engleski

Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies on Inequality and Radicalisation

The aim of this report is to provide a methodological evaluation and review of studies that focus on the relationship between inequality and radicalisation. Studies included in this systematic review were quantitative (or mixed- method) empirical studies published in English between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2017. The studies concerned different forms of ‘radicalisation’(e.g. cognitive and behavioural radicalisation, far-right and religious/Islamist radicalisation) and inequality (e.g. economic and socio-political). They also differed in terms of geographic location and their focus on the individual or the social/macro level. A total of 132 publications meeting inclusion criteria were identified through a search of seven well-known journal databases as well as two highly relevant journals, not listed in these databases, and the body of relevant grey literature. An additional nine publications were identified through cross- referencing. Of the 141 studies finally selected: 84 focused on a macro-level of investigation ; 42 studies were based on survey research related to non- radicalised individuals ; and 15 drew on biographical evidence about radicalised individuals. The review findings suggest an inconsistent relationship between economic inequality and radicalisation. At the individual level, data on objective economic indicators were inconsistent regarding their association with cognitive radicalisation although slightly more consistent regarding behavioural radicalisation. The data suggest that behavioural radicalisation is more characteristic for more educated Muslims in dominantly Muslim countries, while, in Western European countries, less educated participants were more likely to demonstrate features of Islamist radicalisation. Data regarding individual-level radicalisation in the USA yielded no consistent outcomes. Similarly, data regarding the relationship between perceived (or subjective) economic inequality and radicalisation provided inconsistent results. At the social level, there was some evidence that a higher per capita GDP and unemployment, as well as lower education levels, may be related to higher terrorism incidence. In relation to per capita GDP, the majority of studies indicate that countries with both a high and a low, per capita GDP tend to experience less terrorism than countries with an average per capita GDP (indicating a non-linear trend). Although inequality indicators generally showed an inconsistent pattern of relationships with radicalisation, countries with a higher percentage of people living in poverty were more likely to be targets of transnational terrorist attacks, while interregional inequality appears to be related to a higher incidence of domestic terrorism. Other economic inequality indicators (interpersonal inequality, Human Development Index, adult literacy) failed to show consistent results. At the individual level more consistent patterns were found between cognitive radicalisation and various measures of perceived social inequality. Higher perceived inequality was related to more radicalised attitudes in different contexts, regardless of the ideological orientation of radicalisation. This could also be seen at a transnational level, with respect to human rights since where human rights (physical integrity rights) were upheld, incidence of terrorism was consistently lower, while repression was related to higher terrorism incidence. Gender equality was associated with lower incidence of attacks, but incidence of terrorism was higher when Islamist or far-right domestic terrorism was the focus of the study. Data on civil rights and liberties as well as democracy yielded no consistent results ; some evidence indicated an underlying non-linear trend. Although these results do not indicate the irrelevance of economic inequality in the context of radicalisation, they do imply that socio- political rights, in terms of objective estimates at a macro level or subjective perception at an individual level, may play a more important role than economic inequality in the inequality- radicalisation nexus. This suggests – in the absence of any formal causal relationship testing – that higher socio-political inequality leads to higher probability of radicalisation and terrorism incidence. This is important for policy-making because it suggests that given the limited possibility for rapidly reducing economic inequality, a similar, or greater, positive impact on the lowering of terrorism incidence might be achieved by reducing socio-political inequality. Thus, assuming we can imply any causal relationship, future policies should focus on minimising the experience of marginalisation and injustice by individuals and communities. This is because perceived inequality – sometimes itself an unintended consequence of counter- radicalisation measures – has been shown to be related to radicalisation in its various forms. The conclusions of this review should be read in the context of a number of methodological limitations of the studies analysed. These include: the lack of an experimental methodological approach ; poor, or inconsistent, operationalisation of variables ; and a scarcity of studies including a range of potentially important variables. Some studies were also found to have: employed inappropriate means of analysing or presenting data ; omitted to explore the combined (or interactive) effects of different inequality variables on radicalisation ; or demonstrated other limitations. This review, therefore, does not provide a definitive answer to the question of the relationship between radicalisation and inequality but serves as a starting point for future research that, through the employment of more sophisticated research designs, might allow more precise conclusions.

inequality, radicalisation, systematic review, quantitative studies,

nije evidentirano