I found this great article in the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper. You can find the article here.
This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.
The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.
The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.
In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The article reminded me of the Schneider chapter that we read for class last Friday. What interesting insight into the cost/benefit of counterterrorism! If those numbers are accurate, then I definitely agree that we should seek for cheaper ways of combating terrorism that are likely to lead to greater marginal security.
Reading Scheier's piece definitely opened my eyes to the apparent useless spending of the US on counterterrorism measures. The US definitely needs assess the reality of the terrorist threat and re-think it's spending on counterterrorism. I do think terrorism is a real threat, but perhaps not to the degree that the government believes.
Post a Comment