Public Choice

, Volume 179, Issue 3–4, pp 287–299 | Cite as

Simple analytics of the impact of terror generation on attacker–defender interactions

  • Timothy MathewsEmail author
  • Aniruddha Bagchi
  • João Ricardo Faria


A simple Attacker-Defender interaction is analyzed, in which a single terrorist (denoted T) may attack a single target in the homeland of a government/state (denoted G). The interaction is modelled as a one-shot sequential move game in which G first chooses how heavily to defend the target, after which T chooses whether or not to stage an attack. T’s benefit from a successful attack is allowed to be increasing in the quantity of resources that G allocates to defense. In the context of terrorism, that assumption has multiple reasonable interpretations, including situations in which: (i) citizens of the target country are terrified to a greater degree when a more heavily fortified target is attacked successfully or (ii) a successful attack on a more heavily fortified target allows the terrorists to recruit more effectively. The amount by which T’s benefit from a successful attack exceeds its baseline owing to greater defensive efforts by G can be thought of as a terror effect. Such an approach differentiates terrorism from traditional conflict in an important way. For the specified model, defensive efforts by G necessary to prevent T from staging an attack are increasing in the magnitude of the terror effect. Moreover, if G inaccurately underestimates the magnitude of the terror effect, then G might choose either less than or more than the optimal level of defense, with the realized outcome depending upon model parameters. The results highlight the importance of correctly understanding the payoffs and motives of terrorists in order to be able to allocate defensive resources optimally.

JEL Classification Codes

H56 F52 D74 C70 


  1. Arce, D. G., Kovenock, D., & Roberson, B. (2012). Weakest-link attacker-defender games with multiple attack technologies. Naval Research Logistics, 59(6), 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (2005). Comparative analysis of litigation systems: An auction-theoretic approach. The Economic Journal, 115(505), 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D., & de Vries, C. G. (2012). Contests with rank-order spillovers”. Economic Theory, 51(2), 315–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bier, V., Oliveros, S., & Samuelson, L. (2007). Choosing what to protect: Strategic defensive allocation against an unknown attacker. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 9(4), 563–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bueno de Mesquita, E. (2016). Political economy for public policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, P. (2001). FAA screening ‘weak link’ in airport security. Accessed on May 4 2017
  7. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (1993). The effectiveness of anti-terrorism policies: A vector-autoregression-intervention analysis. American Political Science Review, 87(4), 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (1995). Terrorism: Theory and applications. In K. Hartley & T. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook of defense economics (Vol. 1, pp. 213–249). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2011). Political economy of terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faria, J. R., & Arce, D. (2005). Terror support and recruitment. Defence and Peace Economics, 16(4), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faria, J. R., & Arce, D. (2012). Counterterrorism and its impact on terror support and recruitment: Accounting for backlash. Defence and Peace Economics, 23(5), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gassebner, M., Jong-A-Pin, R., & Mierau, J. O. (2008). Terrorism and electoral accountability: One strike, you’re out!. Economics Letters, 100(1), 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman, H., & Kim, M. (1995). Swords or plowshares? a theory of the security of claims to property. Journal of Political Economy, 103(6), 1275–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heal, G., & Kunreuther, H. (2005). IDS models of airline security. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirshleifer, J. (1983). From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice, 41(3), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, P. (2008). Editorial: the mechanics of terrorism. NATO Review, Volume 1, Accessed on May 4 2017
  17. Mathews, T., & Lowenberg, A. (2012). The interdependence between homeland security efforts of a state and a terrorist’s choice of attack. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(2), 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phillips, P. J. (2016). The Economics of Terrorism. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Powell, R. (2007a). Defending against terrorist attacks with limited resources. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Powell, R. (2007b). Allocating defensive resources with private information about vulnerability. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandler, T., & Arce, D. (2007). Terrorism: A game-theoretic approach. In T. Sandler & K. Hartley (Eds.), Handbook of defense economics, Vol. 2: Defense in a globalized world (pp. 775–813). Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandler, T., & Enders, W. (2004). An economic perspective on transnational terrorism. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandler, T., & Lapan, H. E. (1988). The calculus of dissent: An analysis of terrorists’ choice of targets. Synthese, 76(2), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandler, T., & Siqueira, K. (2009). Games and terrorism: Recent developments. Simulation and Gaming, 40(2), 164–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of State (2016). Country reports on terrorism 2015, Accessed on March 23 2017
  26. Zhuang, J., & Bier, V. M. (2009). Balancing terrorism and natural disasters–defensive strategy with endogenous attacker effort. Operations Research, 55(5), 976–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Mathews
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aniruddha Bagchi
    • 1
  • João Ricardo Faria
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Finance, and Quantitative AnalysisKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations