Terrorism and Political Trust
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN Institute of Administration and organization theory Master thesis Terrorism and Political Trust A study of the relationship between terrorism and political trust in Europe in the time period 2002 to 2016, and a causal exploration of the relationship between the two phenomena Christer A. Flatøy Spring, 2019 Abstract This thesis explores the relationship between terrorism and political trust. This is done in two ways, by two sub-studies, in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the two phenomena. The first sub-study uses longitudinal multilevel regression to explore the historical empirical relationship between terrorism and political trust, in Europe for the time period 2002-2016, focusing specifically on the parliaments, the legal systems, the police, and the politicians. The second sub-study consists of a survey experiment specifically designed to explore the causal relationship between terrorism and political trust. Concretely, building on trust theories and rooted within an institutional framework, the paper suggests a theoretical framework that has a potential for explaining the causal relationship between terrorism and political trust. A central mechanism in this theoretical framework is individuals’ perception of institutions’ capacity to deal with terrorism. It is this mechanism, capacity perception, that is explored in the survey experiment. The results from the regressions shows that within-country variation over time has affected the political trust in Europe. The effect has, however, been somewhat limited. The effect has also varied between institutions, where the police have received increased trust, while the parliaments and politicians have had their trust reduced, and the legal systems seem unaffected. The results from the survey experiment shows that capacity perception is a causal mechanism in the relationship between terrorism and political trust, but that its’ influence and role varies depending on the institution at hand. Contents List of abbreviations………....……………….…………………………....……I List of figures……………….………………..………………………………....II List of tables…...…………....………………..………………………………..III Acknowledgements………………………….………………………………...IV 1 INTRODUCTION…………….………………………………………………….…...1 1.1 The paper…………………………………………………....…..………........1 1.2 Trouble in paradise?……………………………………………..………......4 1.3 The paper’s approach……………...….………………………..………......12 2 THEORY…………………………………………………………………………...15 2.1 Introduction…………………...………………………………..……...……15 2.2 Terrorism…………..........……………………………………..……...…….17 2.2.1 What is it?…………………………………………………..…17 2.2.2 Who, what and why?………………………………………..…18 2.3 Political trust……………....………………..…………………..…………...20 2.3.1 What is it?…………………………………………………..…20 2.3.2 The origins of trust, and how it is affected……….......…….....22 2.4 The relationship between terrorism and political trust…….......….……...25 2.5 Existing research…….…………………………...……………....………….30 2.5.1 Political trust and control variables……......……....………...30 2.5.2 Remarks on previous studies………...……...………………...31 2.5.3 Political trust and terrorism……….......…......….……………33 2.6 The hypotheses………….………............………...………………………….36 2.7 Summary……….………...…………...……………………………………...41 3 DATA……………………………………………………………………………….42 3.1 Introduction………………………...………………………………………..42 3.2 Data sources………………………...……………………………………..…42 3.2.1 The MLR………..………...………………………………...…42 3.2.2 The survey experiment…...……..……………………………..43 3.3 Data scope and representativity…..……………………………………..…43 3.3.1 The MLR……………......…...……………………………...…43 3.3.2 The survey experiment…...…..…………………………..……46 3.4 Variables………………………..……………………………………………47 3.4.1 The MLR………………………………………………………47 3.4.2 The survey experiment……………………………………...…51 3.5 Data treatment………….......…..………………………………………...…53 3.5.1 The MLR…………………………………………………....…53 3.5.2 The survey experiment……………………………………..….55 3.6 Reliability…………………....…....………………………………...……….56 3.6.1 The MLR………………………………………………………56 3.6.2 The survey experiment…………………………………...……58 3.7 Validity………………………….……………………………………...……58 3.7.1 The MLR……...…………….…………………………………59 3.7.2 The survey experiment…….…………………………..………60 3.8 Equivalence……....…………….……………………………………………62 3.9 Summary……………………….……………………………………………63 4 METHODS…………………………………………………………………………64 4.1 Introduction…………………….………………………………………...…64 4.2 How to explore the hypotheses….……………………………………….…64 4.3 Regression………………….…………………………………………..……67 4.4 The models………………….…...……………………………………..……71 4.5 Assumptions of regression…....……………………………………….……73 4.6 Survey experiment………......………....………………...……………….…77 4.7 ANOVA……….……………………...…………………………………...…78 4.8 Summary…….………...……………………………………………….……80 5 RESULTS…………..………………………………………………………………81 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………81 5.2 Variation in political trust…………………………………………….……81 5.3 Empty models………………………………………………………….……84 5.4 The MLR……………………………………………………………….……86 5.5 The survey experiment....……………...…………………………………...92 5.6 ANOVA………………...……………………………………………………93 5.6.1 Treatment………….………..…………………………………93 5.6.2 The Parliament…….………...…………………………...……96 5.6.3 The Government…….……...…………………………….……98 5.6.4 The police…………...………………………………….…….100 5.7 Summary…………...………………………………………………………102 6 ANALYSES……………….………………………………………………………103 6.1 Introduction…..……………………………………………………………103 6.2 Hypothesis 1………..………………………………………………………103 6.3 Hypothesis 2………..………………………………………………………104 6.4 Hypothesis 3………..………………………………………………………106 6.5 Hypothesis 4………..………………………………………………………108 6.6 Hypothesis 5………..………………………………………………………109 6.7 Theoretical framework.………………………………………………...…110 6.8 Summary…………………….………………………………………..……113 7 CONCLUSION……...……………………………………………………………114 References……….………….………………………………………………………..121 Appendix..……………………………………………………………………………130 List of abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of Variance AOR Area of Residence BIC Bayesian Information Criterion DGP Data Generation Procedure ESS European Social Survey GDP/C Gross Domestic Product per Capita GTD Global Terrorism Database GTI Global Terrorism Index HDI Human Development Index ICC Intraclass Correlation IEP Institute for Economics and Peace IRA Irish Republican Army ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ISO International Organization for Standardization MC Methodological Collectivism MENA Middle East and North-Africa MI Methodological Individualism MLR Multilevel regression MS Mean sum of Squares NCP Norwegian Citizen Panel NORCE Norwegian Research Centre QOG Quality of Government QQ plot Quantile-Quantile plot SCT Social Contract Theory SD Standard Deviation SS Sum of Squares UK United Kingdom UN United Nations U.S. United States VIF Variance Inflation Factor I List of figures 1.1 Illustration of the paper’s overall research design………………..…….….3 1.2 Overall political trust in Europe, 2002-2016…………………………....…6 1.3 Quantitative analysis of Norwegian media’s usage of the terms ‘populism’, ‘polarization’ and ‘politician contempt……8 1.4 Distribution of all terror incidents worldwide, 1996-2017, by region .....…9 1.5 Combined score on the Global Terrorism Index, 2002-2016.….…...……10 2.1 The paper’s theoretical framework summarized and illustrated….......…..26 4.1 The data’ structure in the MLR ………………………....………………..69 5.1 Variation in political trust, 2002-2016, by country…...….….……………83 5.2 Graphic display of the survey experiment results, for each of the dependent variables……………..93 II List of tables 3.1 Units included in the MLR………………………….……………………44 3.2 Variables in the MLR…………………………………………………….47 3.3 Statistical evaluations of indexes………………………….……………..58 4.1 Regression models and their purposes………………………………..72-73 4.2 The survey experiment’s design…………………………………….……78 5.1 The result from the empty two-level and three-level models……...……..85 5.2 The MLR result……………………………………………………….87-88 5.3 Descriptive statistics of the groups’ average capacity perception…….…93 5.4 The result from the ANOVA of the participants’ capacity perception......94 5.5 The result from the Benferroni-analysis of the participants’ capacity perception….95 5.6 Descriptive statistics of the groups’ average response to trust Parliament………96 5.7 The result from the ANOVA of how much participants trust Parliament………97 5.8 The result from the Benferroni-analysis of participants’ trust in Parliament………97 5.9 Descriptive statistics of the groups’ average response to trust Government…….98 5.10 The result from the ANOVA of how much participants trust Government………99 5.11 The result from the Benferroni-analysis of participants’ trust in Government……...99 5.12 Descriptive statistics of the groups’ average response to trust police…...100 5.13 The result from the ANOVA of how much participants trust police……100 5.14 The result from the Benferroni-analysis of participants’ trust in police...101 III Acknowledgements This thesis is a result of several months of labour, influenced by several persons. First and foremost, a thank is owed to my mentor Jacob Aars, who have contributed with important and detailed pieces of advice during the year that this process has lasted. Second, a thank is owed to Dag Arne Christensen, who has functioned as a co-mentor. His input regarding technical and methodological matters have been priceless. Third, Sveinung Arnesen has guided the experiment design process, providing valuable insights. Thank you. In connection with the survey experiment, a great thank is owed to the employees at DIGSSCORE. First of all, for including me in a highly competent environment, marked by interesting discussions and skilled research. I have also been so