Much of the discussion around Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) has focused on the failure of the terrorism insurance markets, but this chapter argues that the connection between terrorism insurance and compensation policy and national security provides another rationale for public intervention in insurance markets. High take-up rates for terrorism insurance or other forms of compensation for terrorism losses can enhance economic resilience after an attack and encourage national cohesion and solidarity post-event. Doing so thwarts the aims of terrorists and, over the long run, may deter future attacks.
Reprinted with permission from Cambridge University Press from Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response, Chapter 18, pp. 292-304. Edited by Philip Auerswald, Lewis M. Branscomb, Todd M. La Porte, Erwann Michel-Kerjan, Copyright © 2006 Cambridge University Press.
Originally published in: Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response: How Private Action Can Reduce Public Vulnerability, Chapter 18, pp. 292-304, November 2006.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.