IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v47y2003i4p399-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Representing Defense

Author

Listed:
  • Richard C. Eichenberg

    (Department of Political Science Tufts University)

  • Richard Stoll

    (Department of Political Science Rice University)

Abstract

There is nowsubstantial evidence that defense spending decisions in the United States are influenced by citizen preferences. However, there is little time-series evidence for countries other than the United States. Regression models of citizen responsiveness and opinion representation in the politics of defense spending in five democracies are estimated. Results showthat public opinion in all five countries is systematically responsive to recent changes in defense spending, and the form of the responses across countries uniformly resembles the “thermostat†metaphor developed by Wlezien and the more general theory of opinion dynamics developed by Stimson. Findings showalso that defense budgeting is representative: public support for defense spending is the most consistently significant influence on defense budgeting change in four countries; thus, a parsimonious theory of comparative policy representation is potentially within reach. The implications of the results for defense spending in the NATO alliance and the European Union are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Representing Defense," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(4), pages 399-422, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:47:y:2003:i:4:p:399-422
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002703254477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002703254477
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002703254477?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandler,Todd & Hartley,Keith, 1999. "The Political Economy of NATO," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521630931, January.
    2. Wlezien, Christopher, 1996. "Dynamics of Representation: The Case of US Spending on Defence," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 81-103, January.
    3. Sandler, Todd & Hartley, Keith, 1999. "The Political Economy of Nato: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1441, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Stimson, James A. & Mackuen, Michael B. & Erikson, Robert S., 1995. "Dynamic Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 543-565, September.
    5. Hartley, Thomas & Russett, Bruce, 1992. "Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 905-915, December.
    6. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    7. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1983. "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 175-190, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    2. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by German parties at the 2017 federal election," Working Paper Series in Economics 107, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    3. Tangian, Andranik S., 2017. "Policy representation by the 2017 Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 108, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    4. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2019. "Combining the third vote with traditional elections," Working Paper Series in Economics 132, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Bernhard Klingen, 2011. "A Public Choice Perspective on Defense and Alliance Policy," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Sencer Ecer & Nicholas J. Veasey, 2015. "The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 75-88, February.
    7. Bartels, Larry, 2005. "Economic Inequality and Political Representation," Papers 08-11-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    8. Eivind Hoff-Elimari & Anat Bardi & Simon Matti & Kristina Östman, 2014. "Collective action problems: Disentangling possible feedback loops between government policies and the public’s value-change," European Journal of Government and Economics, Europa Grande, vol. 3(1), pages 24-46, June.
    9. Kobi Kagan & Alon Levkowitz & Asher Tishler & Avi Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements, With Applications To The Israeli-Syrian And The North Versus South Korean Conflicts," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 95-121.
    10. Thomas Plümper & Eric Neumayer, 2015. "Free-riding in alliances: Testing an old theory with a new method," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 247-268, July.
    11. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    13. Michail Ploumis, 2018. "A New Way Forward: Rebalancing the U.S. Security Cooperation with Greece in a Fast Changing Geostrategic Environment," Applied Finance and Accounting, Redfame publishing, vol. 4(1), pages 95-111, February.
    14. Roger Congleton & Andreas Kyriacou & Jordi Bacaria, 2003. "A Theory of Menu Federalism: Decentralization by Political Agreement," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 167-190, September.
    15. M. Dolores Gadea & Eva Pardos & Claudia Perez-Fornies, 2004. "A Long-Run Analysis Of Defence Spending In The Nato Countries (1960-99)," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 231-249.
    16. Rainer Schweickert & Inna Melnykovska & Ansgar Belke & Ingo Bordon, 2011. "Prospective NATO or EU membership and institutional change in transition countries," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 19(4), pages 667-692, October.
    17. Khusrav Gaibulloev & Todd Sandler & Hirofumi Shimizu, 2009. "Demands for UN and Non-UN Peacekeeping," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(6), pages 827-852, December.
    18. Ghislain Dutheil de la Rochère & Jean-Michel Josselin & Yvon Rocaboy, 2011. "The role of aggregation technologies in the provision of supranational public goods: A reconsideration of NATO’s strategies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 85-103, March.
    19. Marek Dabrowski & Artur Radziwill, 2007. "Regional vs. Global Public Goods: The Case of Post-Communist Transition," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0336, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    20. El-Mallakh, Nelly, 2020. "How do protests affect electoral choices? Evidence from Egypt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 299-322.

    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:sae:jocore:v:47:y:2003:i:4:p:399-422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.