IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v76y1982i01p60-74_18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Post-Coup Military Spending Question: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Time Series Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zuk, Gary
  • Thompson, William R.

Abstract

Despite or because of a decade of research that yielded conflicting results, the question of whether or not military coups or regimes brought into power through coups have an impact on subsequent military spending remains open. A review of the relevant literature suggests that part of the analytical problem may result from assumptions about military political behavior as well as various limitations associated with cross-national analyses of change, and the use of exclusively cross-sectional or longitudinal research designs. In addition, some of the disparity in research findings may result from the reliance on different indicators—both dependent and independent—by a number of different analysts. In response to these potential technical problems, this analysis of military spending patterns in 66 less-developed states applies a GLS routine, pooling cross-sectional and time-series data, to the 1967–1976 relationships between two measures of military spending and several predictor variables, including regime type, coup occurrences, level of conflict, economic development, arms imports, and previous military spending. Although the empirical outcome varies according to which dependent variable is examined, we find, in general, that information on the distribution and timing of regime types—military, civilian, and mixed—and successful military coups is not very helpful in predicting post-coup military spending policies. This finding suggests, in turn, that the crucial presumption that military personnel participate in politics primarily to defend or advance their corporate interests is not a very useful predictive foundation for the examination of post-coup military spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Zuk, Gary & Thompson, William R., 1982. "The Post-Coup Military Spending Question: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Time Series Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(1), pages 60-74, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:76:y:1982:i:01:p:60-74_18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400186034/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert M. Rosh, 1988. "Third World Militarization," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(4), pages 671-698, December.
    2. Gabriel Leon, 2014. "Loyalty for sale? Military spending and coups d’etat," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 363-383, June.
    3. Andrew T. Little, 2017. "Coordination, Learning, and Coups," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(1), pages 204-234, January.
    4. Gary Zuk & Nancy R. Woodbury, 1986. "U.S. Defense Spending, Electoral Cycles, and Soviet-American Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 445-468, September.
    5. John Sislin, 1994. "Arms as Influence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(4), pages 665-689, December.
    6. Johansson, Anders C. & Engvall, Anders, 2022. "Military Factions and Coups: Pathways to Power in Thailand," Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper Series 2022-54, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm China Economic Research Institute.
    7. Kawaura, Akihiko, 2018. "Generals in defense of allocation: Coups and military budgets in Thailand," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 72-78.
    8. Justin Conrad & Hong-Cheol Kim & Mark Souva, 2013. "Narrow interests and military resource allocation in autocratic regimes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 50(6), pages 737-750, November.

    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:apsrev:v:76:y:1982:i:01:p:60-74_18. 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/psr .

    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.