The persistence of global terrorism

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the persistence of global terrorism in a panel of 163 countries for the period 2010–15. The empirical evidence is based on generalized method of moments. The following findings are established. First, persistence in terrorism is a decreasing function of income levels because it consistently increases from high-income (through upper middle-income) to lower middle-income countries. Second, compared with Christian-oriented countries, terrorism is more persistent in Islam-oriented nations. Third, landlocked countries also reflect a higher level of persistence relative to their coastal counterparts. Fourth, Latin American countries show higher degrees of persistence when compared with Middle East and North African countries. Fifth, the main determinants of the underlying persistence are political instability and weapons import. The results are discussed to provide answers to four main questions that directly pertain to the reported findings. These questions centre on why comparative persistence in terrorism is based on income levels, religious orientation, landlockedness and regions.

KEYWORDS:

• terrorism
• persistence
• development

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to the editor and reviewers for constructive comments.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Another stream of studies has used the same methodology and data set, but instead focused on different problem statements. This includes studies focusing on the persistence of incarcerations (Asongu, 2018); contemporary drivers of global tourism (Asongu, Nnanna, Biekpe, & Acha-Anyi, 2019); and the murder or homicide epidemic (Asongu & Acha-Anyi, 2019). The present study departs from the attendant studies by focusing on global terrorism.

2 There are four main World Bank income groups: (1) high income, ≥ US$12,276; (2) upper middle income, US$3970–12,275; (3) lower middle income, US$1006–3975; and (4) low income, ≤ US$1005.

3 Hence, the procedure for treating ivstyle (years) is ‘iv (years, eq(diff))’, whereas the gmmstyle is employed for predetermined variables.

4 ‘First, the null hypothesis of the second-order Arellano and Bond autocorrelation test (AR(2)) in difference for the absence of autocorrelation in the residuals should not be rejected. Second the Sargan and Hansen overidentification restrictions (OIR) tests should not be significant because their null hypotheses are the positions that instruments are valid or not correlated with the error terms. In essence, while the Sargan OIR test is not robust but not weakened by instruments, the Hansen OIR is robust but weakened by instruments. In order to restrict identification or limit the proliferation of instruments, we have ensured that instruments are lower than the number of cross-sections in most specifications. Third, the Difference in Hansen Test (DHT) for exogeneity of instruments isalso employed to assess the validity of results from the Hansen OIR test. Fourth, a Fisher test for the joint validity of estimated coefficients is also provided’ (Asongu & De Moor, 2017, p. 200).