Do remotely piloted aerial vehicles make terrorism more costly for terrorists

Аннотация

Purpose – The use of remotely piloted aerial vehicles (RPVs) as a counterterrorism strategy is intensely debated on grounds of legitimacy, political feasibility and human rights. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the link between RPVs’ strikes and terrorism through evidence-based analysis. Design/methodology/approach – Using insights from economic analysis of counterterrorism, the study hypothesized possible channels through which RPVs may increase costs for terrorism. A novel data set is gathered to empirically test the theory-consistent prediction of a negative link between RPVs’ strikes and terrorism in a multivariate econometric framework. Findings – Focusing on RPVs’ strikes in Pakistan over 2008 to 2013, the analysis yields important new insights. The principal finding suggests that RPVs reduce overall terrorism, while, without negating the negative spillover effects of RPVs use, there is no evidence of a positive feedback from civilian casualties to terrorism. These findings are not driven by extreme bservations and satisfy a number of conventional diagnostic checks. Practical implications – A well-constructed comparison and empirical evidence in this study implies that RPVs may yield net benefits in terms of greater security at regional and national levels. Social implications – Moreover, as a proactive counterterrorism measure, RPVs can be an effective policing tool in crowded urban areas facing the greater threat of terrorism. Originality/value – The study is the first to systematically analyze the link between RPV strikes and the magnitude of terrorism. The groundbreaking analysis thus extends the scope of economic inquiry to the role of RPVs as a counterterrorism strategy at national, regional and global levels. The findings of the study cast doubt on the validity of many popular notions about RPVs strikes, as they find little support in the empirical analysis.