ldea: Terror risk spurs separation of transportation among social classes

Context:

Economical theories about geographical distribution already exist.
For example: New Economic Geography renown for Paul Krugman, or Dynamic Models of Segregation by Thomas Schelling which simulates racial separation with tiny preferences for the same race.

In this post, I explain my idea about terror and separation of transportation, although it is not completed and I admit there are many tasks to claim the idea for certain.

 

Basic Idea:

Similar to “gated community”, I assume that risk of terror for public transportation spurs upper class to make and use private transportation.

And the segregation of society could also make segregated incentive for terror and immigrant policy. If upper class and policy makers stay safe with private transportation, they don’t bother the counter measure on such problems.

It would end up with divided risk among social class.
And it would cause division of direction of national decision in the society as terrorist want.

 

Paradox of Terror:

transportation-of-terror1_paradox1

If an objective of terror is to divide society, there is paradoxical situation for indiscriminate attack on public transportation.

I mean, the indifference of target can equally spread risk in society from upper class and lower class. It would make integrity of decision of the nation on terror and issues that are related to terror attacks.

 

Segregation of transportation:

transportation-of-terror2_segregation1

But given gated community movement in upper class, transportation-version of gated community could be build and used by upper class for risk-aversion of public transportation.

There are already such private transportations for super-rick, such as private jet or helicopters.
But in this case, I assume that the sami-private transportation has more broad range of customer, upper-low to upper-middle.
And the cost (construction, fee, maintenance) are shared in the members, as gated community does.

Such semi-transportation could be safer because it can abandon non-exclusiveness of public transportation. And it would equip safer protection than public equivalents.

 

Consequences of segregation of transportation:

transportation-of-terror3_consequences1

I listed potential consequences for the segregated transportation above.

For duplicated transportation, there are advantage and disadvantage for society. Duplication means lower efficiency but at the same time it means tolerance for accident as spare.

For separation of risk among social class, it cause separated direction of policy on terror issues.

 

Segregated transportation model (incomplete):

transportation-of-terror4_segregation-model1

The schema above shows a simple transportation model in my mind, although it is far from complete and needed to fix in many aspects.

In the model, I regard transportation as path from agent to goods. And the paths have cost and risk.

To make semi-private transportation affordable for upper class, upper class should have abundant money for both public transportation and semi-private transportation.

Also, the semi-private transportation should be much safer than public.
the utility of risk reduction gain should high above the cost of additional transportation.

 

Future tasks:

Data of separation of transportation:

To check the idea in the blog post, it need not separation of service such as first class and business class in airplanes, but separation of transportation among social classes.

Social segregation index:

There are indices about social gap, for example Gini index,  or relation between educational states and social class of parents.
But I don’t know segregation index about risk of terror. And I don’t know whether risk of terror is different between social classes.

In general, I think rich persons is subjected to risk of being target of terror. But also lower class is subjected to indiscriminate terror.
So I don’t know which is high or whether there is difference.

 

Leave a Reply