his own propoganda.
KR, Stockport,
Prof Krueger is an academic economist so I rather suspect he is leaving out the human factor in favour of the numbers instead of considering both. For that matter Gordon Brown, as you point out, puts too much emphasis on his pet ideals.
What is the connection between hate crimes in Germany and terrorism motivated by religious ideology? Do racist thugs have some parallel factor to a 1400 year old religion which presents a compelling attraction to those immersed in its tenets from birth? Of course not. Did Prof Krueger compare countries of similar wealth, levels of civil liberty and education but differing predominant ideologies? What are the historical factors that may be of influence? Islamic terrorism is the combination of many factors and we should apply a far more holistic and multi faceted approach to dealing with the root causes. For example by tackling our own hypocrisy we might give our ideology of democracy and personaly liberty the chance to present a desirable alternative.
Charles, Dubai, UAE
this leaves indeed again Islam as the common demoninator. The solution: make people better educated, (which surly is correlated with having more civil liberties) and root out religion in all its forms.
stefan, Southampton, UK
Come on Danny, stop beating about the bush. Terrorists are just spoilt middle-class kids who have never had to worry about the basics of surviving in life.
Paul, northants,
It is a typical Labour view: throw money at something - taxpayers money, never their own - and hope. They have neither the wit or the honest endeavour of trying to understand the problem in the first pace. This Labour government whether under Blair or Brown has squandered the leie blood of this country on lost causes. Like any free good, these irresponsible Labour politicians have abused taxpayers by taking their money from every which way and throwing it at people, causes with no accountability for a return on the investment. This Labour governmnen has managed to produce more internal terrorist tendencies than any other government before it. And Brown has been part of that campaign from inception - in fact he is the principal architect of the mess, in which we now find ourselves.
K Miles, Macclesfield,
Saudi, very rich country,has produced the biggest terrorist in the world, so yes you are right, only oor Gordon would miss that fact.
peter reddington, Leeds, W Yorks
A well written but ultimately not very insightful piece. As said above you have missed something Daniel.
Those in power are aware of the sources of terrorism and what regions/backgrounds they come from.
Dealing with poverty is just one part of a larger strategy.
Ask an economist or sociologist what the effects are on a populace if and when poverty is alleviated.
As well as forcefully dealing with terrorists one also needs to deal with the multifaceted causes of terrorism.
David, Aberdeen,
This misses the wider picture: the connection between the difficulty that Islamic societies have finding a place in the modern world, and the production of terrorism in those societies.
Oliver Chettle, Bedford,