MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283670452 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n3p1

Do Military Expenditure and Conflict Affect Economic Growth in Sri Lanka? Evidence from the ARDL Bounds Test Approach

2016· article· en· W2283670452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Rasheed Sithy Jesmy, Mohd Zaini Abd Karim, Shri Dewi Applanaidu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Peradeniya
KeywordsCointegrationEconomicsPer capitaDevelopment economicsError correction modelShort runReal gross domestic productDemographic economicsPoliticsMacroeconomicsEconometricsPolitical scienceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflicts in the form of civil war, ethnic tensions and political discord are of enduring concern and a major bottleneck to economic development in Sri Lanka. Three decades of civil war and unethical political culture have caused severe economic problems for the country, including slower rate of growth and a huge defence expenditure. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of military expenditure and conflict on per capita GDP growth rate in Sri Lanka from 1973 to 2014 using the Solow growth model and ARDL bounds test approach. The results of the bounds test are highly significant and lead to cointegration. The negative and significant coefficients of the error correction term illustrate the expected convergence process in the long-run dynamic of per capita GDP. The estimated empirical results show that, the coefficients of military expenditure and conflict are negative and statistically significant in the short-run as well as in the long-run in determining per capita GDP growth rate in Sri Lanka. Hence, it is critically important to take necessary action to decrease military expenditure and provide an efficient political solution to the problem of minorities, specifically in the post-war period.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207