IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v34y2023i5p563-580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Accountability and Military Spending

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Lopes da Silva

Abstract

Over the past two decades, evidence on the relationship between democratization and reductions in military spending has accumulated. This association has proven to be robust to a wide variety of specifications and samples. Nevertheless, there remain two important gaps in our understanding of this relationship. Firstly, while most studies argue that democratic political institutions constrain the incumbents’ power to allocate resources to the military, there is still disagreement about which institution. Second, empirical evidence on causality is very scarce. Endogeneity remains a difficult problem to grapple with. To address these issues, I specify a clear set of channels of interaction linking democratic political institutions to military spending. Following previous work, I also argue that political accountability constrains allocations to the military. However, I distinguish three types of accountability: horizontal, vertical and diagonal. I find that diagonal accountability is the strongest mechanism. Furthermore, I use a country’s accumulated experience with political accountability as an instrumental variable to tackle the endogeneity between political accountability and military spending. I find evidence suggesting that political accountability causes military spending as a share of GDP to fall.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Lopes da Silva, 2023. "Political Accountability and Military Spending," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 563-580, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:34:y:2023:i:5:p:563-580
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2022.2129128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2022.2129128
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242694.2022.2129128?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:defpea:v:34:y:2023:i:5:p:563-580. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    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.