Military spending, armed conflict and economic growth in developing countries in the post-Cold War era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While the relationship between military expenditure and economic growth during the Cold War period is well-researched, relatively less is known on the issue for the post-Cold War era. Equally how the relationship varies with respect to exposure to conflict is also not fully examined. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the causal impact of military expenditure on growth in the presence of internal and external threats for the period 1990-2013 using data from 70 developing countries. Design/methodology/approach The main estimates are based on the generalized method of moments (GMM) regression model. But for comparison purposes, the authors also report estimates using fixed and random effects as well as pooled cross-section regressions. The regression specification accounts for non-linear effect of military expenditure allowing for interaction with conflict variable (where distinction is made between external and internal conflict). Findings The analysis indicates that methods as well as model specification matter in studying the effect of military spending on growth. Full sample estimates based on GMM, fixed, and random effects models suggest a negative and statistically significant effect of military expenditure. However, fixed effects estimate becomes insignificant for low-income countries. The effect of military spending is also insignificant in the cross-sectional OLS model if conflict is not considered. When the regression model additionally controls for conflict, the effect of military spending conditional upon (internal) conflict exposure is significant and positive. No such effect is present conditional upon external threat. Research limitations/implications One important limitation of the analysis is the small sample size – the authors had to restrict analysis to 70 low and middle-income countries for which the authors could construct post-Cold War panel data on military expenditure along with information on armed conflict exposure (the later from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2015). Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first paper to examine the joint impact of military expenditure and conflict on economic growth in post-Cold War period in a sample of developing countries. Moreover, an attempt is made to review and revisit the large Cold War literature where studies vary considerably in terms findings. A key reason for this is the somewhat ad hoc choice of econometric methods – most rely on cross-section data and rarely conduct sensitivity analysis. The authors instead rely on panel data estimates but also report results based on naïve models for comparison purposes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".