The Acceptability of War and Support for Defense Spending: Evidence from Fourteen Democracies, 2004-2013

Eichenberg, Richard C.; Stoll, Richard J.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2491701

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 3. This finding is in line with William’s (2015: 251) study, which corroborates a link between party ideology, voter preferences on defence spending and voting (see also Eichenberg and Stoll, 2017: 802). Similarly, Milner and Tingley (2012: 337) highlight the partisan divide in US public opinion regarding foreign aid. …”

supporting

confidence: 88%

Bomb or build? How party ideologies affect the balance of foreign aid and defence spending

Wenzelburger

Böller

2019

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to a growing literature that questions the traditional ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’ paradigm. Left- and right-wing parties hold diverging ideologies and articulate specific party programmes regarding policy priorities in the realm of foreign and security affairs. The impact of partisan contestations over foreign policy priorities can be traced in defence and foreign aid spending. We understand this ‘bomb-or-build’-balance as two sides of a coin which shapes the international posture of democracies. Our quantitative analysis of 21 OECD countries (1988–2014) reveals that the ideological positions of the parties in government influence the relative importance of military expenditures versus foreign aid. The more the ideological position of a government is tilted towards the military (and against internationalism), the more the ‘bomb-or-build’-balance shifts in favour of military spending (and in disfavour of foreign aid).

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 88%

Bomb or build? How party ideologies affect the balance of foreign aid and defence spending

Wenzelburger

Böller

2019

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, a multilevel model of disaggregated burden-sharing choices contributes to the understanding of non-security variables in material security choices (Kimball, 2010; Zielinski, Fordham & Schilde, 2017). The ‘guns vs. butter’ debate is far more complex than the simple trade-off the phrase implies, with national fiscal (DiGiuseppe, 2015), trade (Smyth & Paresh, 2009), macroeconomic (Goldsmith, 2003), and political (Chapman, 2007; Eichenberg & Stoll, 2017) dimensions playing important roles in decisionmaking. In a security community seeking ‘positive peace’ (Gleditsch, Nordkvelle & Strand, 2014: 145), but in which members’ threat perceptions differ, domestic variables play an important role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accidental rivals? EU fiscal rules, NATO, and transatlantic burden-sharing

Becker

2019

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both theorists and practitioners continue to show interest in transatlantic burden-sharing. Resource allocation choices – both to and within defense budgets – are grand strategic choices, and membership in alliances and security communities affects how states make those choices. International security and political economy scholarship offers plausible explanations for transatlantic imbalances in military expenditures. However, NATO allies and EU member-states have pledged to one another not just to spend more on defense, but to allocate more defense resources to equipment modernization. Current scholarship does not fully explain the sources of such within-budget choices, which would help anticipate the likelihood of such pledges succeeding. Building on work by security scholars, defense and political economists, and scholars of interorganizational relations, I argue that stringent fiscal rules dampen the kind of defense spending NATO and EU strategists seek. Governments respond to increasingly stringent fiscal rules by reducing overall defense expenditures, while at the same time shifting existing defense resources to personnel, and away from equipment and operational expenditures. I find evidence in support of this argument by using education levels in the states in question as instruments for fiscal rules. This phenomenon represents a significant risk for important transatlantic strategic initiatives, namely NATO’s Wales pledge on defense investment.

show abstract

“…Scholars have long found a "gender gap" in support for war, civilian collateral damage, humanitarian crises, militancy, and defense spending as women appear less supportive of violence than men (Conover and Sapiro 1993;Eichenberg 2003Eichenberg , 2007Eichenberg and Stoll 2017). This gap extends to terrorism as women are less supportive of terrorist tactics and less likely to participate in terrorism than men (Sillke 2010).…”

Section: Gender Equality and Civilian-oriented Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Civilians Are Attacked: Gender Equality and Terrorist Targeting

Huber

2019

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While scholars demonstrate a consistent negative relationship between gender equality and violence, the effect of women’s rights on the quality of terrorism and the type of victims targeted remains unexplored. This article introduces a new model of terrorists’ strategic targeting by examining the trade-off between the ease of a civilian-oriented attack and the negative public reaction these attacks invoke. Within this framework, gender equality increases the costs of civilian targeting by inducing public opinion costs. As gender equality increases, the costs of attacking civilians increase relatively more than government-oriented attacks. Using data on domestic terrorism between 1970 and 2007 and a subnational examination of a randomly implemented gender quota in India, this study demonstrates that as gender equality increases, the ratio of civilian-oriented to government-oriented attacks decreases. Overall, this study refines our understanding of terrorists’ strategic targeting and identifies heterogeneity in the Women, Peace, and Security theory.

show abstract

The Acceptability of War and Support for Defense Spending: Evidence from Fourteen Democracies, 2004-2013

Cited by 7 publications

References 34 publications

Bomb or build? How party ideologies affect the balance of foreign aid and defence spending

Bomb or build? How party ideologies affect the balance of foreign aid and defence spending

Accidental rivals? EU fiscal rules, NATO, and transatlantic burden-sharing

When Civilians Are Attacked: Gender Equality and Terrorist Targeting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About