Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook on the Economics of Terrorism
- The Cambridge Handbook on the Economics of Terrorism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- Part I Concepts and Organizing Principles
- Part II Determinants of Terrorism
- Part III Consequences of Terrorism
- Part IV Counter-Terrorism
- 26 The Counter-Terrorism Policies of Deterrence and Preemption
- 27 Game-Theoretic Models
- 28 Offensive Counter-Terrorism: Lessons from Israel
- 29 War, Terrorism, and Science and Technology
- 30 The Financing of Terrorism
- 31 Foreign Aid as a Counter-Terrorism Tool
- 32 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Measures to Counter Domestic Terrorism
- 33 Ethics of Counter-Terrorism
- Part V Concluding Issues
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
32 - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Measures to Counter Domestic Terrorism
from Part IV - Counter-Terrorism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 March 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook on the Economics of Terrorism
- The Cambridge Handbook on the Economics of Terrorism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- Part I Concepts and Organizing Principles
- Part II Determinants of Terrorism
- Part III Consequences of Terrorism
- Part IV Counter-Terrorism
- 26 The Counter-Terrorism Policies of Deterrence and Preemption
- 27 Game-Theoretic Models
- 28 Offensive Counter-Terrorism: Lessons from Israel
- 29 War, Terrorism, and Science and Technology
- 30 The Financing of Terrorism
- 31 Foreign Aid as a Counter-Terrorism Tool
- 32 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Measures to Counter Domestic Terrorism
- 33 Ethics of Counter-Terrorism
- Part V Concluding Issues
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Over the years since 9/11, there have been many calls for systematic analysis of domestic counterterrorism expenditures—indeed, in the United States, it is required by current regulations. The paper lays out and explains the standard cost/benefit and risk-analytic approaches that might be applied to evaluate such expenditures. However, such research has been quite limited so far. While systematic analysis can make the counterterrorism enterprise more coherent and efficient, domestic terrorism in most countries (particularly those outside of war zones) scarcely presents enough of a hazard to justify the enormous efforts and expenditures that have been made to counter it. It is an area of research that should be more fully developed.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook on the Economics of Terrorism , pp. 698 - 715Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Aaronson, Trevor. 2013. The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. New York: Ig Publishing.Google Scholar
Bergen, Peter L. 2016. United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Bogan, Kenneth T., and Jones, Edwin D.. 2006. “Risks of Mortality and Morbidity from Worldwide Terrorism: 1968–2004.” Risk Analysis 26 (1): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Rosa A. 2011. “Muslim ‘Homegrown’ Terrorism in the United States: How Serious Is the Threat?” International Security 36 (2): 7–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Rosa. 2015a. “The Threat Is Already Inside: And Nine Other Truths about Terrorism that Nobody Wants to Hear.” Foreign Policy, November 20.Google Scholar
Brooks, Rosa. 2015b. “The United States of Spinelessness.” Foreign Policy, December 15.Google Scholar
Clarke, Richard A., Morell, Michael J., Stone, Geoffrey R., Sunstein, Cass R., and Swire, Peter. 2013. Liberty and Security in a Changing World: The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael A., and Zenko, Micah. 2019. Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cordesman, Anthony H. 2015a. “Fear versus Fact: Getting the Facts on Terrorism.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 17.Google Scholar
Cordesman, Anthony H. 2015b. “New Year’s Resolutions on Terrorism: Panic, Politics, and the Prospects for Honesty in 2016.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 28.Google Scholar
DHS. 2009. National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Partnering to Enhance Protection and Resiliency. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
DHS. 2013. “Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief Fiscal Year 2013.” Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
Ervin, Clark Kent. 2006. Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attack. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Farrow, Scott, and Shapiro, Stuart. 2009. “The Benefit–Cost Analysis of Security Focused Regulations.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 6 (1). DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Benjamin H., Harper, Jim, and Preble, Christopher A., eds. 2010. Terrorizing Ourselves: Why US Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
GAO. 2011. “Progress Made and Work Remaining in Implementing Homeland Security Missions 10 Years after 9/11,” GAO-11-940T. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
Gardner, Daniel. 2008. The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn’t – and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Gardner, Daniel. 2010. Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – and Why We Believe Them Anyway. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Gerges, Fawaz A. 2011. The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand View Research. 2023. Homeland Security Market Size, Share and Trends Analysis Report by Types (Aviation, Maritime, Border, Critical Infrastructure Security, Cybersecurity, CBRN Security and Mass Transit Security), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030. San Francisco: Grand View Research.Google Scholar
Halsey, Ashley. 2017. “Trump Budget Eliminates Three Post-9/11 Airport Security Programs.” Washington Post, March 16. www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/trump-budget-eliminates-three-post-911-airport-security-programs/2017/03/16/8c56841a-09aa-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html.Google Scholar
Harris, Shane. 2010. The Watchers: The Rise of America’s Surveillance State. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Sheldon H., Karnani, Tamana, Kobza, John E., and Ritchie, Lynsey. 2006. “A Cost–Benefit Analysis of Alternative Device Configurations for Aviation-Checked Baggage Security Screening.” Risk Analysis 26 (2): 297–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, Brian Michael. 2011. “Stray Dogs and Virtual Armies: Radicalization and Recruitment to Jihadist Terrorism in the United States since 9/11,” Occasional Paper no. 343. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Brian Michael. 2016. “Fifteen Years on, Where Are We in the ‘War on Terror’?” CTC Sentinel 9 (9): 7–12.Google Scholar
Kean, Thomas H., and Hamilton, Lee H.. 2005. “Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations.” Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kean, Thomas H., and Hamilton, Lee H.. 2014. “Today’s Rising Terrorist Threat and the Danger to the United States: Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report.” Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center.Google Scholar
Kenney, Michael. 2010. “‘Dumb’ yet Deadly: Local Knowledge and Poor Tradecraft among Islamist Militants in Britain and Spain.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 33 (10): 911–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Richard G. 2007. “Cost-Effective Strategies to Address Urban Terrorism: A Risk Management Approach.” In The Economic Costs and Consequences of Terrorism, edited by Richardson, Harry W., Gordon, Peter, and Moore, James E. II: 98–115. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lomborg, Bjørn, ed. 2009. Global Crises, Global Solutions, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, Ian S. 2006. Trapped in the War on Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masse, Todd, O’Neil, Siobhan, and Rollins, John. 2007. “The Department of Homeland Security’s Risk Assessment Methodology: Evolution, Issues, and Options for Congress.” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Morral, Andrew R., et al. 2012. Modeling Terrorism Risk to the Air Transportation System: An Independent Assessment of TSA’s Risk Management Analysis Tool and Associated Methods. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2002. “Harbinger or Aberration? A 9/11 Provocation.” The National Interest 69: 45–50.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2003. “Blip or Step Function?” Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Portland, OR, February 27. politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/ISA2003.PDF.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2006. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2010. Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 2016. “Why Obama Won’t Tell the Truth about Terrorism.” The National Interest, December 13. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-obama-wont-tell-the-truth-about-terrorism-18722.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, ed. 2020. Terrorism since 9/11: The American Cases. Columbus, OH: Mershon Center, Ohio State University. politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/since.html.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Schricker, Ezra. 2012. “Terror Predictions.” Ohio State University, May 2. politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/PREDICT.PDF.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2011. Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Homeland Security. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2012. “The Terrorism Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11.” International Security 37 (1): 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2014. “Responsible Counterterrorism Policy,” Policy Analysis no. 755. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2016. Chasing Ghosts: The Policing of Terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2017. “Misoverestimating Terrorism.” In Constructions of Terrorism: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Research and Policy, edited by Stohl, Michael S., Burchill, Richard, and Englund, Scott : 21–37. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2018. Public Opinion and Counterterrorism Policy. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
Mueller, John, and Stewart, Mark G.. 2021. “Terrorism and Bathtubs: Comparing and Assessing the Risks.” Terrorism and Political Violence 33 (1): 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John, Stewart, Mark G., and Friedman, Benjamin H.. 2013. “Finally Talking Terror Sensibly.” The National Interest, May 24.Google Scholar
Nacos, Brigette L., Block-Elkon, Yaeli, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2011. Selling Fear: Counterterrorism, the Media, and Public Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC. 2010. Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Approach to Risk Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Office of Best Practice Regulation. 2007. Best Practice Regulation Handbook. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget. 1992. “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit–Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (Revised),” Circular no. A-94. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
Paté-Cornell, M. Elisabeth. 1994. “Quantitative Safety Goals for Risk Management of Industrial Facilities.” Structural Safety 13: 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PCLOB. 2014. Report on the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Robinson, Lisa A. 2008. “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Homeland Security Regulatory Analysis: Final Report.” Washington, DC: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.Google Scholar
Robinson, Lisa A., Hammitt, James K., Aldy, Joseph E., Krupnick, Alan, and Baxter, Jennifer. 2010. “Valuing the Risk of Death from Terrorist Attacks.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 (1). DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Mike. 2012. “Rebuilding TSA into a Smarter, Leaner Organization,” majority staff report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Sandler, Todd, Arce, Daniel G., and Enders, Walter. 2009. “Transnational Terrorism.” In Global Crises, Global Solutions, 2nd edn, edited by Lomborg, Bjørn : 516–562. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneier, Bruce. 2003. Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly about Security in an Uncertain World. New York: Copernicus.Google Scholar
Schneier, Bruce. 2007. “Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot.” Schneier.com, June 14.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul, Fischhoff, Baruch, and Lichtenstein, Sarah. 1980. “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk.” In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?, edited by Schwing, Richard C. and Albers, Walter A. : 181–216. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Mark G. 2017. “Risk of Progressive Collapse of Buildings from Terrorist Attacks: Are the Benefits of Protection Worth the Cost?” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 31 (2). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Mark G., Ellingwood, Bruce R., and Mueller, John. 2011. “Homeland Security: A Case Study in Risk Aversion for Public Decision-Making.” International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 15 (5/6): 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Mark G., and Melchers, Robert E.. 1997. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Stewart, Mark G., and Mueller, John. 2013. “Terrorism Risks and Cost–Benefit Analysis of Aviation Security.” Risk Analysis 33 (5): 893–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, Mark G., and Mueller, John. 2018. Are We Safe Enough? Measuring and Assessing Aviation Security. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Stewart, Mark G., and Mueller, John. 2019. “Security Risk and Cost–Benefit Assessment of Secondary Flight Deck Barriers,” Briefing Note Report no. 285. Callaghan, NSW: Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2003. “Terrorism and Probability Neglect.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26 (2/3): 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2018. The Cost–Benefit Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrall, A. Trevor, and Cramer, Jane K., eds. 2009. American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation since 9/11. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Curtis C., Richter, Samantha A., Crouch, Edmund A. C., Wilson, Richard, and Klema, Ernest D.. 1987. “Cancer Risk Management: A Review of 132 Federal Regulatory Decisions.” Environmental Science and Technology 21 (5): 415–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.