2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling the Defense-Growth Nexus in Guatemala

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are two ways we can see the relationship between defense spending and economic growth: first, regression approach, where the direction of causality does not serious matter and second, time series approach, where the direction of causality does serious matter. A number of research papers have been concerned with the empirical relationship between defense spending and economic growth in different countries over different periods (see Hirnissa et al, 2008;Yildirim and Ocal, 2006;Yildirim et al, 2005;Reitschuler and Loening, 2005;Yildirim et al, 2005;Halicioglu, 2004;Kollias et al, 2004;Ocal, 2003;Shieh et al, 2002;Atesoglu, 2002;Dakurah et al, 2001;Dunne et al, 2001;Stroup and Heckelman, 2001;Frederiksen and McNab, 2001;Kollias and Makrydakis, 2000;Dunne and Vougas, 1999;Georgiou et al, 1996;Nadir, 1993;Chowdhury, 1991;Frederiksen, 1991;Alexander, 1990;Frederiksen and LaCivita, 1987;Looney and Frederiksen, 1986;Joerding, 1986). The empirical findings are, nevertheless, very contradictory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two ways we can see the relationship between defense spending and economic growth: first, regression approach, where the direction of causality does not serious matter and second, time series approach, where the direction of causality does serious matter. A number of research papers have been concerned with the empirical relationship between defense spending and economic growth in different countries over different periods (see Hirnissa et al, 2008;Yildirim and Ocal, 2006;Yildirim et al, 2005;Reitschuler and Loening, 2005;Yildirim et al, 2005;Halicioglu, 2004;Kollias et al, 2004;Ocal, 2003;Shieh et al, 2002;Atesoglu, 2002;Dakurah et al, 2001;Dunne et al, 2001;Stroup and Heckelman, 2001;Frederiksen and McNab, 2001;Kollias and Makrydakis, 2000;Dunne and Vougas, 1999;Georgiou et al, 1996;Nadir, 1993;Chowdhury, 1991;Frederiksen, 1991;Alexander, 1990;Frederiksen and LaCivita, 1987;Looney and Frederiksen, 1986;Joerding, 1986). The empirical findings are, nevertheless, very contradictory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their results show that there is a significant negative relationship going from military expenditures to economic growth. However, in the case of Guatemala, Reitschuler and Loening (2005) actually find a positive effect at lower ranges of spending. These authors use a factor productivity approach to show that there is a strong non-linear effect of defence spending on economic growth.…”
Section: <Table 2 Approximately Here>mentioning
confidence: 80%
“…This is fine in the case of e.g. Bilmes and Stiglitz (2008) or Reitschuler and Loening (2005), who specifically choose to address one particular element (the military cost of intervention and the influence of military expenditure on GDP growth respectively). However, when one sets out to analyse the total costs of a particular conflict, one has to take all elements that may contribute to that total into account.…”
Section: Case Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ramos (2004) finds a positive effect on growth in the case of Mexico. For Guatemala, Reitschuler and Loening (2005) report findings that point to a positive and significant externality effect of defence spending at low levels of such expenditure but not so for higher levels. Using a sample of Asian and Latin American countries, Murdoch et al (1997) find that defence is growth promoting but generates an opportunity cost in the form of displacing other public expenditures that also boost growth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%