| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
109914
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is an increasing number of analyses of the effects of terrorism, especially its impact on public opinion. Most of these analyses are focused on the effects of terrorist strategies and attacks on public opinion in general. This article analyzes an important but usually neglected question in this literature: the effects of terrorist strategies on the vote for parties that support the terrorist organization. It uses data referred to the case of the Basque terrorist group ETA and its attached political movement. ETA is one of the most enduring terrorist groups in the world, and during the last three decades, its strategy has combined violence with the convening of truces. The article shows how terrorist strategies, especially the convening of truces and negotiating with the government, significantly increase public support for the terrorist organization. Once the terrorist group has declared a truce and negotiations with the government are under way, the terrorists' constituency has an incentive to increase its mobilization in favour of the terrorist group. With higher levels of support, the terrorist group has a stronger bargaining position, and, therefore, it becomes more likely to attain its demands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
088417
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the determinants of the variation in the levels of lethal violence against civilians during a civil war. It departs from the usual explanations of this variation, advancing two different logics to account for civilians' victimization: strategic violence directed to avoid rebellions by targeting would-be political entrepreneurs and violence as a consequence of the breakdown of the state's authority. It uses a new data set on violence against civilians during the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157897
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conflicting theories and mixed empirical results exist on the relationship between ethnic diversity and trust. This article argues that these mixed empirical results might be driven by contextual conditions. We conjecture that political competition could strengthen ethnic saliency and, in turn, salient ethnic identities can activate or intensify in-group trust and depress trust in members of other ethnic groups. We test this conjecture using the move toward secession in Catalonia, Spain. We conduct trust experiments across ethnic lines in Catalonia before and during the secessionist process. After three years of proindependence mobilization in Catalonia, one of the ethnic groups, Spanish speakers living in Catalonia, has indeed increased its in-group trust. This result is robust after a set of individual-level variables are controlled for, but no equivalent result is found in a comparable region, the Basque Country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
152868
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the determinants of terrorism saliency in public opinion. It is usually assumed that after a terrorist attack, terrorism becomes automatically salient. However, this assumption is only true in those countries where terrorist attacks are exceptional events. In democracies that have suffered domestic terrorism for decades, the evolution of terrorism saliency does not only depend on the frequency or intensity of terrorist attacks. In this article it is claimed that the tactics carried out by terrorist groups (the type of victim, especially) and the dynamics of political competition (especially the ideology of the incumbent) are also factors that explain the evolution of terrorism saliency. The article also analyzes how these two factors interact with citizens’ predispositions to explain variation in their reactions to terrorist threat. The empirical test relies on a novel database from monthly public opinion surveys in Spain from 1993 to 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|