IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v6y2010i02p243-259_99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constraining the state's ability to employ force: the standing army debates, 1697–99

Author

Listed:
  • HUMPHREY, SHAWN
  • HANSEN, BRADLEY A.

Abstract

Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 is one of the most widely studied cases of institutional change. Recent institutional analyses of the Glorious Revolution, however, have failed to address one of the central issues in political science: control of the state's comparative advantage in violence. This paper examines this issue through analysis of the standing army debates of the late 1690s. Participants in the debates disputed whether a standing army or a militia would be the most effective institutional arrangement to guard against threats from abroad and tyranny at home. Both sides of the debate analyzed the effects of a standing army in terms of the incentives that it created for soldiers, citizens, the monarch, and foreign governments.

Suggested Citation

  • Humphrey, Shawn & Hansen, Bradley A., 2010. "Constraining the state's ability to employ force: the standing army debates, 1697–99," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 243-259, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:02:p:243-259_99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137409990348/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:02:p:243-259_99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.