IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v26y2015i1p75-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Shifting Determinants of Defense Spending Preferences Between 1980 and 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Sencer Ecer
  • Nicholas J. Veasey

Abstract

This paper analyzes defense spending preferences using ordered logit regression analysis of American National Election Survey data from 1980 through 2008. Our results indicate that as opposed to having the ideology of isolationism, political party identification towards the Republican Party or having economic stakes in defense spending always play a significant role in increased preference towards defense spending. Demographic groups such as Native Americans, Hispanics, and retired women, a demographic subgroup, display generally positive preferences towards defense spending. Somewhat surprisingly, another demographic subgroup, 'security moms,' do not show a preference. Our analysis also displays lower (higher) preference in the early 1990s (2000s) for defense spending compared to the year 2008.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:75-88
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2013.848578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2013.848578
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242694.2013.848578?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Laurel Elder & Steven Greene, 2007. "The Myth of “Security Moms” and “NASCAR Dads”: Parenthood, Political Stereotypes, and the 2004 Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(1), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Hurwitz, Jon & Peffley, Mark, 1987. "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1099-1120, December.
    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. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard Stoll, 2003. "Representing Defense," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(4), pages 399-422, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Laron K. Williams, 2019. "Guns Yield Butter? An Exploration of Defense Spending Preferences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1193-1221, May.
    7. Jeffrey W. Knopf, 1998. "How Rational Is “The Rational Public†?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(5), pages 544-571, October.
    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. Travis Sharp, 2019. "Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 367-396, September.
    10. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    11. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    12. Prather, Lauren, 2024. "Ideology at the Water’s Edge: Explaining Variation in Public Support for Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Florin ŞUHAN, 2019. "Study On Defense Expenditure And Its Financing," EURINT, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 6, pages 256-268.
    14. Hessami, Zohal, 2014. "Political corruption, public procurement, and budget composition: Theory and evidence from OECD countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 372-389.
    15. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    16. Li, Yuanpeng & Shi, Haina & Zhou, Yi, 2021. "The influence of the media on government decisions: Evidence from IPOs in China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    17. MARK FRANKLIN & MICHAEL MARSH & LAUREN McLAREN, 1994. "Uncorking the Bottle: Popular Opposition to European Unification in the Wake of Maastricht," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 455-472, December.
    18. Karl DeRouen Jr & Uk Heo, 2001. "Presidents and Defense Contracting, 1953-1992," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(2), pages 251-267, February.
    19. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    20. R. Urbatsch, 2010. "Isolationism and Domestic Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 471-492, June.

    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:defpea:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:75-88. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    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.