How do political parties with different policy-making interests and veto power respond to international terrorism—can coalition parties and bicameral legislatures overcome their policy-making tensions and form a unified front for adopting counterterrorist measures? This study examines German counterterrorist legislation before and after the attacks of 9/11 by using a dictionary-based computerized text analysis. Our findings demonstrate that in times of low threat, the level of intra-coalition and bicameral conflict decreases the likelihood of counterterrorist legislation. However, in the event of a high external threat, this effect disappears despite the continuing divergence in partisan policy preferences. This suggests that a high external threat imposes inaction costs on political parties, which they attempt to avoid by adopting counterterrorist measures in the legislative arena.
AzamJean-PaulThelenVéronique. 2010. “Foreign Aid versus Military Intervention in the War on Terror.” Journal of Conflict Resolution54(2): 237–61.
4.
BandyopadhyaySubhayuSandlerToddYounasJaved. 2011. “Foreign Aid as Counterterrorism Policy.” Oxford Economic Papers-New Series63(3): 423–77.
5.
BenoitKennethLaverMichael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
6.
BerrebiClaudeKlorEsteban F.. 2006. “On Terrorism and Electoral Outcomes—Theory and Evidence from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution50(6): 899–925.
7.
BlombergS. BrockHessGregory D.OrphanidesAthanasios. 2004. “The Macroeconomic Consequences of Terrorism.” Journal of Monetary Economics51(5): 1007–32.
8.
BoomgaardenHajade VreeseClaas. 2007. “Dramatic real-world events and public opinion dynamics. Media coverage and its impact on public reactions to an assassination: Evidence from a quasi-experimental panel study.” International Journal of Public Opinion19(3): 354–366.
9.
BrandtPatrick T.SandlerTodd. 2010. “What Do Transnational Terrorists Target? Has It Changed? Are We Safer?” Journal of Conflict Resolution54(2): 214–36.
10.
BräuningerThomasKönigThomas. 1999. “The Checks and Balances of Party Federalism. German Federal Government in a Divided Legislature.” European Journal of Political Research36(2): 207–35.
11.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2005. “Conciliation, Commitment and Counterterrorism: A Formal Model.” International Organization59(1): 145–76.
13.
DreherAxelGassebnerMartinSiemersLars-H.. 2010. “Does Terrorism Threaten Human Rights? Evidence from Panel Data.” Journal of Law and Economics53(1): 65–93.
14.
EndersWalterSandlerTodd. 2004. “What Do We Know about the Substitution Effect in Transnational Terrorism?” In Researching Terrorism: Trends, Achievements, Failures, edited by SilkeA., 119–37. Ilford, UK: Frank Cass.
15.
EndersWalterSandlerTodd. 2006. The Political Economy of Terrorism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
16.
EpifanioMaria. 2011. “Legislative Response to International Terrorism.” Journal of Peace Research48(3): 399–411.
17.
GeartyC.2005. “11 September 2001, Counter-terrorism, and the Human Rights Act.” Journal of Law and Society32(1): 18–33.
18.
HaubrichD.2003. “September 11, Anti-terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared.” Government and Opposition38(1): 3–28.
19.
IndridasonI. H.2008. “Does Terrorism Influence Domestic Politics? Coalition Formation and Terrorist Incidents.” Journal of Peace Research45(2): 241–59.
20.
JacobsonGary. 2003. “Terror, Terrain, and Turnout: Explaining the 2002 Midterm Elections.” Political Science Quarterly118(1): 1–22.
21.
KatzensteinPeter J.2003. “Same War—Different Views: Germany, Japan, and Counterterrorism.” International Organization57(4): 731–60.
22.
KönigThomasLuigBernd. 2012. “Policy Positions and Legislative Agenda—An Alternative Approach to Estimating Policy Positions for the Study of EU Decision Making.” European Union Politics13 (4): 604–25.
23.
KönigThomasLuigBernd. 2014. “Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives.” Public Choice160 (3–4): 501–519.
24.
KrehbielKeith1991. “Information and Legislative Organization”. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
25.
KrippendorffK.2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
KutschaM.2009. “Innere Sicherheit und bürgerrechtliche Freiheit.” In Auf der Suche nach neuer Sicherheit, edited by LangeH.-J.OhlyH. P.ReichertzJ., 309–19. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
27.
LangerGaryCohenJon. 2005. “Voters and Values in the 2004 Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly69 (5): 744–59.
28.
LaverMichaelShepsleKenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments. Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
29.
LepsiusO.2004. “Freiheit, Sicherheit und Terror: Die Rechtslage in Deutschland.” Leviathan32(1): 64–88.
30.
LijphartArend. 1968. “Typologies of Democratic Systems.” Comparative Political Studies1(1): 3–44.
31.
LijphartArend. ed. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
LoweW.BenoitK.MikhaylovS.LaverM.. 2011. “Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 123–55.
33.
LupiaArthusStrømKaare. 1995. “Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Parliamentary Elections.” The American Political Science Review89 (3): 648–65.
34.
MartinLanny W.VanbergGeorg. 2005. “Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review.” American Political Science Review99(1): 93–106.
35.
MartinLannyVanbergGeorg. 2011. Parliaments and Coalitions. The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
MerollaJ. L.RamosJ. M.ZechmeisterE. J.. 2007. “Crisis, Charisma, and Consequences: Evidence from the 2004 US Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics69(1): 30–42.
37.
MickolusE. F.SandlerT.MurdockJ. M.FlemmingP. A.. 2008. International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE), 1968-2007. Dunn Loring, VA: Vinyard Software.
38.
MontalvoJosé Garcia. 2007. “Voting after the Bombing: Can Terrorist Attacks Change the Outcome of Democratic Elections.” Univeristat Pompeu Fabra. Accessed February 5, 2010http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1000.pdf.
39.
MoravcsikAndrew. 1994. “Why the European Community Strengthens the State: Domestic Politics and International Institutions.” Center for European Studies Working Paper Series No. 52, Center for European Studies, Cambridge, MA.
40.
PiazzaJ. A.2008. “Do Democracy and Free Markets Protect Us from Terrorism?” International Politics45(1): 72–91.
41.
PiazzaJ. A.WalshJ. I.. 2009. “Transnational Terror and Human Rights.” International Studies Quarterly53 (1): 125–48.
42.
PowellRobert. 2007. “Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources.” American Political Science Review101(3): 527–41.
43.
SchulzHeinerKönigThomas. 2000. Institutional Reform and Decision-Making Efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 653–6.
44.
StromK.MullerW. C.SmithD. M.. 2010. “Parliamentary Control of Coalition Governments.” Annual Review of Political Science13:517–35.
45.
TsebelisGeorge. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
TsebelisGeorgeMoneyJeanette. 1997. “Bicameralism”. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WilkinsonPaul. 1986. Terrorism and the Liberal State. London: Macmillan.
48.
ZussmanA.ZussmanN.. 2006. “Assassinations: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Israeli Counterterrorism Policy Using Stock Market Data.” Journal of Economic Perspectives20(2): 193–206.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
