IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ftpvxx/v15y2003i4p1-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do Europeans Fly Safer? The Politics Of Airport Security In Europe And The Us

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Hainmüller
  • Jan Martin Lemnitzer

Abstract

Hitherto, political science has failed to answer a rather simple question: Why do some states provide high levels of airport security, while others fail to do so? Drawing upon a rational choice institutionalist framework, we compare airport security regimes in the US and Europe (in particular Germany) and show that the performance gap before September 11 can be largely attributed to institutional factors. In the US, responsibility was assigned to airlines, whose cost-cutting efforts resulted in lax controls. In Germany, the government shielded the provision of airport security from market pressures. We claim that delegation of responsibility for airport security to the government is a necessary, yet not a sufficient condition for a high security performance. Systems in which responsibility lies with private airlines are doomed to fail, since private markets are ill-equipped to provide a high security performance. While airlines have a long-term interest in safeguarding civil aviation, there exists both a time inconsistency and a collective cost problem that prevents sufficient investment in security in the short run. Thus, US policy-makers are well advised to resist the growing pressures for re-privatization and cost-cutting as well as to eliminate remaining flaws in the current federalized system.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Hainmüller & Jan Martin Lemnitzer, 2003. "Why Do Europeans Fly Safer? The Politics Of Airport Security In Europe And The Us," Terrorism and Political Violence, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 1-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ftpvxx:v:15:y:2003:i:4:p:1-36
    DOI: 10.1080/09546550390449863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09546550390449863
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09546550390449863?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ftpvxx:v:15:y:2003:i:4:p:1-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ftpv20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.