IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i3d10.1007_s11077-019-09349-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending

Author

Listed:
  • Travis Sharp

    () (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments)

Abstract

Under what conditions does the USA adjust its defense spending dramatically? Scholars have identified many factors that affect military budgets, from international threats to domestic politics. Yet, most existing studies use regression analysis to estimate average marginal effects, thereby neglecting large-scale outlier “punctuations” that, though rare, supply theoretical insights, set institutional trajectories, and shape aspirations for future policy. Blending scholarship from public policy, international relations, and defense analysis, this article uses punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) and a mixed-method research design to argue that either a change in war policy or a presidential transition is necessary for a US defense spending punctuation. War debates and presidential transitions facilitate punctuations by triggering shifts in policymaker attention and policy subsystem structure, two mechanisms central to PET theorizing. In its quantitative section, the article uses a mathematical threshold to identify four punctuations since 1950: Truman’s Korean War buildup, Eisenhower’s post-Korean War drawdown, Kennedy’s peacetime civil defense buildup, and Bush I’s post-Gulf War, post-Cold War drawdown. War policy or a presidential transition figured prominently in each case. In its qualitative section, the article analyzes the Kennedy period in greater detail because, lacking a hot war, the case was least likely to witness a punctuation and therefore represents the hardest test for PET. In line with the theory’s expectations, Kennedy’s muscular agenda setting and subsystem shaping interacted with rising Cold War tensions to cause a dramatic-but-brief increase in civil defense funding to guard against a Soviet nuclear attack.

Suggested Citation

  • Travis Sharp, 2019. "Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 367-396, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09349-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-019-09349-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-019-09349-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nordhaus, William & Oneal, John R. & Russett, Bruce, 2012. "The Effects of the International Security Environment on National Military Expenditures: A Multicountry Study," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 491-513, July.
    2. Valerie A. Ramey, 2011. "Identifying Government Spending Shocks: It's all in the Timing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(1), pages 1-50.
    3. Peter H. Westfall, 2014. "Kurtosis as Peakedness, 1905-2014. R.I.P," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(3), pages 191-195, April.
    4. Paul Cairney, 2012. "Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 10(3), pages 346-358, September.
    5. Durant, Robert F. & Diehl, Paul F., 1989. "Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy: Lessons from the U.S. Foreign Policy Arena," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 179-205, April.
    6. Hewitt, Daniel, 1992. "Military Expenditures Worldwide: Determinants and Trends, 1972–1988," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 105-152, April.
    7. Ostrom, Charles W. & Marra, Robin F., 1986. "U.S. Defense Spending and the Soviet Estimate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(3), pages 819-842, September.
    8. Lieberman, Evan S., 2005. "Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 435-452, August.
    9. Rosella Cappella Zielinski & Benjamin O Fordham & Kaija E Schilde, 2017. "What goes up, must come down? The asymmetric effects of economic growth and international threat on military spending," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 54(6), pages 791-805, November.
    10. Lebovic, James H., 1994. "Riding Waves or Making Waves? The Services and the U.S. Defense Budget, 1981–1993," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(4), pages 839-852, December.
    11. Michael Givel, 2008. "Assessing Material and Symbolic Variations in Punctuated Equilibrium and Public Policy Output Patterns," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 25(6), pages 547-561, December.
    12. Hartley, Thomas & Russett, Bruce, 1992. "Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 905-915, December.
    13. Benjamin Cashore & Michael Howlett, 2007. "Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 532-551, July.
    14. Guy D. Whitten & Laron K. Williams, 2011. "Buttery Guns and Welfare Hawks: The Politics of Defense Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 117-134, January.
    15. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    16. Bove, Vincenzo & Nisticò, Roberto, 2014. "Military in politics and budgetary allocations," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 1065-1078.
    17. Breunig, Christian & Jones, Bryan D., 2011. "Stochastic Process Methods with an Application to Budgetary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 103-117, January.
    18. Glenn Palmer & Vito D’Orazio & Michael Kenwick & Matthew Lane, 2015. "The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(2), pages 222-242, April.
    19. Johanna Kuhlmann & Jeroen van der Heijden, 2018. "What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory? And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in the Policy Sciences?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(2), pages 326-347, March.
    20. Padgett, John F., 1980. "Bounded Rationality in Budgetary Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 354-372, June.
    21. Scott E. Robinson & Floun'say Caver & Kenneth J. Meier & Laurence J. O'Toole, 2007. "Explaining Policy Punctuations: Bureaucratization and Budget Change," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 140-150, January.
    22. Bryan D. Jones & László Zalányi & Péter Érdi, 2014. "An Integrated Theory of Budgetary Politics and Some Empirical Tests: The U.S. National Budget, 1791–2010," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 561-578, July.
    23. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    24. Howlett, Michael, 2009. "Process Sequencing Policy Dynamics: Beyond Homeostasis and Path Dependency," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 241-262, December.
    25. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christian Breunig & Christoffer Green‐Pedersen & Bryan D. Jones & Peter B. Mortensen & Michiel Nuytemans & Stefaan Walgrave, 2009. "Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 603-620, July.
    26. Bryan D. Jones & Frank R. Baumgartner & Christian Breunig & Christopher Wlezien & Stuart Soroka & Martial Foucault & Abel François & Christoffer Green‐Pedersen & Chris Koski & Peter John & Peter B. Mo, 2009. "A General Empirical Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 855-873, October.
    27. Tama, Jordan, 2017. "The politics of strategy: why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 27-54, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosella Cappella Zielinski & Benjamin O Fordham & Kaija E Schilde, 2017. "What goes up, must come down? The asymmetric effects of economic growth and international threat on military spending," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 54(6), pages 791-805, November.
    2. Una Hakvåg, 2017. "Russian defense spending after 2010: the interplay of personal, domestic, and foreign policy interests," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 496-510, November.
    3. Mai'a K. Davis Cross & Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski & Kaija Schilde, 2017. "European Military Capabilities: Enablers and Constraints on EU Power?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 37-53, January.
    4. Vincenzo Bove & Roberto Nisticò, 2014. "Coups d’état and defense spending: a counterfactual analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 321-344, December.
    5. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    6. Lepori, Benedetto & Montauti, Martina, 2020. "Bringing the organization back in: Flexing structural responses to competing logics in budgeting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    7. Vincenzo Bove & Jennifer Brauner, 2016. "The demand for military expenditure in authoritarian regimes," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 609-625, September.
    8. Bove Vincenzo & Elia Leandro & Pelliccia Marco, 2016. "Centrality in Trade Networks and Investment in Security," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 27-39, January.
    9. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by German parties at the 2017 federal election," Working Paper Series in Economics 107, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    10. Sencer Ecer & Nicholas J. Veasey, 2015. "The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 75-88, February.
    11. Karim Khan & Anwar Shah, 2019. "Dictatorships, Patronage and Public Good Provision: Some Empirics," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 239-264.
    12. Christos Kollias & Suzanna Maria Paleologou & Panayiotis Tzeremes & Nickolaos Tzeremes, 2018. "The demand for military spending in Latin American countries," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 27(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Bove, Vincenzo & Nisticò, Roberto, 2014. "Military in politics and budgetary allocations," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 1065-1078.
    14. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by the 2017 Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 108, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    15. Hari Prasad Guragain & Seunghoo Lim, 2019. "Nepalese Budgetary Dynamics: Following Incrementalism or Punctuated Equilibrium?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 493-518, December.
    16. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2019. "Combining the third vote with traditional elections," Working Paper Series in Economics 132, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    17. Töngür, Ünal & Hsu, Sara & Elveren, Adem Yavuz, 2015. "Military expenditures and political regimes: Evidence from global data, 1963–2000," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-79.
    18. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek, 2020. "A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Antonella Cavallo & Antonio Ribba, 2017. "Measuring the Effects of Oil Price and Euro-area Shocks on CEECs Business Cycles," Department of Economics 0111, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    20. Antonio Spilimbergo & Steve Symansky & Olivier Blanchard & Carlo Cottarelli, 2009. "Fiscal Policy For The Crisis," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(02), pages 26-32, July.

    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:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09349-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.