Australian Financial Review, November 1, 2002
|
Date:
01/11/2002 |
|
Terrorism can sustain economic analysis that paves
the way for a mechanism to deal with its fundamental causes, argue Andrew
Leigh and Justin Wolfers. |
In the aftermath of
the Bali bombing, Australians have confronted the difficult question ``why do
they hate us so much"? while politicians have asked ``what can we do to
stop this happening again"? Yet these questions are two sides of the same coin:
to determine how to respond to October 12, we must first understand its causes.
While intellectuals
have often claimed that hatred defies comprehension, a recent study by Harvard
economist Edward Glaeser argues just the opposite. He contends that the market
for hate is open to economic analysis.
Hatred, Glaeser
argues, is supplied by political entrepreneurs to satisfy demand from citizens.
Extremist political figures sow hatred against minority groups as a means of
gaining political support. Why? Because redistributive policies help one group
but harm others, politics usually requires trade-offs. By fostering hate,
politicians can get credit for both those they help and those they hurt.
The supply of hate
can be directed not merely against minority groups, but also against powerful
outsiders. As Glaeser points out, there was very little anti-Americanism in the
Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s, but after the US-backed coup in Iran, and
subsequent support for the Shah, opposition politicians were able to exploit
anti-Americanism to undermine their more moderate opponents.
How can hatred be
tackled?
Economics tells us
that raising costs can lower demand. Glaeser notes that hatred usually involves
extreme characterisations of the hated and as such, repeated social
interactions can make the beliefs of haters both more costly and harder to
sustain.
Another effective
way of reducing hatred is by turning the very same emotional mechanisms against
the haters themselves. Glaeser terms this ``hating the haters". The images
of Gandhi's supporters being clubbed by British troops in India, or of Martin
Luther King's followers being attacked by hoses and police dogs, fuelled hatred
against the perpetrators of such violence.
When these
self-correcting forces are absent, hatred is likely to prosper. Australia is an
outsider in Indonesian politics and, as Glaeser's analysis predicted, hatred
has prospered.
Since it is likely
that some element of anti-Australianism was behind the attack in Bali, we believe
there are three lessons our policy makers can draw from Glaeser's research.
The first is that we
should raise the ``cost" of hating Australians by increasing the number of
interactions between ordinary Indonesians and ourselves. While it may be prudent
for some Australians to leave now, it is in our long-term interest to foster
closer social and cultural ties between our nations.
Second, by
eliminating arbitrary redistribution between groups and requiring equal
treatment, the rule of law reduces the scope for policies that profit from
hate. As the International Crisis Group pointed out in a report released two
days before the Bali bombing, rivalries between the Indonesian army and police
are rife. Australia should consider providing resources to help build the
troubled Indonesian police force, with the aim of re-establishing the rule of
law, and thereby reducing the scope for hateful policies.
The third lesson is
perhaps the most counter-intuitive. Because of the way in which hatred is
fostered, Australia should avoid being seen to publicly oppose fundamentalist
Islamists. Doing so only makes it more profitable for fundamentalists to
exploit anti-Australian sentiment, instead of seriously engaging the issues.
When we contacted
him recently, Glaeser argued that Australia faced the same challenge in
Indonesia as the US does in the Middle East: ``I think that the worst thing
that the US can do, from a hatred point of view, is to embrace the moderate
Iranians. As much as we in our hearts applaud what they are doing, by publicly
supporting them, we doom them," he said.
For Australia,
Glaeser's view was that this meant that we should be perceived as ``supporting
both sides". He suggested that Australia might want to ``publicly appeal
to radical Muslims and talk about how, while you condemn violence, you support
their rights".
Thinking about the
factors underpinning the supply and demand of hatred is a complex and
uncomfortable exercise. But we are living dangerously, and Australian policy
makers must understand the factors that produce hatred before they decide how
to respond.
Andrew Leigh
is a PhD student at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University. Justin Wolfers is an assistant professor of political economy at
Stanford Business School.