ABSTRACT
Whyte's influential Interpreting Northern Ireland is a useful starting point in discussing how economists have interpreted the Troubles. Whyte noted there was a consensus among economists by 1990 that, first, the conflict was only a subsidiary cause of the region's economic weakness and that, second, had performance been better, it would have alleviated community tensions. However, in discussing how economists have approached discussing the Troubles it is important to reiterate Whyte's line of argument that even if violence had not erupted in the late 1960s, the relatively fragile economy would still have faced a range of challenges. The authors consider why economists sometimes have been reticent about discussing the economic costs of the Troubles. Economists during the 1970s applied Becker's framework beyond crimes such as robbery to look at topics where the crime could be described as involving the threat of violence for political objectives.
