scholarly journals Evaluating Counterterrorism Spending

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Mueller ◽  
Mark G. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Successful Attack ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
Reduce Risk ◽  
The Cost

In this article, we present a simple back-of-the-envelope approach for evaluating whether counterterrorism security measures reduce risk sufficiently to justify their costs. The approach uses only four variables: the consequences of a successful attack, the likelihood of a successful attack, the degree to which the security measure reduces risk, and the cost of the security measure. After measuring the cost of a counterterrorism measure, we explore a range of outcomes for the costs of terrorist attacks and a range of possible estimates for how much risk might be reduced by the measure. Then working from this mix of information and assumptions, we can calculate how many terrorist attacks (and of what size) would need to be averted to justify the cost of the counterterrorism measure in narrow cost–benefit terms. To illustrate this approach, we first apply it to the overall increases in domestic counterterrorism expenditures that have taken place since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and alternatively we apply it to just the FBI's counterterrorism efforts. We then evaluate evidence on the number and size of terrorist attacks that have actually been averted or might have been averted since 9/11.

scholarly journals Physical location of smart key activators – a building security penetration test

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Willem Bullee ◽  
Lorena Montoya ◽  
Marianne Junger ◽  
Pieter Hartel
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Penetration Test ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Smart Systems ◽  
The Cost

Purpose When security managers choose to deploy a smart lock activation system, the number of units needed and their location needs to be established. This study aims to present the results of a penetration test involving smart locks in the context of building security. The authors investigated how the amount of effort an employee has to invest in complying with a security policy (i.e. walk from the office to the smart key activator) influences vulnerability. In particular, the attractiveness of a no-effort alternative (i.e. someone else walking from your office to the key activators to perform a task on your behalf) was evaluated. The contribution of this study relates to showing how experimental psychology can be used to determine the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of physical building security measures. Design/methodology/approach Twenty-seven different “offenders” visited the offices of 116 employees. Using a script, each offender introduced a problem, provided a solution and asked the employee to hand over their office key. Findings A total of 58.6 per cent of the employees handed over their keys to a stranger; no difference was found between female and male employees. The likelihood of handing over the keys for employees close to a key activator was similar to that of those who were further away. Research limitations/implications The results suggest that installing additional key activators is not conducive to reducing the building’s security vulnerability associated with the handing over of keys to strangers. Originality/value No research seems to have investigated the distribution of smart key activators in the context of a physical penetration test. This research highlights the need to raise awareness of social engineering and of the vulnerabilities introduced via smart locks (and other smart systems).

Hostile Takeovers and Anti-takeover Defenses in the Russian Corporate Market

2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Hostile Takeovers ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Takeover Defenses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
European Markets

This article analyzes definitions and the role of hostile takeovers at the Russian and European markets for corporate control. It develops the methodology of assessing the efficiency of anti-takeover defenses adapted to the conditions of the Russian market. The paper uses the cost-benefit analysis, where the costs and benefits of the pre-bid and post-bid defenses are compared.

The Evolutionary Psychology of Scientific Publishing: Cost-Benefit Optimization of Players in the Game

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milind Watve
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Collective Goal ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Collective Goals ◽  
Innate Tendency

Peer reviewed scientific publishing is critical for communicating important findings, interpretations and theories in any branch of science. While the value of peer review is rarely doubted, much concern is being raised about the possible biases in the process. I argue here that most of the biases originate in the evolved innate tendency of every player to optimize one’s own cost benefits. Different players in the scientific publishing game have different cost-benefit optima. There are multiple conflicts between individual optima and collective goals. An analysis of the cost-benefit optima of every player in the scientific publishing game shows how and why biases originate. In the current system of publishing, by optimization considerations, the probability of publishing a ‘bad’ manuscript is relatively small but the probability of rejecting a ‘good’ manuscript is very high. By continuing with the current publishing structure, the global distribution of the scientific community would be increasingly clustered. Publication biases by gender, ethnicity, reputation, conformation and conformity will be increasingly common and revolutionary concepts increasingly difficult to publish. Ultimately, I explore the possibility of designing a peer review publishing system in which the conflicts between individual optimization and collective goal can be minimized. In such a system, if everyone behaves with maximum selfishness, biases would be minimized and the progress towards the collective goal would be faster and smoother. Changing towards such a system might prove difficult unless a critical mass of authors take an active role to revolutionize scientific publishing.

You Say You Want a Reformation? Parsing the Ubiquitous Rhetoric of an “Islamic Reformation”

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 37-73
Author(s):  
Paul R. Powers
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Political Change ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Protestant Reformation ◽  
Islamic World ◽  
History Of

The ideas of an “Islamic Reformation” and a “Muslim Luther” have been much discussed, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This “Reformation” rhetoric, however, displays little consistency, encompassing moderate, liberalizing trends as well as their putative opposite, Islamist “fundamentalism.” The rhetoric and the diverse phenomena to which it refers have provoked both enthusiastic endorsement and vigorous rejection. After briefly surveying the history of “Islamic Reformation” rhetoric, the present article argues for a four-part typology to account for most recent instances of such rhetoric. The analysis reveals that few who employ the terminology of an “Islamic Reformation” consider the specific details of its implicit analogy to the Protestant Reformation, but rather use this language to add emotional weight to various prescriptive agendas. However, some examples demonstrate the potential power of the analogy to illuminate important aspects of religious, social, and political change in the modern Islamic world.

What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Surface Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Surface Water Quality ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Many countries are investing in measures to improve surface water quality, but the investment programmes for so doing are increasingly becoming subject to cost-benefit analysis. Whilst the cost of control measures can usually be determined for individual improvement schemes, there are currently no established procedures for valuing the benefits attributable to improved surface water quality. The paper describes a methodology that has been derived that now makes this possible.

The Mismatch between Expectations and Realities of AS4 Audits: A Post-Implementation Research Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanaz Aghazadeh ◽  
Marietta Peytcheva
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Risk Premium ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Equilibrium Market ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Research Analysis

SUMMARY We conduct a post-implementation research analysis of AS4, a standard guiding voluntary audits of material weakness (MW) remediation disclosures, to understand the reasons for the scarcity of AS4 audits in practice. We use multiple methods (experiments, comment letter analysis, and surveys) to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders. We find that regulators' expectations of the use of the standard did not come to fruition because an equilibrium market for active use of the standard could not be achieved; that managers desire to engage in AS4 audits for the riskier MWs but do not expect the associated costs to be high; and that auditors are reluctant to audit riskier MWs and would charge a considerable risk premium. Finally, we find that investors value AS4 audits, especially for riskier MWs, and find value in an AS4 audit for those risky MWs beyond that of the year-end audit. The overall findings of our study indicate that a mismatch in the cost-benefit functions of the key stakeholders led to a lack of AS4 audits. Our findings are important given the high costs associated with auditing standards development and approval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document