Introduction
This report will highlight the UK’s current security problems and offer proposals of different ways to enhance their security policy to create a better country. In recent years security problems for the UK are intensifying. Since 11th September 2001 to 31st March 2016 official data shows there were 54 deaths in Great Britain as a direct result of terrorist acts. Between 2016 and 2018 there were 6 attacks in London alone. In recent years the UK’s threat from international terrorism has been increased to severe level. Crime is also increasingly threatening UK’s security with increased numbers of all types of crime particularly concentrated in London and metropolitan areas. Furthermore, the discussion about whether to increase or decrease military expenditure and the effects of each are increasingly affecting UK citizens. The report will consist of an introduction followed by three sections highlighting individual security issues of crime, terrorism and milex. For each section a sub question will be answered leading to analysis which will emphasise the current issues and different economic policies that will enhance the security policy for the UK. This report has been centred around the UK due to the various and escalating threats they currently face.
Terrorism
Should the UK implement proactive or defensive security measures to enhance security?
Terrorism in economic terms is the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or subnational groups to obtain a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate victim. Recently the UK is suffering from increased terrorist threats. Terrorist threats are escalating due to the change in nature particularly cyber terrorism is becoming more common. In addition, threats are now more diverse than before – coming from a wider geographical area. This leads to terrorism increasing in severity and increasing casualty risk therefore becoming a security problem for the UK. The unpredictable nature of terrorism further intensifies the threat for the UK.
Terrorist leaders and supporters will carry out a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether to carry out a terrorist attack. As a result, to improve the UK’s security policy counter measures need to be in place which will influence these costs and benefits for terrorists. These security measures can be categorised as defensive or pro-active measures. Proactive measures attack the terrorist, their resources and supporters. By contrast defensive measures involve erecting a protective barrier around potential targets.
Arguably, one approach to enhance security against terrorism is deterrence theory. Deterrence models assume individuals so in this case, the terrorist are rational, self-interested actors who aim to maximise benefits whilst minimising costs. Counter terrorism to protect the UK against attacks requires increasing the difficulty for terrorists to strike as well as increasing the risk of failure. For example, installing surveillance technology to deter terrorist activity. Additionally, suicide bombers can be deterred by aggressive state action therefore reducing the threat. However, deterrence relies on the ability to convince potential adversaries that acts of aggression will result in greater costs than benefits. As a result, the effectiveness of deterrence can be questioned. Counter terrorism can result in greater issues as instead of reducing terrorist activity can cause a displacement towards “cheaper” means of terrorism. This may be to other venues or countries where targets are relatively softer. Many studies highlight strong empirical evidence for this substitution effect. Enders and Sandler empirically analyse the effects of some protective measures. They show that metal detectors and body searches introduced at airports have proven effective so far in decreasing sky threats such as hijacking. Furthermore, an alternative counter terror policy includes a ‘tax’. This involves shifting the supply of terrorism upwards therefore increasing the marginal cost of tax. As the cost increases it is more likely to deter people against terrorism.
For the UK the threat of terrorism is rising in risk therefore is a greater issue than the likelihood of war. Security policy for terrorism is carried out by the security service MI5 who are responsible for protecting UK residents against threats. To reduce terrorist threats research suggests defensive measures such as mitigation of impacts can be used. This involves lowering the benefits from terrorist attacks which can occur through decentralisation or changing media practices for reporting attacks. Decentralisation makes attacks less attractive as the effects and damage are smaller. Restricting media attention results in terrorist groups failing to reach large audiences therefore they struggle to implement fear on society. Frey and Lucchinger provide a counter terrorist approach the UK could implement to enhance security policy. This involves the government manipulating media recognition of terrorist groups so to reduce the benefits of the attack for the terrorists. Empirical findings carried by Frey highlight that media attention and terrorism share a bidirectional causality relationship. This results in increased media attention causing more terrorist events and vice versa.
Alternatively, the UK could implement proactive policies in order to enhance security policy. These measures are more direct and arguably, due to the UK’s economic position may be more beneficial. An example includes employing intelligence and surveillance to detect activity and capture perpetrators. Because of the UK’s capable army and funding this method may be superior to protect the UK from threats. As a result, the focus for proactive policies is on denying terrorists the resources they require including finance, manpower and weaponry to disrupt their activities. However, critiques of this approach include how it is difficult to deny terrorists finance. To effectively freeze assets, it requires cooperation between the banking sector and government and terrorists have shown to diversify their source of income. Moreover, proactive measures can have the inverse effect of aggravating terrorists consequently leading to increased behaviour issues.
It could be argued the biggest issue with counter terrorism is the cost to society. This involves both direct and indirect effects. Preventing terrorism requires resources resulting in a direct cost to society through the investment of various methods. Other effects involve increase costs for example tighter airport security increases the cost of travel for UK residents. Moreover, the government experiences a great cost from funding the schemes which can result in reduced expenditure in other areas such as education leading to an opportunity cost. Counter terrorism leads to increased spending however guaranteeing a terrorist attack will occur is difficult. Another indirect impact is the externalities and spill over effects caused by implementing the security measures.
The UK faces various terrorist threats however recently these threats are narrowed to extremist groups. In 2017 London suffered a transport terrorist attack where an explosive device denotated on a London underground train at the Parsons green. Unfortunately, this led to twenty-nine people being injured and was a result of the Islamic state of Iraq. These increased threats cause UK residents to live in fear worrying about the next attack therefore affecting UK security. Moreover, cyber terrorism is one of the biggest threats towards UK security however these new threats are more difficult to counter and protect the UK from. Recent concerns include potential threats on infrastructure as well as the government and businesses.
So, to enhance security policy against escalating terrorist threats the UK needs to enhance and strengthen counter terrorism. However, like most policies the effectiveness can be debated particularly as protecting the UK against threats is costly and near impossible. The UK could potentially implement multiple measures, all of which fall under the categories of defensive or proactive. The question over which type would be more effective to enhance UK security policy is difficult to answer. This is because both types have issues as well as benefits therefore to maximise security policy a combination of methods should be employed.
Crime
Has austerity increased crime in the UK?
Crime is increasingly affecting UK security with increased numbers of crimes committed as well as various types of crime. Data shows there has been a continued rise in the number of offences involving knives of 16% increase from last year as well as homicide rates recorded have shown a fourth consecutive rise increasing by 12%. In general, nearly all types of crime have increased causing greater issues for UK security. A particular threat to security is serious and organised crime which is reported to cost the UK at least £24 billion each year in order to try to prevent and protect the population. Recent changes from the government such as austerity has impacted crime levels. Spending on police services have been affected by austerity with loss of both back office and frontline staff. Reports show ‘this has caused reductions in budgets and staff such as frontline police officers and PCSOs by nearly 25,000 officers between 2010 and 2016.’ Arguably, research would suggest austerity has had a negative impact on crime however this can be debated. With increased levels of crime and cut backs in policing the UK security is increasingly under threat.
Crime is increasingly affecting more UK residents therefore becoming a greater issue. In the year ending March 2018 there were 40,100 offences involving knifes or sharp instruments – a record high in eight years. Knife crimes particularly stabbings, violence and numbers of gangs are continuing to rise with research showing gangs are becoming more involved in serious offences.
To determine whether to commit crime individuals undertake a cost benefit analysis. If the expected net utility exceeds the expected net utility derived from legitimate activity the individual will decide to commit the crime. Therefore, to enhance security policy the cost of crime needs to be increased. One way this can be done is through deterrence; which involves raising the price of something to reduce the amount purchased. As a result, the maximum way to increase the cost of crime would be to introduce the death penalty.
This would lead to the risks of committing a crime increasing so the criminal has a greater decision to make when undertaking the cost benefit analysis. Many studies have provided strong support for the use of capital punishment for example Ehrlich. Ehrlich’s report shows a statistically significant negative relationship in the United States between the use of the death penalty and homicide rates where he derives a ‘trade-off between executions and murders’. On average he estimated “an additional execution per year may have resulted in seven or eight fewer murders.” However, like any scientific report Ehrlich’s research has been critiqued. Reports on critiques would suggest Ehrlich “failed to provide any reliable evidence that the death penalty deters murder.” This is because arguably his data is inadequate for purpose for example the quality of his data is questionable.
Despite many arguing capital punishment maximises deterrence, opposition would debate deterrence theory can be ineffective. One strong critique is the cost to the government capital punishment causes. These costs occur due to repeated trials for criminals, holding criminals whilst they wait and the specific cost of the death. As a result, these costs burden the government therefore would worsen the UK budgets deficit if imposed to enhance security policy. Furthermore, the theory of whether deterrence is efficient is questionable. On the one hand brutalisation would suggest that the death penalty can have an inverse effect encouraging higher murder rates. This is because the marginal cost of committing additional murders falls to zero. Therefore, criminals may execute more murders as they know the punishment is maximised to the death penalty. Moreover, a further critique to the death penalty is some may dispute that life imprisonment is a greater punishment than the death penalty. Beccari argued life imprisonment can be likened to ‘slavery’ therefore deters individuals from committing crime. In addition, his research showed some individuals may have the desire to be executed so the death penalty can have the inverse effect of encouraging crime.
An alternative recommendation to enhance security policy could be increasing the severity of punishments through lengthen prison sentencing and making the conditions of prisons harsher. Some evidence suggests that quality of life in prison is likely to have a greater impact on criminal behaviour than the death penalty. This would deter individuals from committing crime through increasing the costs of punishments. When calculating the cost benefit analysis, the costs will be higher discouraging crime. However, this would increase policing costs and the burden to the government. Currently, due to austerity the opposite is occurring with reduced expenditure therefore arguably resulting in increased crime levels. The government also will face an opportunity cost of diverting resources towards policing sector. This could involve reducing funding in education or healthcare therefore negatively impacting society. Furthermore, with inadequate information how to effectively allocate the budget and police to minimise crime is hard to set. The social optimum level would occur where marginal benefit is equal to marginal cost however this location is difficult to allocate.
To conclude, increasingly crime levels are threatening UK security due to an increase in violent and serious crime committed. Deterrence needs to be used to enhance security policy by increasing the severity of punishments however these policies will be costly and designing the optimal punishment to reduce crime is difficult. The debate of whether austerity has resulted in increased crime generally skews towards a negative relationship. This would suggest that increased government spending towards policing would therefore have a positive effect on UK security.
Military expenditure
Should the UK increase its military expenditure?
The UK currently has the fifth biggest defence budget in the world which during 2016/17 the defence expenditure was reported to be £35.3 billion. In April 2016 the UK’s defence budget increased for the first time in six years suggesting a new threat to UK’s security. Many individuals debate whether military expenditure (milex) has positive or negative effects on the economy therefore this section will weigh up whether the UK’s security policy will be enhanced by increasing or decreasing milex. According to SIPRI the UK’s government spent 4.7% of spending in 2017 on milex compared to USA government which spent 8.8%. Overall this equated to 1.8% share of GDP.
The various economic schools of thought have contrasting views on milex. Keynesian economics would argue the UK should increase its milex to boost the economy which entail will enhance security policy. Government spending on milex will stimulate spending in the economy resulting in a multiplier effect. This will lead to a direct benefit on the UK economy as increased output leads to increased profits, investment and growth. Arguably, this approach is particularly important as it avoids the issue of insufficient demand in the economy associated with a recession. Despite, experiencing growth for the UK this is very limited therefore the ability to affect demand is significant for the economy.
Similarly, the neoclassical approach would argue the UK should increase its military expenditure. Neoclassicalism claim milex is providing a public good which is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. As a result, determining the optimal defence output is an optimisation problem where the socially desirable outcome occurs where marginal cost is equal to marginal benefit. The neoclassical approach sees the government as a rational actor which weighs up the opportunity cost and security benefits of milex. However, both approaches have experienced criticisms. The neoclassical approach is criticised for concentrating on the supply side so ignoring the internal role of the military whilst Keynesian is criticised for failing to consider supply side issues.
Furthermore, the UK should increase milex due to the positives effect on the microeconomy. Modernisation theory would argue increasing milex has many benefits on the quality of factors of production and firm characteristics. For example, the military sector offers training and education for labour as well as investment in capital. However, for the UK – a economically developed country – these benefits would be limited. As the UK’s factors of production are already developed the additional effects of increasing milex in terms of the modernisation theory for the UK would be minimal.
Marxism would additionally argue the UK should increase military expenditure in order to sustain effective demand and maximise the economic surplus. It can be argued higher levels of milex will lead to low levels of unemployment and high levels of capacity use. This is significant to the UK in order to maintain the current high employment figures which during 2017 reached 74.8%. Therefore, increasing military expenditure will lead to improving the UK state of security.
Nevertheless, numerous individuals would debate milex has negative effects on the economy therefore to improve security policy the UK should decrease military expenditure. According to the military industrial complex milex has negative effects on the economy due to information problems which leads to resources being skewed away from the civilian sector to the inefficient military provision. Arguably for the UK this asymmetric information leads to exaggerated risks and inflated military spending as can be seen by the increase in 2016. Despite some benefits many would debate the military sector is more corrupt and inefficient than the civilian sector as well as wasteful. As a result, some economists like Oden argue military spending represents an economic burden.
It could be argued that increased military spending has the inverse effect of decreasing economic growth therefore is negative for UK’s security policy. Galvin’s report argues increased military spending would result in reduced growth rate for the UK. This is because the UK has developed infrastructure and communication therefore there is little gain. Furthermore, further studies would support this idea like Rothschild. His report suggests high milex impedes growth due to impact on export levels. High milex reduces export availabilities in the machinery and transport equipment needed for export expansion therefore dampens export led growth. In fact, for the UK increased spending leads to a greater opportunity cost for the government. Arguably, increased milex diverts funds away from health and education causing alternative threats to security policy. Moreover, the UK is constrained by the ever-growing budget deficit. Increased milex would result in worsening the budget deficit therefore having negative effects for the UK economy for example increasing national debt which is unsustainable.
An alternative method to fund increased milex could be to increase and fund through taxes. However, this would have knock on negative effects on the UK’s growth rate. Increasing taxes on individuals would lead to decreased consumption as a result of net wage falling therefore reducing aggregate demand and growth. Similarly, taxes on companies would lead to less profit and innovation affecting the quality of products so reducing growth as demand is reduced. These effects would lead to greater issues for the UK therefore the UK will improve security by reducing milex.
On the one hand evidence of increasing milex could be as a result of the UK terrorist threat increasing to severe. The debate of whether to increase or decrease UK’s milex is continually questioned and research would suggest a common view is that defence spending is economically ambivalent. On the basis of research reports, the data would suggest the UK should increase milex in order to enhance security policy and improve its current security state.
Conclusion
Overall, to conclude the UK currently faces security issues from increased crime and terrorist threats as well as the debate over whether to increase milex or decrease it. Arguably, each of these threats can intertwine with one another challenging the UK policymakers. Increased terrorist threats can be the reason behind why milex should be increased for protection. Furthermore, certain security policies can be used against both preventing crime and terrorism such as deterrence theory. As a result, in order to enhance security policy against these threats the UK needs to employ various different measures. The research would suggest the increased threats from crime and terrorism are a greater issue for the UK therefore these should be addressed first.