Repeated interaction between a terrorist group and a target government is analyzed in a game-theoretic model. The analysis identifies a dynamic inconsistency problem, which forces the government to under-invest in defensive measures while over-investing in offensive measures. Policy implications are discussed in light of recent US counterterrorism experience. It is shown that governments may resolve the problem by delegating the authority over defensive measures to an independent agency.
Arce, Daniel, and Todd Sandler.2005. Counterterrorism: A game-theoretic analysis . Journal of Conflict Resolution49(2): 183-200.
2.
Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu, and Todd Sandler. Forthcoming. The interplay between preemptive and defensive counterterrorism measures: A two-stage game. Economica .
3.
Barro, Robert.1986. Reputation in a model of monetary policy with incomplete information. Journal of Monetary Economics17(1): 3-20.
4.
Barro, Robert, and David Gordon.1983. Rules, discretion and reputation in a model of monetary policy. Journal of Monetary Economics12(1): 101-121.
5.
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan.2005. Conciliation, counterterrorism, and patterns of terrorist violence. International Organization59(1): 145-176.
6.
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan.2007. Politics and the suboptimal provision of counterterror . International Organization61(1): 9-36.
7.
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Eric Dickson.2007. The propaganda of the deed: Terrorism, counterterrorism, and mobilization. American Journal of Political Science51(2): 364-381.
8.
Flynn, Stephen.2004. The neglected home front. Foreign Affairs83(5): 20-33.
9.
Fudenberg, Drew, and Jean Tirole.1991. Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Heal, Geoffrey, and Howard Kunreuther .2005. IDS models of airline security . Journal of Conflict Resolution49(2): 201-217.
11.
Jensen, Henrik.1997. Credibility of optimal monetary delegation. American Economic Review87(5): 911-920.
12.
Keohane, Nathaniel, and Richard Zeckhauser .2003. The ecology of terror defense . Journal of Risk and Uncertainty26(2-3): 201-229.
13.
Kydland, Finn, and Edward Prescott .1977. Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy85(3): 473-491.
14.
Lakdawalla, Darius, and George Zanjani.2005. Insurance, self-protection, and the economics of terrorism. Journal of Public Economics89(9-10): 1891-1905.
15.
Lapan, Harvey, and Todd Sandler.1988. To bargain or not to bargain: That is the question. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings78(2): 16-21.
16.
Meltzer, Allan.2004. A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Persson, Torsten, and Guido Tabellini .1993. Designing institutions for monetary stability. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39(1): 53-84.
18.
Powell, Robert.2007. Allocating defensive resources with private information about vulnerability. American Political Science Review101(4): 799-809.
19.
Rogoff, Kenneth.1987. Reputational constraints on monetary policy. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy26(1): 141-181.
20.
Rogoff, Kenneth.1985. The optimal degree of commitment to a monetary target . Journal of Monetary Economics100(4): 1169-1189.
21.
Rosendorff, Peter, and Todd Sandler.2004. Too much of a good thing?: The proactive response dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(5): 657-671.
22.
Sandler, Todd, and Kevin Siqueira.2006. Global terrorism: Deterrence versus preemption. Canadian Journal of Economics39(4): 1370-1387.
23.
Schelling, Thomas.1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
24.
Siqueira, Kevin.2005. Political and militant wings within dissident movements and organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution49(2): 218-236.
25.
Siqueira, Kevin, and Todd Sandler.2006. Terrorists versus the government: Strategic interaction, support, and sponsorship. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(6): 878-898.
26.
U.S. Department of State.2006. Country Reports on Terrorism 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
27.
Walsh, Carl.1995. Optimal contracts for central bankers. American Economic Review85(1): 150-167.
