Search results

The USA has been suffering from international/transnational terrorism for decades. There is no consensus on whether this situation is a result of the international status of the USA and the principles it upholds or the policies it embraces in its interaction with the outside world.

This study adopts both the “American Primacy” theory and the “anti-Americanism” theory in its effort to reach a conclusion concerning this issue. This study aims to examine previous research that linked international terrorism to the US hegemony and the principles it abides by and showed the relevance of this perception to the “American Primacy” theory. It also examines the research that considered international/transnational terrorism as a result of the American foreign policy in its various aspects (economic, military, assistance or a whole combination of policies).

This literature on the American foreign policy and international/transnational terrorism was extensive and manifested the explanatory power of the “anti-Americanism” theory, especially in its three variants: issue-oriented, ideological and instrumental. While examining the foreign policy terrorism studies, the relevance of the “American Primacy” theory appeared at very few instances.

The study was able to prove that explaining the international/transnational terrorism is related to the foreign policy decisions taken by the American policymakers and cause harm to the outside world. The envy of “American Primacy” is of secondary importance.

This paper aims to discuss the dilemma of terrorism as a political phenomenon that many political scientists care about; however, they find themselves incapable of explaining some of its aspects and they resort to other disciplines. The second part of the dilemma is related to the incapability of well-established disciplines to provide political scientists with much help. This raises the following question: Will political scientists be able to enhance their knowledge of terrorism with the help of scholars from consolidated and well-established disciplines or with the help of scholars from interdisciplinary fields?

This research depends on the main theories of psychology and of social psychology and adopts a comparative approach to assess the effectiveness of both disciplines in providing political scientists with the knowledge they lack.

In spite of being a well-established and consolidated discipline, psychology is not the perfect discipline that can help political scientists know who a terrorist is. Social psychological theories of aggression provide political scientists with greater ability to understand what psychological and sociological factors motivate a person to turn to aggression and terrorism. Moreover, social psychology developed the “terror management theory” which clarifies various aspects of the phenomenon.

This research paper calls the attention of scholars of terrorism to the importance of adopting an interdisciplinary approach to understand the various aspects of a complex phenomenon such as terrorism. The interdisciplinary field adopted will differ according to the research question that a researcher needs to answer.

This study examines the effect of general trust (GT) and confidence in banks (CIB) on bank risk-taking. Besides, it explores the moderating role of CIB on the relationship between GT and bank risk-taking.

Secondary data was obtained from the World Value Survey, World Bank and BankFocus from 2011 to 2018. Two-step system GMM estimator was used to examine the links between the GT and CIB with bank risk-taking in MENA region.

Results indicated that both GT and CIB negatively influenced bank risk-taking. Moreover, CIB weakened the negative relationship between GT and bank risk-taking. However, the results were different for MENA region as compared to the full sample.

The studies on the link between trust and bank risk-taking are either carried out on an international sample or using a developed economies sample. However, the authors believe that developing economies might exhibit different relationships due to cultural and structural differences present in developed countries. Besides, the authors believe that testing the moderating effect of CIB could shed more light on the differences between developing and developed countries.

This study explores local Qatari job seekers' and employees' perceptions of the workforce nationalization strategy to address an inadequacy in the workforce nationalization literature in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. It also unpacks the factors that attract or discourage local job seekers and employees when considering a new job.

Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 28 local job seekers who were either currently unemployed or employed and seeking another job at the time of the interviews.

The data revealed that nationals perceive Qatarization as a means to replace expatriate employees with nationals, particularly in the public sector and leadership positions. This misinterpretation of the strategy leads to complications, such as the waithood phenomenon and a sense of entitlement for guaranteed employment. The findings also provide insights into nationals' attitudes toward employment, including job attraction and discouraging factors.

The results provide policymakers with insights into the misinterpretation surrounding nationals' perceptions of workforce nationalization and remedies for better implementation of the strategy.

The study addresses two clear gaps in the workforce nationalization literature: (1) examining how nationals perceive the workforce nationalization strategy and (2) unpacking the factors that make employment attractive or unfavorable for nationals.