In the book The Psychology of Radicalization and Terrorism, the writers claim that economic deprivation is often referred to when discussing radicalisation. In a new approach, Koomen and van der Pligt (2016) agrees that economic deprivation acts as a threat to terrorists and their groups. Economic deprivation means being confined to limited social and economic opportunities such as poor healthcare; an insecure future; poor educational opportunities; etc. Koomen and van der Plight (2016) adds that being on the economic margins could lead to discrimination from the ‘wealthier’ group of people in the same country.
Krueger and Maleckova (2003; cited by Koomen and van der Pligt: 2016) argues that an individual’s economic circumstances definitely plays a role in radicalisation. According to a survey, 129 countries were asked to produce a list of terrorists from their country and closely look at the background of these individuals. The result of the survey proved that individuals who participated in terrorist activities had a clear lack of ‘civil liberties’, or in other words, these were individuals coming from non-democratic countries.
Fair and Shepherd (2006; cited by Koomen and van der Pligt: 2016) contradicts ‘poverty’ as an assumption and says that unless the …show more content…
Contradictory argument rather re-emphasise the importance of seeking causational factors as unique in each individual case and that the search for a general profile on what causes terrorism will always be contested because of conflicting examples. A similar situation applies to Boko Hara, where socio-economic deprivation cannot be discarded as influencing the choice of the individual, though by admission there are also examples of people joining purely based on conviction to the group’s
Krueger and Maleckova (2003; cited by Koomen and van der Pligt: 2016) argues that an individual’s economic circumstances definitely plays a role in radicalisation. According to a survey, 129 countries were asked to produce a list of terrorists from their country and closely look at the background of these individuals. The result of the survey proved that individuals who participated in terrorist activities had a clear lack of ‘civil liberties’, or in other words, these were individuals coming from non-democratic countries.
Fair and Shepherd (2006; cited by Koomen and van der Pligt: 2016) contradicts ‘poverty’ as an assumption and says that unless the …show more content…
Contradictory argument rather re-emphasise the importance of seeking causational factors as unique in each individual case and that the search for a general profile on what causes terrorism will always be contested because of conflicting examples. A similar situation applies to Boko Hara, where socio-economic deprivation cannot be discarded as influencing the choice of the individual, though by admission there are also examples of people joining purely based on conviction to the group’s