I suspect this (via Instapundit) “connects” to the connected/gap theory of Barnett analyzed by Lexington here and here. And geography that disconnects can provide a generative medium for terrorists (and other forms of tyranny).
We’ve given the “history is mainly driven by economics” meme a century’s run. It has explained much, but, in the end not everything. And the obvious: nations in transition are vulnerable. (We may have been more tested by the elections of the 1790s than the Civil War, by which time our institutions were soldily in place.)
Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.
And we are left with the fact ideas have consequences–economic ones.
In an era of open international capital markets, however, Abadie said terrorism may have a greater chilling effect than previously thought, since even a low risk of damage from a terrorist attack may be enough to send investors looking elsewhere.