IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v26y2015i1p49-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Military Expenditures, Income Inequality, Welfare and Political Regimes: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • �nal T�ng�r
  • Adem Y. Elveren

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to investigate the relationship between type of welfare regimes and military expenditures. There is a sizeable empirical literature on the development of the welfare state and on the typology of the welfare regimes. There appear to be, however, no empirical studies that examine welfare regimes with special attention to military spending. This study aims at providing a comprehensive analysis on the topic by considering several different welfare regime typologies. To do so, we use dynamic panel data analysis for 37 countries for the period of 1988-2003 by considering a wide range of control variables such as inequality measures, number of terrorist events, and size of the armed forces. We also replicate the same analyses for the political regimes. Our findings, in line with the literature, show that there is a positive relationship between income inequality and share of military expenditures in the central government budget, and that the number of terrorist events is a significant factor that affects both the level of military expenditure and inequality. Also, the paper reveals a significant negative relationship between social democratic welfare regimes and military expenditures.

Suggested Citation

  • �nal T�ng�r & Adem Y. Elveren, 2015. "Military Expenditures, Income Inequality, Welfare and Political Regimes: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 49-74, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:49-74
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2013.848577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2013.848577
    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. Whelan, Christopher T. & Maitre, Bertrand, 2008. "Comparing Poverty Indicators in an Enlarged EU," Papers WP263, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    2. Tim Krieger & Daniel Meierrieks, 2011. "What causes terrorism?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 3-27, April.
    3. Mark Gradstein & Branko Milanovic, 2000. "Does Liberté = Egalité? A Survey of the Empirical Evidence on the Links between Political Democracy and Income Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 261, CESifo.
    4. Unknown, 2009. "Indicators June-09," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-4, June.
    5. Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati & K K Shakya Lahiru Pathmalal, 2008. "Exploring The Relationship Between Military Spending & Human Rights Performance In South Asia," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp941, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Muhammad Shahbaz & Reza Sherafatian-Jahromi & Muhammad Nasir Malik & Muhammad Shahbaz Shabbir & Farooq Ahmed Jam, 2016. "Linkages between defense spending and income inequality in Iran," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 1317-1332, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Syed Ali Raza & Muhammad Shahbaz & Sudharshan Reddy Paramati, 2017. "Dynamics of Military Expenditure and Income Inequality in Pakistan," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 1035-1055, April.
    4. Ying Zhang & Xiaoxing Liu & Jiaxin Xu & Rui Wang, 2017. "Does military spending promote social welfare? A comparative analysis of the BRICS and G7 countries," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 686-702, November.
    5. Chiung-Ju Huang & Yuan-Hong Ho, 2018. "Does Taiwan's Defense Spending Crowd out Education and Social Welfare Expenditures?," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 14(1), pages 67-82, February.
    6. Natalia Utrero-González & Jana Hromcová & Francisco J. Callado-Muñoz, 2019. "Defence Spending, Institutional Environment and Economic Growth: Case of NATO," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 525-548, July.
    7. Sajjad F. Dizaji & Mohammad R. Farzanegan, 2020. "Democracy and Militarization in Developing Countries: A Panel Vector Autoregressive Analysis," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202035, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Ying Zhang & Rui Wang & Dongqi Yao, 2017. "Does defence expenditure have a spillover effect on income inequality? A cross-regional analysis in China," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 731-749, November.
    9. Khalid Zaman, 2019. "Does higher military spending affect business regulatory and growth specific measures? Evidence from the group of seven (G-7) countries," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(1), pages 323-348, April.
    10. Yemane Wolde-Rufael, 2016. "Military expenditure and income distribution in South Korea," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 571-581, August.
    11. Adem Elveren & Valentine M. Moghadam, 2019. "The impact of militarization on gender inequality and female labor force participation," Working Papers 1307, Economic Research Forum, revised 21 Aug 2019.

    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:26:y:2015:i:1:p:49-74. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    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.