Abstract
BackgroundSuppressing damaging aggregate behaviors such as insurgency, terrorism, and financial panics are important tasks of the state. Each outcome of these aggregate behaviors is an emergent property of a system in which each individual's action depends on a subset of others' actions, given by each individual's network of interactions. Yet there are few explicit comparisons of strategies for suppression, and none that fully incorporate the interdependence of individual behavior.Methods and FindingsHere I show that suppression tactics that do not require the removal of individuals from networks of interactions are nearly always more effective than those that do. I find using simulation analysis of a general model of interdependent behavior that the degree to which such less disruptive suppression tactics are superior to more disruptive ones increases in the propensity of individuals to engage in the behavior in question.ConclusionsThus, hearts-and-minds approaches are generally more effective than force in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, and partial insurance is usually a better tactic than gag rules in quelling financial panics. Differences between suppression tactics are greater when individual incentives to support terrorist or insurgent groups, or susceptibilities to financial panic, are higher. These conclusions have utility for policy-makers seeking to end bloody conflicts and prevent financial panics. As the model also applies to mass protest, its conclusions provide insight as well into the likely effects of different suppression strategies undertaken by authoritarian regimes seeking to hold on to power in the face of mass movements seeking to end them.
Highlights
IntroductionStates or other actors desiring to suppress damaging aggregate behaviors including insurgency, terrorism, and financial panics have a vital interest in the relative efficacy of different tactics of suppression
As the model applies to mass protest, its conclusions provide insight as well into the likely effects of different suppression strategies undertaken by authoritarian regimes seeking to hold on to power in the face of mass movements seeking to end them
States or other actors desiring to suppress damaging aggregate behaviors including insurgency, terrorism, and financial panics have a vital interest in the relative efficacy of different tactics of suppression
Summary
States or other actors desiring to suppress damaging aggregate behaviors including insurgency, terrorism, and financial panics have a vital interest in the relative efficacy of different tactics of suppression. These same actors may seek to understand the spread and likelihood of success of mass movements aimed at toppling authoritarian regimes. Suppressing damaging aggregate behaviors such as insurgency, terrorism, and financial panics are important tasks of the state Each outcome of these aggregate behaviors is an emergent property of a system in which each individual’s action depends on a subset of others’ actions, given by each individual’s network of interactions. There are few explicit comparisons of strategies for suppression, and none that fully incorporate the interdependence of individual behavior
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
