Choose your own priorities on our interactive table

Issues: conflict l global warming l disease l hunger l terrorism

The Challenge

Harsh security measures at airports make us feel safer, but what we see as a visible reassurance is a display of billions of dollars poorly invested.

An introduction to the Copenhagen Consensus

Economists battle it out to rank possible solutions for the great challenges in global stability and security

Multimedia

• Make your own rankings on our interactive table

BACKGROUND

• Copenhagen Consensus: conflict

• Copenhagen Consensus: disease

• Copenhagen Consensus: global warming

• Copenhagen Consensus: hunger

• Copenhagen Consensus: terrorism

Trans-national terrorists take, on average, just 420 lives each year and cause relatively little economic damage.

An extra $70 billion worldwide has been spent annually on homeland security since 2001. Although there has been a 34 per cent drop in trans-national terrorist attacks, there have been 67 more deaths, on average, each year.

This is entirely predictable. Terrorists have responded rationally to the higher risks imposed by tougher security measures and shifted to fewer attacks that create more carnage.

Hardening targets is a poor way to save lives. Policy-makers who want to reduce the terrorists’ toll have stark options.

Option One: Greater international cooperation

While many terrorist groups share knowledge, governments jealously guard their autonomy over police and security matters.

If political obstacles could be overcome, nations could work together more coherently to clamp down on the charitable contributions, drug trafficking, counterfeit goods and illicit activities that fund terrorist attacks.

This would be ineffectual at reducing small events such as ‘routine’ bombings or political assassinations, but would significantly hamper spectacular attacks requiring a lot of planning and serious resources.

The numbers

Doubling the Interpol budget and allocating one-tenth of the International Monetary Fund’s yearly financial monitoring and capacity-building budget to tracing terrorist funds would cost about $128 million annually. Stopping one catastrophic terrorist event would save the world at least $1 billion. Under these assumptions, this would mean a return of about $9 on each dollar spent.

Option Two: Increased proactive response

Some argue that the United States and its allies should “take the war to the terrorists”.

To see what extra money on proactive measures would achieve, we can look at the effects of Operation Enduring Freedom, an offensive campaign that included the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan.

In the two years after 2001 (when there was the greatest proactive anti-terrorism campaign, and before other countries started to pull out), there was a 13 per cent reduction in international terrorist attacks - but 159 more annual deaths and 916 more injuries, on average, than in the ten years before. The exercise may have meant terrorists chose different targets.

The numbers

Policymakers undaunted by the extra bloodshed might pause when they consider the economics. In monetary terms, each dollar of the Operation’s $35.5 billion cost over this time achieved around ten cents worth of good.

Other Options

Business as Usual: Continuing with current levels of counter-terrorism spending and the world’s present focus on counter-terrorism options

Augmented Defence: Nations likely to be victims of trans-national terrorism focus on making key targets harder to attack

Sensitive Foreign Policy: The United States makes a significant change in foreign policy, designed to present a positive image and negate terrorist propaganda, including a significant increase in aid that is made without strings attached

Times recommends

• Energy-saving ideas from switched-on professor
• Rooks are as clever with tools as chimpanzees
• Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu