IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cdanxx/v30y2014i1p67-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guns--butter tradeoff in contemporary China

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Wang

Abstract

This study offers an investigation of the relationship between defense and social spending in the People's Republic of China. In particular, three consecutive questions are answered here. Does a warfare--welfare tradeoff exist in China's budgetary allocation? Is it positive or negative? What is the causal direction involved? By applying a vector autoregression analysis for the period of 1952--2006, this study finds a unidirectional crowd-out effect going from defense to social spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Wang, 2014. "Guns--butter tradeoff in contemporary China," Defense & Security Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 67-75, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cdanxx:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:67-75
    DOI: 10.1080/14751798.2013.864867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14751798.2013.864867
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14751798.2013.864867?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yingying Xu & Hsu Ling Chang & Chi Wei Su & Adelina Dumitrescu, 2018. "Guns for Butter? Empirical Evidence from China," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(7), pages 809-820, November.
    2. Wen-Yi Chen & Yai-Wun Liang & Yu-Hui Lin, 2018. "Does Health Spending Crowd out Defense in the United States? Evidence from Wavelet Multiresolution Analysis," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(7), pages 780-793, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:cdanxx:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:67-75. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CDAN20 .

    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.