Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:51:11.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of the International Security Environment on National Military Expenditures: A Multicountry Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2012

William Nordhaus ,
John R. Oneal  and
Bruce Russett
William Nordhaus
Affiliation:
Cowles Foundation, and School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, New Haven, CT. E-mail: william.nordhaus@yale.edu
John R. Oneal
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. E-mail: joneal@tenhoor.as.ua.edu
Bruce Russett
Affiliation:
MacMillan Center atYale University, New Haven, CT. E-mail: bruce.russett@yale.edu
Get access

Abstract

We consider the influence of countries' external security environments on their military spending. We first estimate the ex ante probability that a country will become involved in a fatal militarized interstate dispute using a model of dyadic conflict that incorporates key elements of liberal and realist theories of international relations. We then estimate military spending as a function of the threat of armed interstate conflict and other influences: arms races, the defense expenditures of friendly countries, actual military conflict, democracy, civil war, and national economic output. In a panel of 165 countries, 1950 to 2000, we find our prospectively generated estimate of the external threat to be a powerful variable in explaining military spending. A 1 percentage point increase in the aggregate probability of a fatal militarized dispute, as predicted by our liberal-realist model, leads to a 3 percent increase in a country's military expenditures.

Type
Research Note
Information
International Organization , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 491 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baliga, Sandeep, and Sjöström, Tomas. 2008. Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Proliferation. Journal of Political Economy 116 (6):1023–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4):1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C. III 2004. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart. 1992. Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2):309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, Dagobert L., and Intriligator, Michael D.. 1995. Arms Races and Proliferation. In Handbook of Defense Economics. Vol. 1, edited by Hartley, Keith and Sandler, Todd, 109–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Morrow, James D., Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 2004. Testing Novel Implications from the Selectorate Theory of War. World Politics 56 (3):363–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caverley, Jonathan. 2009. The Political Economy of Democratic Militarism. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.Google Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. 2007. Civil War. In Handbook of Defense Economics. Vol. 2, Defense in a Globalized World, edited by Sandler, Todd and Hartley, Keith, 711–39. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dunne, J. Paul, and Smith, Ron P.. 2007. The Econometrics of Military Arms Races. In Handbook of Defense Economics. Vol. 2, Defense in a Globalized World, edited by Sandler, Todd and Hartley, Keith, 913–40. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fordham, Benjamin O., and Walker, Thomas C.. 2005. Kantian Liberalism, Regime Type, and Military Resource Allocation: Do Democracies Spend Less? International Studies Quarterly 49 (1):141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Przeworski, Adam. 2006. Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion Under Dictatorship. Economics and Politics 18 (1):1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkle, Michelle R. 1994. Domestic Politics and International Conflict. American Economic Review 84 (5):1294–309.Google Scholar
Glick, Reuven, and Taylor, Alan M.. 2010. Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War. Review of Economics and Statistics 92 (1):102–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Benjamin E. 2003. Bearing the Defense Burden, 1886–1989: Why Spend More? Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (5):551–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Benjamin E. 2007. Defense Effort and Institutional Theories of Democratic Peace and Victory: Why Trade Harder? Security Studies 16 (2):189–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Håvard, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2010. Trade Does Promote Peace: New Simultaneous Estimates of the Reciprocal Effects of Trade and Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 47 (6):763–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Matthew O., and Morelli, Massimo. 2009. Strategic Militarization, Deterrence, and Wars. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4 (4):279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H. 1998. Consider the Source: Organizational Bias in Estimates of Foreign Military Spending. International Studies Quarterly 42 (1):161–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirowitz, Adam, and Sartori, Anne E.. 2008. Strategic Uncertainty as a Cause of War. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3 (4):327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur Jr., and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1966. An Economic Theory of Alliances. Review of Economics and Statistics 48 (3):266–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 1997. The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–85. International Studies Quarterly 41 (2):267–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2005. Rule of Three, Let It Be? When More Really Is Better. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4):293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Whatley, Hugh Carter. 1996. The Effect of Alliance Membership on National Defense Burdens, 1953–88: A Test of Mancur Olson's Theory of Collective Action. International Interactions 22 (2):105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleschinger, Stefanie, and Russett, Bruce. 2008. Dyadic Annual Conflict Fatalities Dataset v.2008.1/4-17-08. New York: Department of Political Science, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Polachek, Solomon W. 1980. Conflict and Trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 (1):55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol. 1957. Lewis F. Richardson's Mathematical Theory of War. Conflict Resolution 1 (3):249–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambanis, Nicholas. 2004. What Is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (6):814–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Todd, and Hartley, Keith. 1995. The Economics of Defense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S., and Ritter, Jeffrey M.. 1999. Tau-B or Not Tau-B: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions. International Studies Quarterly 43 (1):115–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Ron P. 1995. The Demand for Military Expenditure. In Handbook of Defense Economics, Vol. 1, edited by Hartley, Keith and Sandler, Todd, 69–87. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Nordhaus et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Nordhaus et al. supplementary material(File)
File 925.3 KB