IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/integr/0631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Military Alliances and Reality of Regional Integration: Japan, South Korea, the US vs. China, North Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Goo, Young-Wan

    (Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University)

  • Lee, Seong-Hoon

    (Department of Economics, Cheongju University)

Abstract

East Asian military security is of overarching importance in the economic integration and prosperity in this region. This study analyzes how South Korea and Japan consider the U.S. as a military ally in the context of the China–North Korea alliance by using the iterative Seemingly Unrelated Regression(SUR) method in estimating defense goods demand functions. The findings are that Japan considered the U.S. to be a closer ally than the U.S. did during 2000~2005 and South Korea may regard the U.S. as a closer ally than vice versa. The U.S. regards Japan as a closer ally than Korea. South Korea’s demand for defense goods has not been increased by the threat from the China–North Korea alliance but American and Japanese demand has recently been increased by the threat, implying that South Korea has not regarded the China–North Korea alliance as a significant threat whereas that Japan and the U.S. have recognized the military alliance as a serious one.

Suggested Citation

  • Goo, Young-Wan & Lee, Seong-Hoon, 2014. "Military Alliances and Reality of Regional Integration: Japan, South Korea, the US vs. China, North Korea," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 29, pages 329-342.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:integr:0631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://sejong.metapress.com/
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoad Shefi & Asher Tishler, 2005. "The Effects Of The World Defense Industry And Us Military Aid To Israel On The Israeli Defense Industry: A Differentiated Products Model," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 427-448.
    2. Mark Abdollahian & Kyungkook Kang, 2008. "In Search of Structure: The Nonlinear Dynamics of Power Transitions," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 333-357, December.
    3. Garfinkel, Michelle R., 2004. "Stable alliance formation in distributional conflict," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 829-852, November.
    4. Martin C. McGuire, 1982. "U.S. Assistance, Israeli Allocation, and the Arms Race in the Middle East," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 199-235, June.
    5. Todd Sandler & James C. Murdoch, 1990. "Nash-Cournot or Lindahl Behavior?: An Empirical Test for the NATO Allies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(4), pages 875-894.
    6. James C. Murdoch & Todd Sandler, 1982. "A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of NATO," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 237-263, June.
    7. Murdoch, James C. & Sandler, Todd, 1984. "Complementarity, free riding, and the military expenditures of NATO allies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 83-101, November.
    8. Smith, R P, 1989. "Models of Military Expenditure," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 345-359, Oct.-Dec..
    9. Okamura, Minoru, 1991. "Estimating the Impact of the Soviet Union's Threat on the United States-Japan Alliance: A Demand System Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 200-207, May.
    10. Alesina, Alberto & Spolaore, Enrico, 2006. "Conflict, defense spending, and the number of nations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 91-120, January.
    11. J. Paul Dunne & Ron Smith & Dirk Willenbockel, 2005. "Models Of Military Expenditure And Growth: A Critical Review," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 449-461.
    12. Todd Sandler, 1977. "Impurity Of Defense: An Application To The Economics Of Alliances," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 443-460, August.
    13. Young-Wan Goo & Seung-Nyeon Kim, 2009. "A study on the military alliance of South Korea–United States with the existence of threat from North Korea: a public good demand approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 597-610, June.
    14. Conybeare, John A. C. & Sandler, Todd, 1990. "The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance 1880–1914: A Collective Goods Approach," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(4), pages 1197-1206, December.
    15. Sandler, Todd, 1977. "Impurity of Defense: An Application to the Economics of Alliances," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 443-460.
    16. Sandler, Todd & Forbes, John F, 1980. "Burden Sharing, Strategy, and the Design of NATO," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(3), pages 425-444, July.
    17. Gonzalez, Rodolfo A & Mehay, Stephen L, 1991. "Burden Sharing in the NATO Alliance: An Empirical Test of Alternative Views," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 68(1-3), pages 107-116, January.
    18. John R. Oneal, 1990. "Testing the Theory of Collective Action," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 426-448, September.
    19. Murdoch, J C & Sandler, T, 1985. "Australian Demand for Military Expenditures: 1961-1979," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(44), pages 142-153, June.
    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. Young‐Wan Goo & Seung‐Nyeon Kim, 2012. "Time-Varying Characteristics Of South Korea-United States And Japan-United States Military Alliances Under Chinese Threat: A Public Good Approach," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 95-106, February.
    2. Todd Sandler, 1993. "The Economic Theory of Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 446-483, September.
    3. George, Justin & Sandler, Todd, 2018. "Demand for military spending in NATO, 1968–2015: A spatial panel approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 222-236.
    4. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    5. Young-Wan Goo & Seung-Nyeon Kim, 2009. "A study on the military alliance of South Korea–United States with the existence of threat from North Korea: a public good demand approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 597-610, June.
    6. Todd Sandler, 2005. "Nato Benefits, Burdens And Borders: Comment," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 317-321.
    7. Justin George & Todd Sandler, 2022. "NATO defense demand, free riding, and the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(4), pages 783-806, December.
    8. Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler, 2001. "Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for Collective Action," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 869-896, September.
    9. Conybeare, John A C & Murdoch, James C & Sandler, Todd, 1994. "Alternative Collective-Goods Models of Military Alliances: Theory and Empirics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(4), pages 525-542, October.
    10. Thomas Plümper & Eric Neumayer, 2015. "Free-riding in alliances: Testing an old theory with a new method," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 247-268, July.
    11. Ghislain Dutheil de la Rochère & Jean-Michel Josselin & Yvon Rocaboy, 2011. "The role of aggregation technologies in the provision of supranational public goods: A reconsideration of NATO’s strategies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 85-103, March.
    12. Shimizu, Hirofumi, 1999. "UN peacekeeping as a public good: analyses of the UN member states' peacekeeping financial contribution behavior," ISU General Staff Papers 1999010108000013434, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. David Rietzke & Brian Roberson, 2013. "The robustness of ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 937-956, April.
    14. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2012. "Coalitional Colonel Blotto Games with Application to the Economics of Alliances," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(4), pages 653-676, August.
    15. Ismael Sanz & Francisco Javier Velázquez, 2002. "Determinants of the Composition of Government Expenditure by Functions," European Economy Group Working Papers 13, European Economy Group.
    16. Renaud Bellais & Martial Foucault & Jean-Michel Oudot, 2014. "Économie de la défense," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01052607, HAL.
    17. Nathan W. Chan, 2019. "Funding Global Environmental Public Goods Through Multilateral Financial Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 515-531, June.
    18. William Gates & Katsuaki Terasawa, 2003. "Reconsidering publicness in alliance defence expenditures: NATO expansion and burden sharing," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 369-383.
    19. 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.
    20. Bernhard Klingen, 2011. "A Public Choice Perspective on Defense and Alliance Policy," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Military Alliance; Defense Goods; Threat Elasticity; Spill-In Elasticity (SIE); Public Good;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War
    • O53 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East

    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:ris:integr:0631. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Yunhoe Kim (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desejkr.html .

    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.