Rational suicide bombers

Are suicide bombers rational? This is the troubling question raised by Eli Berman and David Laitin in a new NBER paper here (pdf).  The answer, they say, is yes:

The combination of beliefs necessary for a rational martyr is not so very unlikely...Despite a popular wisdom that indoctrination is important, it may not be as critical as is often portrayed.

Suicide terrorism, they say, is rational if you believe terrorism will be rewarded in the hereafter, or if you are altruisitic and believe your death will benefit you family and compatriots.
Today of all days, we know that people can gives their lives for others. But if many can do this for good causes, some can do it for bad*.
The problem for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Al Qaeda, say Berman and Laitin, is not recruiting suicide attackers (a point made in this paper (pdf)), but recruiting reliable ones - ones who won't defect. They do this in two ways
1. They rely upon signalling theory. Recuits signal commitment by: sacrifices of time by attending religious services; claims that one's relatives have been killed by Israelis; or attendance at a Madrasa. (Claims that these indoctrinate people might be mistaken. Maybe people attend these for the same reason they attend university - to signal their attributes as much as to enhance them.)
2. Terrorist groups act as clubs, providing public goods such as social welfare.
What's more, terrorist groups make rational choices between conventional and suicide terrorism:

Conventional terrorism is less expensive in human lives to the perpetrators so it is preferred when the probability of apprehension is low, or when the target is small enough to be not worth the loss of an attacker.  When apprehension becomes likely suicide attacks are preferred because an attacker who commits suicide will not be apprehended and expose the network. When targets are very large defection becomes a constraint, so that clubs that have an advantage in choosing operatives unlikely to defect will engage in more large-target attacks, for which suicide attacks are the preferred target.

Berman and Laitin aren't the only ones to think of terrorism in rational choice terms; Ronald Wintrobe does so here (pdf).
Are these great insights? Or are they just an example of economists' imperialism? Isn't there something disturbing about ascribing rationality to mass murderers? If we do so, aren't we draining the concept of rationality of all meaning? I don't know.
* I'm worried that this seems tasteless, and more worried that it might be true.

Comments

[sean morris]

>>Are these great insights? Or are they just an example of economists' imperialism? <<

Theres nothing wrong in trying to quantify risk by trying to simulate (rather then understand)the reasoning of a suicide bomber. This is not a moral question.

[Farmers of Bermondsey Unite!]

The worrying thing is that the government/media portray them as "brainwashed suicide psychos" but if you compare them to our military what's the difference - they are still supposed to "lay down their lives in defence of Queen and Country" and are programmed to follow orders without question...

[Ben]

"If we do so, aren't we draining the concept of rationality of all meaning?"

Yes, we are.

Conditional on some crazy personal belief, any action can be justified as rational. E.g., if i believe that i will be rewarded for my terrorist acts in the hereafter, it is rational for me to become a terrosrist. Also, if i believe i can fly, it is rational for me to jump off of a high building. There is no end to the number of insane actions i can "rationalize" by this type of argument, consequently it adds nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon.

[Robert Schwartz]

The common error is to assume that the motives of the suicide bomber are the most important thing to understand. they are not, they are actually quite simple. It is the motives and actions of their handlers, the real bombers, that should be the subject of scrutiny.

[AJE]

Larry Iannoccone and Bryan Caplan are having a debate on Wednesday: "Is Religion Rational?".

Alex Tabarrok is moderating, and I expect a podcast will be available via Marginal Revolution.

Larry is *the* expert on Economics and Religion, and his work on Martyrdom is the best in the field. Keep a look out on Thursday morning for reviews across the blogosphere.

Find a photo of Eli here:
http://thefilter.blogs.com/photos/asrec_2005/img_0477.html

[dearieme]

Do their "handlers" send their own sons out to suicide-bomb? I suspect not and I also suspect that that ommission contains a great lesson that might not be accessible to evidence-free theorising.

[Robert Schwartz]

"Do their "handlers" send their own sons out to suicide-bomb? I suspect not and I also suspect that that ommission contains a great lesson that might not be accessible to evidence-free theorising."

The Israelis keep track of such things. There has never been a case of a handler's, or, of anybody higher-up's, children being used as a bomb. Clearly, they don't think it is such a great deal.

[Laban Tall]

If you consider the issue in terms of conflict between two cultural groups, it can obviously be an advantage if your culture can produce suicide bombers - as they are an efficient way of killing large numbers of 'the enemy' - who in today's world tend to be unarmed civilians. If your group is militarily inferior the bang per buck seems magnified compared with 'coventional' alternatives.

This only applies if the other side don't act as if they're in a war or your group are not easily distinguishable from 'theirs'. I'm not sure suicide bombing would be a very useful technique against people who killed members of the enemy group on sight, for example. You'd never get close enough to go off pop to any effect.