The Comparative African Economics of Governance in Fighting Terrorism

Abstract

Disclaimer: AFEA Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) that has been peer-reviewed and forthcoming in scientific outlets. There is a tacit acknowledgement of anonymous referees for constructive suggestions and critiques that have helped improve the content and rigour of the study. Each research stands on its merit and the views expressed in AFEA Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the AFEA, its Executive Board, or AFEA management. AbstractThis study assesses the comparative economics of governance in fighting terrorism in 53 African countries for period 1996-2012. Four terrorism variables are used, namely: domestic, transnational, unclear and total terrorism dynamics. Nine bundled and unbundled governance variables are employed, notably: political stability/no violence, voice & accountability, political governance, government effectiveness, regulation quality, economic governance, corruption-control, the rule of law and institutional governance. The empirical evidence is based on Fixed Effects regressions. In the analytical procedure, we first bundle governance indicators by means of principal component analysis before engaging the empirical exercise with the full sample. In the final step, specifications are based on a decomposed full sample in order to articulate the fundamental characteristics for comparative purposes. The following broad findings are established. First, good governance is an appealing tool in fighting terrorism. Second, the relevance of the good governance dynamics is as follows in order of increasing relevance: economic governance, institutional governance and political governance. The findings are presented in increasing order of magnitude to emphasise fundamental features in which governance dynamics have the highest effect in mitigating terrorism. JEL Classification: C52; D74; F42; O38 ; P37

Foreign Aid and Inclusive Development: Updated Evidence from Africa, 2005–2012*

“…This suggestion for a paradigm shift is consistent with a recent theory by Asongu and Jellal () on foreign aid policy that postulates that domestic and private investments (for economic growth and inclusive development) can be better achieved if foreign aid is channeled through mechanisms that reduce the burden of the taxation system on the private sector of recipient nations. The narrative of Kuada () for understanding trends in high unemployment, poverty, and exclusive growth in Africa is broadly consistent with a recent stream of African development literature that has responded to the MDG‐related poverty trends by suggesting mechanisms by which foreign aid could be tailored to achieve more employment, inclusive growth, and poverty alleviation (Jones and Tarp, ; Simpasa, Shimeles, and Salami, ; Jones et al., ; Asongu and Tchamyou, ; Page and Shimeles, ; Page and Söderbom, ).…”

Dynamic Determinants of Access to Weapons: Global Evidence

“…The motivation for articulating initial levels of the outcome indicator is that blanket policies on determinants of and persistence in access to weapons may be ineffective, unless they are contingent on existing levels of access to weapons and therefore tailored distinctly across countries with high and low levels in access to weapons. Consistent with contemporary development literature, the emphasis of fundamental features is critical to results with more robust policy implications (D'Amico, 2010;Narayan et al, 2011;Beegle et al, 2016;Mlachila et al, 2017;Asongu & le Roux, 2017;Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2017b;Asongu et al, , 2018aAsongu et al, , 2018bAsongu et al, , 2018c.…”

Dynamic Determinants of Access to Weapons: Global Evidence

“…The motivation for articulating initial levels of the outcome indicator is that blanket policies on determinants of and persistence in access to weapons may be ineffective, unless they are contingent on existing levels of access to weapons and therefore tailored distinctly across countries with high and low levels in access to weapons. Consistent with contemporary development literature, the emphasis of fundamental features is critical to results with more robust policy implications (D'Amico, 2010;Narayan et al, 2011;Beegle et al, 2016;Mlachila et al, 2017;Asongu & le Roux, 2017;Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2017b;Asongu et al, , 2018aAsongu et al, , 2018bAsongu et al, , 2018c.…”