The Use of Repression as a Response to Domestic Dissent

This study contributes to our understanding of government repression in response to internal threats using a quantitative approach. In contrast to previous research, it focuses on the outbreak of state terror and on how different types of domestic dissent influence the risk of such severe state-sponsored violence. The empirical analysis distinguishes between demonstrations, strikes, riots, guerrilla attacks and revolutions, which vary in the level of violence and in the level of organisation that is behind the dissent, and analyses how those forms of threat affect the probability of repression onset. The empirical model controls for a potentially non-linear relationship between level of democracy and repression and investigates how dissent influences state terror in different political regimes. The analysis employs a logit model to test the link between dissent and repression in 149 countries between 1977 and 2002. The findings suggest that only guerrilla warfare increases the probability of repression onset. Democratic political regimes not only decrease the risk of state terror per se, but also dampen the effect of large-scale violent dissent on the risk of repression. The results also show that the longer a country manages to avoid repression, the less likely it is to suffer from repression again.     

Electoral terms and terrorism

Many terror attacks occur at the beginning of electoral terms. We present a game theoretical model with incomplete information to account for this empirical pattern. Both terrorists and governments can be of weak or strong types. We find that the risk of terror attacks is highest at the beginning of electoral terms, because striking early allows the terrorists to collect valuable information about the government’s type, and also because terrorists know that even initially weak governments sometimes retaliate to show toughness closer to an upcoming election. The model’s predictions are consistent with anecdotal evidence.     

Political functions of impunity in the war on terror: Evidence from Afghanistan

The prevalence and persistence of impunity for human rights violations in the war on terror have attracted significant interest from scholars and practitioners. Insufficient attention, however, has been paid to the ways in which impunity might be shaping key objectives and practices of the war on terror and enabling or constraining their pursuit in war zones. Drawing on insights from security cultures theory and analysis of empirical evidence from Afghanistan, this article demonstrates how impunity serves as a mechanism for reproduction and diffusion of the security culture of the war on terror and for cooption and subversion of central components of another security culture: the liberal peace. The argument is elaborated by investigating the functions of impunity in generating the kind of politics that justify an endless war and facilitate the pursuit of its shifting goals and methods. The article suggests that the role of impunity in shaping global security pathways might be more significant than previously understood and highlights the potential of security cultures theory to help explain human rights outcomes in counterterrorism and peace operations.     

War Narratives: Framing Our Understanding of the War on Terror

Unlike past American wars, the current war on terror has not been associated with a centrally proffered narrative providing some guidance and orientation for those administering government services under state-of-war conditions. War is as much a cultural endeavor as it is a military undertaking, and the absence of a clear sensemaking narrative was detected in this study of public administrators from three agencies with varying proximity to the conflict. Q-methodology was used to explore the way individuals processed the war narratives put forth by the Bush administration and reported in the media immediately following the September 11 attacks. Though no distinct state-of-war narratives were found among the public administrators in this study, there are clear indications that latent narratives reflecting local political and organizational task environments have emerged.     

Political instability and political terror: Global evidence on persistence

We test the hypotheses that fundamental characteristics in regional proximity, landlockedness, religious‐domination, legal origin, and income levels affect cross‐country differences in the persistence in political terror and political instability in 163 countries for the period 2010–2015. The empirical evidence is based on generalised method of moments. The hypotheses are that the following are associated with comparatively higher levels of persistence in political terror and political instability: regions with predominantly low income countries (Hypothesis 1); landlockedness (Hypothesis 2); Christian‐orientation (Hypothesis 3); French civil law (Hypothesis 4); and Low income (Hypothesis 5). The tested hypotheses are largely invalid. Only Hypotheses 5 and 2 are robustly investigated in the light of concerns about instrument proliferation. Hypothesis 2 is valid for political terror but not for political instability while Hypothesis 5 is neither valid for political instability nor for political terror.     

Rethinking Anti-Immigration Rhetoric after the Oslo and Utøya Terror Attacks

This article examines right-wing populism and populist rhetoric in Norway preceding the July 22, 2011 terror attacks at Utøya and in Oslo. It describes how the mainstream media, academics, and political parties have appealed to the public in an increasingly populist fashion and have spread fear about immigration, immigrants, and integration. It argues that while the populist right-wing Progress Party has adopted immigration and integration as its main cause and has gained support because of it, the Progress Party alone cannot be blamed for the widespread xenophobia in Norway. The media are also responsible for the way immigration, culture, and race have been reported, as are a wide range of politicians for formulating increasingly stricter immigration policies. In the aftermath of July 22 politicians became acutely concerned about their own anti-immigrant rhetoric and how it may have influenced the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. A broad consensus to address and change the language used in the immigration debate was agreed upon; more openness and more democracy was promised. Much has changed, but even more has stayed the same in Norwegian politics and attitudes to immigration and Islam.     

Tightened Immigration Policies and the Self‐Employment Dynamics of Mexican Immigrants

As the U.S. government has intensified its crackdown on illegal immigration in recent years, an important question to ask is how undocumented immigrants react to the stricter enforcement of immigration laws. This paper seeks to answer whether they increasingly choose self‐employment in an effort to avoid apprehension and subsequent deportation. To guard against endogeneity bias that might stem from increased enforcement in reaction to illegal immigration, the empirical analysis makes use of the September 11 terror attacks (9/11), which inadvertently triggered stricter immigration enforcement nationwide, as a natural experiment. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach and data from the Current Population Survey between 1996 and 2006, this paper examines the changes in the self‐employment choices of male and non‐citizen Mexican immigrants (a proxy for undocumented immigrants) compared to less‐educated Whites (the control group). The findings indicate that male and non‐citizen Mexican immigrants are substantially more likely (40 percent) to enter into self‐employment than less‐educated Whites after 9/11. The analysis further suggests that this finding is not driven by the 2001 recession that coincided with the terror attacks. The increased entries are mainly observed in the group that is most likely to be in the United States illegally and in those who face strong economic incentives. In addition, increased entries are not driven by increased unemployment among Mexican immigrants after the 9/11 event, but, rather, they reflect a change in the behavior of the unemployed Mexican immigrants, perhaps due to changes in perceived risks of detection and deportation.     

Terror and the loss of citizenship

Terror in the name of God and the specter of returning fighters for the so-called ‘Islamic State’ have recently moved some Western states, including Britain, Canada, and France, toward revoking the citizenship of terrorists. To critics, this constitutes a ‘return to banishment,’ a ‘fate universally decried by civilized people,’ as an American Supreme Court Chief Justice put it in the late 1950s. In a double reflection on the changing nature of terror and of citizenship, this paper argues that denationalization is, in principle, the adequate response to terror. This is because terror, particularly of the Islamist kind, is no ordinary crime but attack on the fundaments of citizenship. But what is right in principle may not be the right thing to do, because denationalization raises serious practicality problems.     

Amerikanische Außenpolitik im Zeichen des „Krieges gegen den Terror“

The review article systematizes the current academic debate on U. S. foreign policy after 9/11. The main focus lies on different explanations of the causes and consequences of the “war on terror”. Such a problem-oriented approach mirrors the heterogeneity of the debate which cannot adequately be captured by the conventional categories of IR research and foreign policy analysis. It is fair to say that the analysis of U. S. foreign policy as a case of empirical investigation profits from this disciplinary emancipation.     

Media malaise or a virtuous circle? Exploring the causal relationships between news media exposure,political news attention and political interest

Being politically interested is one of the most important norms from a democratic perspective, as it is a crucial antecedent for voting, political knowledge, civic and political participation, and attentiveness to political information. However, only limited research has focused on the relationship between media use and political interest, despite the notion that modern politics is mediated politics. Even more important is the fact that the causal relationship between media use and political interest still has not been firmly established. Against this background, the purpose of this study is to investigate the causal relationship between news media use and political interest. The results show that there are indeed causal and reciprocal relationships between political interest and attention to political news, and between political interest and exposure to some, but not all, news media. Overall these results lend stronger support to the perspective of media mobilisation theories than media malaise theories.     

Counterterror intelligence operations and terror attacks

We present a formal model of an intelligence agency that must divide its resources between the collection and analysis of information pertaining to terror plots. The model highlights the negative consequences of queues which form when collection exceeds analytic capacity. We incorporate the response of a terrorist organization to the operating characteristics of the intelligence system it faces, and solve for equilibrium strategies for the intelligence system and terrorist organization. Our results demonstrate the importance of properly balancing resources between collection and analysis, and stand in contrast to the observed state of overcollection in US intelligence agencies.     

Does Public Broadcasting Make a Difference? Political Knowledge and Electoral Campaigns on Television

The political role of the modern media and the impact on public opinion has come under intense scrutiny. The arguments in the scientific dispute have been structured under the optimistic ‘cognitive mobilisation’ and pessimistic ‘media malaise’ banners. For obvious reasons the role of television has been most intensely discussed. TV has the widest reach and is believed to have to the strongest impact. So far, much of the exchange of arguments has been based on data from the United States. In many European countries, public broadcasting is far more prominent than in the United States, and one can argue that the ideals underlying public broadcasting have put their mark on the TV industry in many European countries. Norway is such a case. The interesting question is, of course, whether this matters. Does public broadcasting foster a ‘virtuous circle’ of increased political competence, whereas commercial TV creates ‘media malaise’? Data from the Norwegian 1997–2001 election survey panel is used in this study to overcome the main methodological problem in the many studies based on cross‐sectional data: the question of causality. Too often researchers have based their inferences about the link between media exposure and political knowledge on cross‐sectional correlations. The empirical results do little to support the optimistic view of TV as the great political educator. On the contrary, neither exposure to the state‐owned public broadcasting NRK nor the commercial TV2 help to increase the general level of political knowledge. However, NRK seems to be the preferred channel among the politically well‐informed.     

The Cost of Ruling,Cabinet Duration,and the “Median-Gap” Model

In a recent article Paldam and Skott (1995) provide atheoretical explanation for an important empirical phenomenonin democratic countries: incumbent governments tend to losevotes. In this paper, I show that Paldam and Skott'stheoretical explanation for this ``cost of ruling'' ispotentially much stronger than they recognize. Specifically,when generalized in a straightforward way, their modelexplains not only the cost of ruling itself, but also a secondwell established empirical fact: that the longer an incumbentgovernment has been in power, the more votes it loses.Further, this generalization of the model produces twoadditional empirical hypotheses that have not yet been testedin the empirical literature.     

Media News Evaluation and Welfare Retrenchment: The Untransparent Cutbacks of the Housing Allowance

Radical welfare cutbacks normally only occur if there is obfuscation and citizens do not notice the changes. However, the media can potentially make untransparent events known and understandable to citizens. The role of the media in welfare retrenchment has not been sufficiently theorised or studied. This article attempts to partly remedy this. Research on media's news evaluation has not been in vogue lately. The literature largely has an anecdotal or atheoretical character. Here two dimensions are identified that underlay many of the news factors on the existing checklists: form and substance. Contrary to most existing research, this article focuses on an important political topic that has not had media coverage. Such a bias is a democratic problem per se. Social policy cutbacks offer an indicator upon which one can argue that there is a mismatch between the importance of an event and the media coverage it has received. The case studies of media coverage of cutbacks discussed in this article show that the media did not expose governmental blame‐avoiding behaviour, but there is evidence that media's news evaluation gave priority to transparent events whether they were important or not. Almost nothing was written on the untransparent cutbacks of the housing allowances, but the media covered the relatively insignificant, but very transparent, repayment of the housing allowance very much. Interviews with a number of important journalists regarding their news evaluation of these events substantiate the importance of transparency for press coverage. The implication is that obfuscation of cutbacks is indeed a useful governmental strategy.     

Taps and Terrorism: A German Approach?

The United States is more than six years into its global war on terrorism, relying ever more on expanded wiretapping powers to halt its spread. However, looking at Germany, a country which has made far more extensive use of wiretaps for a far longer period of time, suggests that reliance on wiretaps, while not entirely ineffectual, might be more of a panacea to make people feel they are being protected than a fully functional tool in breaking up terror plots. Should the United States keep investing in these programs, or should it consider other weapons against terror?     

Can Terrorism Abroad Influence Migration Attitudes at Home?

This article demonstrates that public opinion on migration “at home” is systematically driven by terrorism in other countries. Although there is little substantive evidence linking refugees or migrants to most recent terror attacks in Europe, news about terrorist attacks can trigger more negative views of immigrants. However, the spatial dynamics of this process are neglected in existing research. We argue that feelings of imminent danger and a more salient perception of migration threats do not stop at national borders. The empirical results based on spatial econometrics and data on all terrorist attacks in Europe for the post-9/11 period support these claims. The effect of terrorism on migration concern is strongly present within a country but also diffuses across states in Europe. This finding improves our understanding of public opinion on migration, as well as the spillover effects of terrorism, and it highlights crucial lessons for scholars interested in the security implications of population movements.     

Paths between Positivism and Interpretivism: An Appraisal of Hay's Via Media

Hay's Political Analysis raises foundational issues for all social scientists, not least in its outline for a via media , or middle way, between positivist and interpretivist social science. In this view, social science should be firmly grounded in empirical study but take seriously the notion that there is no privileged vantage point from which to generate dispassionate knowledge claims about the social world. This article asks whether this apparent via media is coherent and meaningfully captures what it means to be doing positivist and interpretivist social science without, so to speak, conceding too much ground to the other approach.     

Tell Me Who Is Your Leader,and I Will Tell You Who You Are: Foreign Leaders’ Perceived Personality and Public Attitudes toward Their Countries and Citizenry

The increasing visibility of prominent political leaders in news media is well documented in political science literature. The main concern that has been raised in this connection is that the complexity of political processes is being reduced to achievements and standpoints of individual politicians, and the importance of rational opinion building is discounted. The results of the current study provide the first empirical evidence to account for the misgivings about emotional effects of personalized political information on media audiences. Using data from an online experiment, this study shows that news coverage regarding behaviors and personal characteristics of a foreign leader influences (a) evaluations of personal characteristics typical of his or her nation's citizens and (b) emotional perceptions of that leader's country (sentiment and respect). This effect is shown to reflect a psychological phenomenon whereby people project their emotions and perceptions regarding a leader's personal characteristics onto his or her country and people.     

Opposition Policy Influence through Agenda‐setting: The Environment in Denmark, 1993–2009

This article addresses the opportunities that the opposition has to influence policy – a topic that has been neglected in existing party policy research. The idea that is developed is applied to a remarkable environmental policy development during the Danish right‐wing government in the 2000s. Contrary to its position when it took office in 2001, the right‐wing government turned green and adopted a series of green policy initiatives. It is argued in this article that vehement and persistent criticism from the left‐wing opposition provides an explanation for this turn. Taking media coverage, public opinion, carbon dioxide emissions and the government's approval ratings into account, the empirical estimation based on unique quarterly data shows that opposition criticism had a systematic impact on the government's pro‐environmental policy development. The implications for party policy research are important. If the aim is to understand how parties matter to policy, the opposition should be taken more seriously.     

Reinventing political subjectivities: studying critical documentaries on the war on terror

This paper casts a look on media aspects of the anti-war-on-terror struggle in western countries. A peculiar warfare, the “war on terror” that officially begun in 2001, is a low-density global warfare, fought in different internal and external fronts . Within a liberal, increasingly post-political social terrain, where social affairs are objects of expert management lacking public accountability and legitimacy, the role, status and the identity of the contemporary citizen is in decline. New media “affordances” offer critical possibilities for challenging hegemonic political discourses, and addressing political alternatives for a broad range of social problems; a re-invention of citizenship through the construct of a new (collective) political subject is central in the reinvention of democracy today. Discourse analysis, drawing reflexively on post-structuralist discourse theory and critical discourse analysis, is deployed in the study of counter-war-on-terror discourses in different documentaries critical to the “war on terror”. Analysis looks at different constructions of “us” and “them” in the context of counter-hegemonic discourses today. Identity is central in the engagement, participation and orientation of citizens today. Identity is central in organising a collective centre and in initiating subjectivity to fragmented liberal, postmodern individuals.