Results Table 2 reports the results of our base models. Models 1-4 use the GTD outcome measure; models 5-8 use ITERATE. Models 1 and 5 include our measures of bureaucratic/administrative capacity and military capacity, models 2 and 6 substitute the log CINC score as a measure of military capacity. Models 3-4 and 7-8 substitute our alternate measure of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, Political Reach (RPR). ---------------- 2 HERE Table 2 provides strong support for H2. Countries with higher bureaucratic/administrative capacity experience fewer terror attacks. The coefficients on both measures of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, B/A capacity and Political Reach, are negative and significant across all eight specifications, though Political Reach is only significant at the p < 0.10 level in models 3 and 7. Our findings provide less consistent support for H1: countries with more conventional military capacity experience more terror attacks. The coefficients on military capacity are positive and statistically significant under all four specifications, though they are only significant at the p < 0.10 level in the models including Political Reach. The coefficients on log CINC, however, are negative and statistically significant in models 4 and 8. Thus, the two measures of military capacity do not demonstrate a consistent relationship with terrorist attacks. We point out that on theoretical grounds, our military capacity measure is superior to log CINC as a measure of actual repressive capacity, which we argue influences decisions about the use of terrorism as a
Hegre, Håvard, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2006. “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(4): 508-535. Hendrix, Cullen S. 2010. “Measuring Capacity: Theoretical and Empirical Implications for the Study of Civil Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 47(3): 273-285. Hendrix, Cullen S. 2011. “Head for the Hills? Rough Terrain, State Capacity, and Civil War Onset.” Civil Wars 13(4): 345-370. Hoffman, Bruce. 2006. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Humphreys, Macartan. 2005. “Natural Resources, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(4): 508-537. Internal Revenue Service. 2010. Jongman, Albert and Alex Schmid. 2005. Political Terrorism: a New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data bases, Theories, & Literature Transaction Publishers. Kalyvas, Stathis M. 2006. The of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1990. “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America.” Comparative Politics 23(1): 1-21 Knack, Stephen. 2001. “Aid Dependence and the Quality of Governance: A Cross Country Empirical Analysis.” Southern Economic Journal 68(4): 310–329. Koch, Michael, and Skyler Cranmer. 2007. “Testing the ‘Dick Cheney’ Hypothesis: Do Governments of the Left Attract More Terrorism than Governments of the Conflict Management and Peace Science 24(4): 311-326. Kocher, Matthew Adam. 2010. “State Capacity as a Conceptual Variable.” Yale Journal of International Affairs 5(2): 137-145. LaFree, Gary, and Laura Dugan. 2007. “Introducing the Global Terrorism Database.” Terrorism and Political Violence 19(2): 181-204. Lake, David. 2002. “Rational Extremism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century.” Dialogue-IO 1(1): 15-29. Lake, 2003. “International Relations Theory and Internal Conflict: Insights from the Interstices,” International Studies Review 5(4): 81-89. Li, Quan. 2005. “Does Democracy Promote or Reduce Transnational Terrorist Incidents?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(2): 278-297.
Table 1: Bureaucratic/administrative capacity, military capacity, and the average number of terror attacks, 1984-2007 Military Capacity Low High Total Low 8.5 40.1 25.0 Bureaucratic Effectiveness High 2.1 17.4 14.2 Total 6.1 22.4 11.0