Counter-Terrorism as a Public Policy

Remy Maduit | Authors published

Counter-Terrorism as a Public Policy
Theoretical Insights and Broader Reflections on the State
of Counter-Terrorism Research

Thomas Renard is a Senior Research Fellow at the Egmont Institute and an Adjunct Professor at the Brussels School of Governance, Belgium.

Over the past 20 years, following the 9/11 attacks in the USA, massive efforts and resources have been invested in counter-terrorism policy worldwide. Counter-terrorism has become the dominant security priority in many countries, as well as one of the main structuring forces in international relations. “Counter-terrorism” has expanded significantly over the past two decades to include both upstream and downstream policies, aimed at preventing so-called radicalization at home on the one hand, and external operations (military or civilian) under the CT label. This evolution has attracted considerable attention, as well as triggered passionate discussions about core dilemmas, such as the one regarding the proper balance between security and liberty. However, conceptual work on counter-terrorism remains quite limited, which has been hindering our ability to understand and explain key dynamics in this major policy field. This article starts with the observation that there are few theoretical counter-terrorism studies, in contrast with the thriving field of terrorism theories. Then it borrows key concepts from public policy theory literature to show how they could be used for the study of counter-terrorism policymaking.

The Absence of Counter-Terrorism Studies

Research on terrorism, and terrorism studies, is often traced back to the 1970s. [i] The interest in terrorism as a subject of research emerged foremost among political scientists in the United States and Western Europe, following a series of spectacular terrorist events. In the following decades, and particularly after 2001, this field of research continued expanding. More scholars became interested in this topic, coming from more disciplines, including (but not limited to) psychology, criminology, sociology, and law. The quantity of research increased significantly over the years, although innovative, data-driven research has increased most significantly only in recent years. [ii] Terrorism studies have been characterized by several disagreements or controversies, not least on the very nature of the problem of study (whether the primary focus should be terrorism, extremism, or radicalization—and how to define these). Many scholars working on terrorism-related issues would not identify with terrorism studies. However, the existence of university departments, programs, or certificates on terrorism, as well as specialized journals, [iii] book series, and even a research association (the Society for Terrorism Research) provide a certain consistency to the field.

In contrast, there is no such thing as counter-terrorism studies. A significant amount of research has been conducted on various aspects related to the responses to terrorism. There have, for instance, been many studies conducted on specific counter-terrorism operations or campaigns, as well as on specific aspects of counter-terrorism such as targeted killings, the use of drones, or on counter-terrorism ethics more broadly. Some other disciplines or studies are also particularly relevant, such as intelligence or policing studies. There is, however, relatively little research conducted on counter-terrorism policy seeking to conceptualize what counter-terrorism is, determine its developing contours, and to better understand the making of counter-terrorism policy and the drivers behind its agents. [iv] While one problem of terrorism studies is the abundance of conceptualizations and theories, the problem of counter-terrorism studies—if there is such a field—is the absence thereof. Definitional or conceptual work on counter-terrorism has been “virtually inexistent”, according to some observers. [v] Many researchers seem to assume that the term is self-explanatory, or perhaps simply consider counter-terrorism as a practice, or as a subdiscipline at most—one that requires no theoretical effort. For instance, Lindekilde speaks of “terrorism studies” but only of “counterterrorism policymaking”. [vi] As a result, counter-terrorism remains significantly under-theorized, with damaging consequences for rigorous research and evidence-based policies. [vii] Whereas research on terrorism has seen a spike in empirical and evidence-based research recently, we still need a similar jump forward in the study of counter-terrorism.

The field of counter-terrorism research is also arguably less structured, with fewer recognizable dedicated journals, [viii] book series, or research associations. This is also a field that is comparatively more populated with practitioners, hence sometimes blurring the lines between academia and policy, which is further reinforced by prominent networks that bring together researchers and practitioners, such as the EU-funded Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) or the European Expert Network on Terrorism Issues (EENeT). They have even argued that many terrorism researchers perceive themselves as counter-terrorism agents, not least because of government funding, which is partly setting the stage for the research agenda. [ix]

I do not want to suggest that interactions between academia and practitioners are a negative thing. I am a fervent advocate of building bridges between these distinct communities. However, I believe that counter-terrorism could benefit from more attention as a subject of research in its own right, and become more consistently structured as a field. After all, today’s counter-terrorism in Western democracies is much more wide-ranging than in the past, covering a broader range of actors and policies beyond those driving the traditional security community. It is also much more resource-consuming, with ever-expanding human and financial resources dedicated to the fight against terrorism, both at home and abroad. And overall, it is increasingly encroaching on privacy and civil liberties, for instance through the normalization of emergency laws and measures, leading to what some have called “the counter-terrorist state”. [x] This evolution of counter-terrorism has generated a lot of critical comments and analyses, and rightly so. Indeed, it is a trend that calls for greater scrutiny, as the stakes are simply too high, both in terms of security and liberty, not to pay attention. However, there has been remarkably little research seeking to conceptualize this evolution, let alone explain it.

The near-absence of conceptual or theoretical approaches to counter-terrorism in the academic literature becomes apparent when trying to answer some relatively basic questions: What is counter-terrorism today? What binds a policy that ranges from the deployment of soldiers in Africa and the Middle East to fight terrorist groups, all the way to socioeconomic and psychosocial measures to prevent the so-called “radicalization” of vulnerable individuals domestically, conducted notably by social workers or teachers? How can we explain the expansion of counter-terrorism policies in Western democracies over the past two decades, although terrorism has been a recurring challenge for more than half a century? What factors can explain, for instance, how France has developed from a firm resistance to the “global war on terror” narrative in the 2000s, to declaring that “France is at war” in 2015? (Of course, France suffered dramatic attacks in 2015, but they had struck before it without declaring war, and other European countries have equally experienced attacks without responding in a warlike manner). What factors can explain that counter-terrorism responses have developed differently across Europe and in the USA, despite a shared perception of the seriousness of the terrorist threat? Why is it that counter-terrorism strategies and policies look so different from one country to another, with some countries involved militarily abroad and others not, or some governments preferring an intelligence-led approach to counter-terrorism whereas others favor a judiciary- or law enforcement–led approach?

There is ample room to improve our understanding of counter-terrorism, empirically and conceptually, but also through developing innovative theoretical insights. In this article, I posit that counter-terrorism policy can be studied as any other public policy. I propose, therefore, to make use of the literature on public policy theory, which arguably has much to offer for the study of counter-terrorism policymaking, notably for understanding its evolution since 2001.

Public Policy Theory

The literature on public policy is extensively theorized, as opposed to the literature on counter-terrorism, offering an interesting vantage point to analyze counter-terrorism policymaking. While there is no single consensus definition of “public policy”, we understand it to include the actions and measures adopted by a government, and often also the processes or intentions that led to adopting these. [xi] Public policy theory helps us understand why policies change (or not), and how.

To explain the change, it is first important to understand some of the most fundamental concepts of public policy theory. To begin with, they widely accepted that policymakers do not operate in “comprehensive rationality”, which would assume that they have full knowledge of all problems and potential solutions, and can therefore decide rationally between all policy options. “bounded rationality”, which limits their ability to gather and process policy-relevant information, constrains them. Policymakers “face incomplete knowledge of the policy environment and the likely consequences of their solutions.” [xii] In this sense, most policies are designed on a “good enough” knowledge basis, rather than being based on the most efficient response, as recommended notably by the advocates of “evidence-based policymaking”. This is an important point since much research on counter-terrorism wrongly assumes the strategic rationality of governments and CT policymakers. Rather, counter-terrorism policy should instead be recognized as resulting from “political negotiation and organizational practice,” [xiii] and “a reflection of the domestic political process.” [xiv]

Factors Shaping Public Policy A key aspect of public policy theory is that policy choices result from a “complex policy-making environment”, in which several factors influence public policies. [xv] The literature on policy change distinguishes between exogenous factors, which are outside the realm of public policy actors (such as “events”), and endogenous factors, which consistently influence the information available to policymakers and their preferences. [xvi] Public policy theories, particularly neo-institutionalist ones, have emphasized the weight of three main endogenous variables in the making of public policies: ideas, interests, and institutions. [xvii] Ideas refer to the “cognitive and normative” aspects behind public policies, the values, norms, beliefs, or paradigms that underpin or shape policies. Interests refer to the rationality of the policymakers, who act based on cost-benefit analyses, preferences, strategies, and power relations. Institutions (not to be confused with organizations) refer to the importance of formal and informal rules, routines, cultures, resources, or constraints that shape the behavior and relationships of policymakers. The advantage of looking at the “3 Is” (ideas-interests-institutions) is that this highlights the plurality of causes in the process of public policymaking. The downside is that most theories have isolated one of these dimensions at the expense of the others, failing to recognize that these need to be identified and combined simultaneously. [xviii]

We base several theories in the public policy literature on the (over-)emphasis on one of these three dimensions. This is notably the case with the “path dependence” theory, which posits that previous policy choices and institutional design strongly influenced policy options. [xix] Rules and patterns that result from previous decisions constrain the preferences of actors, in a form of “historical contingency”, which implies that it is more costly to fundamentally revamp a policy than to simply adjust it. [xx] Path dependency explains a certain consistency and continuity in public policies over time, despite political changes. Foley relies notably on this theory to explain how “routines and institutions formed in previous times continue to shape France and the UK’s responses to the current threat posed by Islamist terrorism.” [xxi] National CT policies will always partly reflect, for good or bad, pre-existing approaches and lessons from dealing with terrorism (and other security issues).

Regarding the weight of “interests”, Crenshaw offered an interesting analysis of the politics of counter-terrorism, explaining how “multiple actors, inside or outside government, will compete to set the agenda and to determine policy through public debate.… Each actor, whether an executive branch agency, Congress or an interest group, wants to forge a national consensus behind its particular preference.” [xxii] Crenshaw’s article is one of the rare exceptions in counter-terrorism research using a public policy approach, although not referring explicitly to public policy theory or specific authors from this school of policy analysis.

Other theories have focused more on the “idea” dimension. While some theories contend ideas are “power” and can impose themselves naturally, most theories rather explain how ideas are diffused through various mechanisms. [xxiii] Some of these theories highlight notably how certain policies can be “transferred” from one policy area to another, or from one institutional setting to another. [xxiv] Some authors have also distinguished between the processes that lead “actors to select a different view of how things happen (‘learning that’) and what courses of action should be taken (‘learning how’).” [xxv] Learning can be influenced by “early adopters” who first implemented the policy and therefore engaged in a kind of experiment, which implies certain risks because of the experimental nature and the uncertainty of effects, including the possibility of producing unexpected and unwanted effects. [xxvi] The role of policy “innovators”, actors who take the lead in policy change, and persuade others to follow suit, has been highlighted by some scholars,[xxvii] and so has that of “policy entrepreneurs”. [xxviii] A variety of factors and actors can facilitate policy learning or transfer, such as “epistemic communities”, which is a group of “like-minded professionals” sharing a common knowledge base and driven by a similar mission. [xxix] Other mechanisms for policy diffusion are, among others, policy networks and international organizations, which can be both “vehicles” for policy transfer and the “locus” where new policies are shaped. [xxx] Policy transfer may be voluntary, as policy learning, or it can be imposed in a top-down manner. [xxxi] Either of these can occur at the national level or from country to country.

For instance, policies focused on the “prevention” of radicalization first emerged in certain countries (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) which “pioneered” early social policy interventions. [xxxii] They were inspired notably by what had been developed in the public health sector, but they were also influenced by the increasingly dominant discourse on “radicalization” among experts, which created the political space for such programs.

These innovative policies then diffused elsewhere in Europe and beyond, notably via the mechanisms of the European Union (for instance through the 2005 EU Action Plan against terrorism), but also through networks of professionals such as the EU-funded Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), which gathers thousands of CT and P/CVE practitioners from across the EU to discuss local and national experiences and good practices.

Figure 1: Factors Shaping Counter-Terrorism Policymaking

                                                   Interests

            Ideas                Policy Choice   Institutions

    Events

Change in Public Policy

Another relevant key aspect of public policy theory is that there are different changes that can occur at different frequencies. In the words of Hall, there are three “orders” of policy change. [xxxiii] First-order policy changes are incremental, characterized by a simple change of policy instruments (e.g., reinforcing certain existing measures), but with no change in the existing policy approach or in the overall policy goals. In a second-order policy change, while the overall policy goals remain unchanged, the policy instruments are being changed, and new instruments are being created. In a third-order policy change, there is a real “paradigm shift” in the existing approach, resulting from a different understanding of the problem and different policy objectives. Although the boundaries between these various orders of change can be relatively blurred and subjective, third-order change is considered to be more radical, as it “requires a major departure from how policymakers would normally think and act.” [xxxiv]

Most of the time, policy changes are incremental and of a first- or second-order, which is considered “normal policymaking”, with adjustments being made within the existing dominant paradigm. The “punctuated equilibrium theory” describes continuity in public policies as the result of an equilibrium resulting from a widely accepted framing of a policy problem among dominant policy-making forces, and from a lack of competing interests or ideas to disturb the equilibrium. [xxxv] Policymakers constrained by their “bounded rationality” have few incentives or cannot challenge the existing policy since it is based on a clear “great deal of agreement on the nature and solutions to policy problems,” at least among the dominant policy-making groups. [xxxvi] When change occurs, it is often in a path-dependent manner or, according to Thelen, as “institutional layering” (new rules are added to old ones) or “institutional conversion” (existing institutions develop more drastically to perform new functions, different from those for which they were created). [xxxvii]

More fundamental policy evolutions can occur notably because of a “focusing event” or a successful attempt by an interest group to draw attention to “their” particular issue. Such events are not deterministic (it is not the event itself that triggers change), but they create an opportunity to put a new issue on the public agenda (agenda setting) or to frame a policy issue differently and suggest an alternative, non-traditional solutions. They offer an opportunity for new “ideas” to emerge or new “interests” to prevail. These moments of shifting equilibrium are defined as “critical junctures” or “windows of opportunity”. [xxxviii] As highlighted by multiple streams analyses, not every “focusing event” leads to policy change, as it depends on how different streams (policy problem, proposed solutions, political attention, institutional constraints) come together at critical times. [xxxix] However, under certain conditions, these “focusing events” can lead to a “paradigm shift” (or “third-order change”), by triggering a new understanding of policy problems calling for new policy instruments. Crises, some argue, often reveal the inadequacy of the policies that are in place, stressing the need for upgrading if not transforming existing approaches. However, new conflicts are also likely to emerge because of new ideas and new actors becoming involved in the policy changes. [xl] Thus, for instance, Hall explained how the economic crisis in the early 1970s opened a window of opportunity for new policy conceptions (monetarist economics), calling for new policy instruments. [xli]

Crenshaw notes that “with terrorism, focusing events frequently come in clusters so that it is often difficult to trace a specific policy response to a single event.” [xlii] This certainly echoes the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in Europe over the past two decades, which were shaped by a series of events (significant plots, attacks, mobilization of foreign fighters, etc.). In Europe and worldwide. Argomaniz argued terrorist attacks are the “most significant” factor explaining policy change in counter-terrorism at the EU level, “producing critical moments that have resulted in institutional innovation.” [xliii] Before him, Crelinsten argued that the 9/11 attacks changed the counter-terrorism paradigm in the US, from a “criminal justice model” to a “war model”. [xliv] The terrorist attacks in Madrid (2004), Amsterdam (2004), and London (2005) has also led to the emergence of a new concept and discourse (or “idea”) on [xlv] “radicalization”, which eventually opened the way to the broadening of the counter-terrorism agenda to include P/CVE practices. This evolution can be considered a “paradigm shift” in the sense that the understanding of the problem was displaced (from an external threat to a threat from within), that the solutions envisaged were different (so-called “prevent” agenda), and a new terminology emerged (“radicalization”, “P/CVE”) that created a new community of ideas and interests. Bigo goes even further and talks of the “semi-autonomization” of the community of radicalization practitioners after 2005, and even more clearly since 2015, which distinguishes itself from, and to some extent competes with, the traditional CT community. [xlvi]

Of course, not every crisis leads to policy change, and similar crises can lead to different responses in different countries. This is because exogenous factors interact with endogenous ones. Indeed, an important finding from the public policy literature is that “significant institutional differences are likely to develop in each country because a different set of initial conditions produces a different set of actions and events which have a cumulative effect and set institutional development on a different path.” [xlvii] Thus, for instance, the 9/11 shock and successive terrorist attacks in Europe led to different counter-terrorism responses in the UK and France. [xlviii] Similarly, in Europe, several EU counter-terrorism instruments were poorly or belatedly introduced by many member states, possibly because of different threat perceptions but more likely because of different political needs and administrative capacities. [xlix] To put it more simply, if it were just for the terrorist threat, many countries in Europe (at least those who share a similar threat level) would share a similar counter-terrorism policy, which is far from the case.

An additional lesson from the “punctuated equilibrium theory” is that policymakers are often not fully receptive to the “signals” they receive. For prolonged periods, policymakers may be unwilling or unable to adjust policies. Then, at a critical juncture, some of them become “hypersensitive”, which creates a sense of catch-up necessity. This can lead to a sudden “overreaction”. According to Maor, public policy oscillates permanently between under-reaction and overreaction. [l] Policy under-reaction is defined as a systematically slow or insufficient response to an increased risk (or opportunity), while overreaction is defined as a policy that imposes objectives and/or perceived social costs without producing offsetting objectives and/or perceived benefits. [li] In counter-terrorism, criticisms of overreaction are quite common in times of high threat levels, stressing the high costs of counter-terrorism, and financial or declining human rights and liberties. [lii] Criticisms of governmental under-reaction are equally common from political opposition figures or from media experts (“more should have been done…”). This is true during the waxing and waning phases of specific terrorist threats, and notably in periods of what the former EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove called “CT fatigue”. Paul Wilkinson has described counter-terrorism policy in liberal democracies as part of an “inescapable dilemma” between overreaction and under-reaction, as a “tightrope… pitched at a different height and angle in each case.” [liii]

Figure 2: Change in Counter-Terrorism Policymaking

Ideas

Focussing event(s)                  Institutions      [path dependency]      Public policy (after

                                                                                                            paradigm shift)

                                                Interests

                                    Window of opportunity

                                        for paradigm shift

Although overreaction and under-reaction may result from different factors influencing policymaking, such as the “3 Is” mentioned above, they can also result from strategic calculations. [liv] Indeed, public policy scholars have highlighted the logic of over-investing in certain instruments for their “symbolic or ideological value”, and for addressing a problem “politically rather than substantively”, [lv] which has been referred to as “good politics, bad policy” by some scholars. [lvi] This links to the notion of “performativity” developed by Dutch scholar Beatrice de Graaf. In a study from 2011, she claimed that counter-terrorism policies and the corresponding official discourse are as important as the actual effect of these measures, as they communicate power. [lvii] Some counter-terrorism policies can be adopted for their symbolic value or the message they communicate, more than for their expected effectiveness (which often remains difficult to measure). 

Conclusion

The literature on public policy theory offers several useful insights and concepts to study counter-terrorism policymaking if one accepts the notion that counter-terrorism can be investigated, like any ordinary public policy issue. Based on the public policy literature, it becomes possible to explain the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in different national contexts, as well as study it comparatively.

This article offered a brief reflection on the field of counter-terrorism research. In the mind of its author, there is an obvious need for more research on counter-terrorism, although the added value of creating specific counter-terrorism studies, distinct from existing terrorism studies, can be disputed. Such research should be more empirical, data-driven, and evidence-based. Above all, robust conceptual and theoretical frameworks should underpin it. This article is an invitation to create more synergies within the (counter-) terrorism research community, intending to identify new research questions, methods, and projects on counter-terrorism.

---

[i] Stampnitzky, L. (2013), Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented ‘Terrorism’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[ii] Schuurman, B. (2020), ‘Research on Terrorism, 2007–2016: A Review of Data, Methods, and Authorship’, Terrorism and Political Violence 32:5, pp. 1011–1026.

[iii] The most prominent journals associated with terrorism studies include Terrorism and Political Violence; Studies in Conflict and Terrorism; Perspectives on Terrorism; Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression; Critical Studies on Terrorism; Journal of Deradicalization; and CTC Sentinel.

[iv] Some notable exceptions include: Wilkinson, P. (2006), Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, Oxon: Routledge (2nd edition); Crelinsten, R. (2009), Counterterrorism, Cambridge: Polity; Crenshaw, M., and G. LaFree (2017), Countering Terrorism, Washington DC: Brookings.

[v] Lewis, O. (2017), ‘Conceptualizing state counterterrorism’; in: S.N. Romaniuk et al. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Counterterrorism Policy. London: Palgrave, p. 5.

[vi] Lindekilde, L. (2016), ‘Radicalization, de-radicalization and counter-radicalization; in R. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies, Oxon: Routledge, p. 529.

[vii] Lewis, op. cit.

[viii] One exception is the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism.

[ix] Schuurman, B. (2019), ‘Topics in terrorism research: reviewing trends and gaps, 2007–2016,’ Critical Studies on Terrorism 12:3, pp. 463–480; Silke, A. (2019), ‘The Study of Terrorism and Counterterrorism’; in: A. Silke (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, London: Routledge.

[x] Blackbourn, J., F. De Londras, and L. Morgan (2020), Accountability and review in the counter-terrorist state. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

[xi] Cairney, P. (2020) Understanding public policy: theories and issues, London: Red Globe Press, Second edition, pp. 17–19.

[xii] Cairney, op. cit., p. 58.

[xiii] Munroe, H. D. (2009), ‘The October crisis revisited: Counterterrorism as strategic choice, political result, and organizational practice’, Terrorism and Political Violence 21:2, p. 289.

[xiv] Crenshaw, M. (2001), ‘Counterterrorism policy and the political process’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24:5, p. 329.

[xv] Cairney, op. cit., p. 35

[xvi] Hall, P. (1986), Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in Britain and France, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Stone Sweet, A., W. Sandholtz and N. Fligstein (2001), ‘The institutionalization of European space’; in A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz and N. Fligstein (eds.), The Institutionalization of Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[xvii] Hall 1986, op. cit.; Heclo, H. (1994), ‘Ideas, interests and institutions’; in: L. Dodd and C. Jillson (eds.), The dynamics of Amercian politics. Approaches and interpretations, Boulder: Westview Press; Palier, B. and Y. Surel (2005), ‘Les “trois I” et l’analyse de l’état en action’, Revue Française de Science Politique 55:1, pp. 7–32.

[xviii] Palier and Surel, op. cit.

[xix] Pierson, P. (2000) ‘Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review 94:2, pp. 251–267.

[xx] Cairney, op. cit., p. 82.

[xxi] Foley, F. (2009) ‘Reforming counterterrorism: Institutions and organizational routine in Britain and France’, Security Studies 18:3, p. 438.

[xxii] Crenshaw, op. cit.

[xxiii] Cairney, op. cit., p. 189.

[xxiv] Marsh, D. and J. C. Sharman (2009) ‘Policy diffusion and policy transfer’, Policy Studies 30:3, pp. 269–88; Dolowitz, D. P. and D. Marsh (2000) ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making’, Governance 13:1, pp. 5–23.

[xxv] Zito, A. R. and A. Schout (2009), ‘Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theories and learning’, Journal of European Public Policy 16:8, p. 1104.

[xxvi] Shipan, C. R. and C. Volden (2008), ‘The mechanisms of policy diffusion’, American Journal of Political Science 52:4, pp. 840–57; Paz, B. and G. Fontaine (2018), ‘A causal mechanism of policy innovation: The reform of Colombia’s oil-rents management system’, Revista de Estudios Sociales 63, p. 3.

[xxvii] Stone Sweet et al., op. cit.

[xxviii] Cairney, op. cit., p. 216.

[xxix] Dunlop, C. A. (2013) ‘Epistemic communities’; in: M. Howlett, S. Fritzen, W. Xun, and E. Araral (eds.), Routledge Handbook on public policy. New York: Routledge.

[xxx] Stone, D., O. Porto de Oliveira, and L. A. Pal (2020), ‘Transnational policy transfer: The circulation of ideas, power and development models’, Policy and Society 39:1, pp. 1–18; Moyson, S. and P. Scholten (2018), ‘Theories on policy learning: Existing approaches and future challenges’; in: N. F. Dotti (ed.), Knowledge, policymaking and learning for European cities and regions. From research to practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

[xxxi] Cairney, op. cit., p. 218.

[xxxii] Eijkman, Q. and B. Schuurman (2011) ‘Preventive counter-terrorism and non-discrimination in the European Union: a call for systematic evaluation’. The Hague: ICCT.

[xxxiii] Hall, P. A. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25:3, pp. 275–96.

[xxxiv] Cairney, op. cit., p. 194.

[xxxv] Cairney, op. cit., pp. 147–150.

[xxxvi] Cairney, op. cit., p. 151.

[xxxvii] Thelen, K. (2003), ‘Comment les institutions évoluent: perspectives de l’analyse comparative historique’, L’année de la régulation 7, pp. 13–44.

[xxxviii] Cairney, op. cit., pp. 82, 200–201.

[xxxix] Cairney, op. cit., p. 169.

[xl] Cairney, op. cit., pp. 200–201.

[xli] Hall 1986, op. cit.

[xlii] Crenshaw, op. cit.

[xliii] Argomaniz, J. (2012), The EU and counter-terrorism. Politics, polity and policies after 9/11. London: Routledge, p. 30.

[xliv] Crelinsten, op. cit.

[xlv] See Hall 1993, op. cit.

[xlvi] Bigo, D. (2019), ‘The maze of radicalization: justification and professional interests’; in N. Fadil, M. de Koning, and F. Ragazzi (eds.), Radicalization in Belgium and the Netherlands: Critical perspectives on violence and security. London: IB Tauris, pp. 269–80.

[xlvii] Cairney, op. cit., p. 82.

[xlviii] Foley, op. cit.

[xlix] Argomaniz, op. cit., pp. 116–135.

[l] Maor, M. (2019) ‘Strategic policy overreaction as a risky policy investment’, International Review of Public Policy 1:1, pp. 46–64.

[li] Maor, op. cit.; Maor, M. (2014), ‘Policy persistence, risk estimation and policy underreaction’, Policy Sciences 47, pp. 425–443.

[lii] Boutin, B. (2018) ‘Do counter-terrorism measures work? Appraising the long-term and global effectiveness of security policies’, Asser Policy Brief 2018-03, The Hague: Asser Institute; Mueller, J. and M. G. Stewart (2016) Chasing Ghosts: The policing of terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Monaghan, R. (2018) ‘No: using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’, in R. Jackson and D. Pisoiu (eds.), Contemporary debates on terrorism, London: Routledge 2nd edition), pp. 247–253; Meyer, C. O. (2016) ‘Over- and under-reaction to transboundary threats: two sides of a misprinted coin?’, Journal of European Public Policy 23:5, pp. 735–752.

[liii] Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 189, 203.

[liv] Maor 2014, op. cit.; Maor 2019, op. cit.

[lv] Cairney, op. cit., pp. 163–164.

[lvi] McConnell, A. (2010), Understanding policy success: Rethinking public policy. London: Red Globe Press.

[lvii] De Graaf, B. (2011), Evaluating counterterrorism performance: A comparative study. New York: Routledge

.