> I agree with the basic conclusions of the studies by Abadie, Krueger
> et al, and of a few others that poverty is not directly an important
> cause of terrorism.
I think your point is well taken (that also pertains to your comments about the unrepresentativeness of the sample). The connection between poverty and delinquency (of which terrorism is an extreme form) is a ruse devised by social reformers to provide ammunition for their anti-poverty programs.
The main problem with this argument is its universalistic fallacy - or causally linking properties of groups (poverty) to actions of individuals (delinquent / violent behavior). If the claimed connection between poverty and delinquency were true, it would need to be demonstrated that, ceteris paribus, poor individuals are more likely to engage in delinquent or violent acts than non-poor individuals. Looking for explanatory factors in the background of individuals who committed delinquent or terrorist acts is based on a logical fallacy of the following form: X died, but before his death he was admitted to a hospital; therefore, hospital must have killed him.
There is plenty of social science research showing the key role of relative (rather than absolute) deprivation, the dissolution of social control, and the socialization into delinquent norms and values in delinquent behavior. This is good research, not ex post facto rationalizations, ideological justifications, or plain myth making, because it demonstrates that the above listed conditions generate greater probability of delinquency.
However, I would like to add something to it that grows from my own experience as an "assimilated émigré." As opposed to an "unassimilated émigré" who is pretty much an alien merely sharing a living space with the host society - the "assimilated émigré" is an integral part of the host society, and knows it in and out. But unlike most natives, he is still an outsider, or at least somebody who can look at the host society from an outside perspective.
It is precisely this "fully immersed yet keeping his head above" status of the assimilated émigré that creates the anguish and frustration. Being an insider, the assimilated émigré is thoroughly familiar with the inner workings of the host society, while being at the same an outsider allows him to critically evaluate these workings and see the absurdity of some of them much more clearly than any native is capable. Then again, being an insider, he regularly comes to contact with some of the natives that rub these absurdities into his face as an allegedly "superior" way of life, and being an outsider he is vaguely (but not thoroughly!) familiar with alternatives to those alternatives.
To use an example, he is a guy who is thoroughly pissed off at the lack of public transportation in the US while being stuck in the beltway traffic, and vaguely remembering the convenience of the Paris subway he enjoyed during his last vacation trip. Then his anger reaches the boiling point when an idiot politico comes on his car radio babbling that the US created a level of civilization envied by the entire world. What does he do?
Well, some folks (like myself) who abhor violence go on line and vent their frustrations on crackpot discussion lists. Others, however, decide to do something more radical, like throwing a bomb.
Stated differently, I think I can understand why a second-generation, college educated émigré grabs a knife and kills a prominent cultural icon, or blows a bus. I still believe that he should be hunted down and killed in retribution, but at least I think I can understand his thought process. I can thus explain an apparent paradox that the alternative blowback or poverty- induced despair theories cannot.
Wojtek