Results Table 2 reports the results of our base models. Models 1-4 use the GTD outcome measure; models 5-8 use ITERATE. Models 1 and 5 include our measures of and models 2 and 6 substitute the bureaucratic/administrative capacity military capacity, log score as a measure of military capacity. Models 3-4 and 7-8 substitute our alternate CINC measure of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, Political Reach (RPR). ---------------- 2 HERE Table 2 provides strong support for H2. Countries with higher bureaucratic/administrative capacity experience fewer terror attacks. The coefficients on both measures of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, and are negative and B/A capacity Political Reach, significant across all eight specifications, though is only significant at the p < Political Reach 0.10 level in models 3 and 7. Our findings provide less consistent support for H1: countries with more conventional military capacity experience more terror attacks. The coefficients on are military capacity positive and statistically significant under all four specifications, though they are only significant at the p < 0.10 level in the models including The coefficients on Political Reach. log CINC, however, are negative and statistically significant in models 4 and 8. Thus, the two measures of military capacity do not demonstrate a consistent relationship with terrorist attacks. We point out that on theoretical grounds, our measure is superior to as a measure military capacity log CINC of actual repressive capacity, which we argue influences decisions about the use of terrorism as a
Results Table 2 reports the results of our base models. Models 1-4 use the GTD outcome measure; models 5-8 use ITERATE. Models 1 and 5 include our measures of bureaucratic/administrative capacity and military capacity, models 2 and 6 substitute the log CINC score as a measure of military capacity. Models 3-4 and 7-8 substitute our alternate measure of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, Political Reach (RPR). ---------------- 2 HERE Table 2 provides strong support for H2. Countries with higher bureaucratic/administrative capacity experience fewer terror attacks. The coefficients on both measures of bureaucratic/administrative capacity, B/A capacity and Political Reach, are negative and significant across all eight specifications, though Political Reach is only significant at the p < 0.10 level in models 3 and 7. Our findings provide less consistent support for H1: countries with more conventional military capacity experience more terror attacks. The coefficients on military capacity are positive and statistically significant under all four specifications, though they are only significant at the p < 0.10 level in the models including Political Reach. The coefficients on log CINC, however, are negative and statistically significant in models 4 and 8. Thus, the two measures of military capacity do not demonstrate a consistent relationship with terrorist attacks. We point out that on theoretical grounds, our military capacity measure is superior to log CINC as a measure of actual repressive capacity, which we argue influences decisions about the use of terrorism as a
cap_terror_hy12.docx