• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
The Military Burden and Basic Human NeedsAuthor(s): William J. Dixon and Bruce E. MoonSource:
The Journal of Conflict Resolution,
Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 660-684Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/174080
Accessed: 13/01/2009 11:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc.
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Conflict Resolution.
http://www.jstor.org
 
The Military BurdenandBasic Human Needs
WILLIAM J. DIXON
Department of Political ScienceEmory University
BRUCE E. MOON
lDepartmentof Political ScienceNorthwestern UniversityThis study examines ways in which military factors influence the provision of basichuman needs once theeffectsofaggregatedsocial wealth and certainpolitical aspects ofthestateareremoved. Three channels ofinfluenceare examined: the defense burdenontheeconomy,thescopeofmilitary participationinsociety,andmilitarycontroloftheruling regime. We analyze these influences by regressing an index of physical well-being,thePQLI,onmeasuresofeach factorforasampleof 116contemporarynationalsocieties.Ourfindingsindicate thatmilitaryattributes do indeedhave someimpactontheprovisionofbasic needs evenwithother important influencesremoved.Military participationisfoundto make apositivecontributiontowelfareperformance; military spending,on theotherhand, appearsto inhibit welfareoutcomes,butonlywhencontrollingfor the size ofthemilitaryestablishment.Militarycontrol of thegovernmenthasnodiscernible effect onourmeasureofwelfareperformance.
'Whatistheimpactof themilitaryonthe social andeconomic well-beingofanation's citizens? Much ofthetheorizingon thisquestionhasbeen directedtoward thespecialcaseofmilitary regimes, particularlythosegoverningThirdWorld states. Assessmentsof theearly1960s
AUTHORS'NOTE: [he authors shareequal credit; the listing of names wasdeterminedrandomly.Anearlier version of thisarticle was presented at the 1985 AnnualMeetingof theInternational Studies Association in Washington, D.C. We would like tothank theeditorforcommentsand suggestionsonthe earlier draft.
JOURNALOF CONFLIC[RESOLUTION,Vol.30 No.4,I)eccmber1986 660-684
?
1987 Sage Publications,Inc.
660
 
Dixon, Moon / Military Burdenand Basic Needs 661
generally portrayed themilitary as a modernizingforce in most societiesbecauseof itsabilityto efficiently mobilizeresources for sustainedeconomic growth, maintainthe stability necessaryfor effective policyimplementation, andexercise control over otheractors who wouldthwartchange (see,forexample, Pye, 1964; Halpern,1963; Levy, 1966).Conversely,critics of militaryrule havechargedthat such regimesaremore likely to arrest developmentof the politicalsystem, divert socialand economicresourcestoward nonproductivesectors, andfollowrepressive policies thatultimately turn the organsof government againstthe massesit isdesignedto serveBienen, 1971;Abrahamsson, 1972;Wolpin, 1981). Stillother observers have soughtto reconcile thesecompetingclaimsbyarguing thatthespecificeffectsofmilitaryruledependona nation's level of economic and socialdevelopment(Huntington, 1968;Nordlinger, 1970).Despitetheirplausibility,evidencefrom adecadeofempiricalresearch has shown thatnoneoftheforegoingargumentscan withstandclosescrutiny.Itwouldappearthatthere are fewsystematiccross-national differencesin the socioeconomicperformanceofmilitaryandcivilianregimes (Schmitter,1971, 1973;McKinlayandCohen, 1975,1976; Jackman, 1976;Wolpin, 1981)nor are there differential effectsthatvary bylevel ofdevelopment (Jackman,1976).'As Jackman(1976:1097)hasput it,"thesimple civilian-military governmentdistinctionappearstobeoflittleuseintheexplanationof social change."Ofcourse,amilitary organizationneednotbeinformal controlofthegovernmentto exert influence on socioeconomic outcomes.Infact,many theorists ignoreregime composition altogetherand instead focusdirectlyon theallocationof social and economic resourcestomilitarypurposes.Mostpreviousstudiesof thistypehave examined eithertheeconomicconsequencesofmilitary expenditures(Benoit, 1973, 1978;Kennedy, 1974; Whynes,1979; Ball, 1983;DegerandSmith, 1983;Leontief andDuchin,1983;Biswas andRam,1986)or theaggregateeffects oflarge manpowercommitmentsto themilitary organization(Andreski, 1968;GarnierandHazelrigg, 1973;Weede andTiefenbach,1981; Weede, 1983),althoughthese twocomponentsarerarelyinte-gratedinanytheoretically meaningful way (see,forinstance, Weede,1986).Webelieve therearegoodreasonsfordoingso.As weexplain
1.The few exceptionsto these findingshavecome from studiesrestrictedto regionalsamplesofnations (forinstance,Tannahil, 1976;Berg-Schlosser, 1984). The majorperformancedifferencesbetweenmilitary and civilian regimesareordinarilymorepoliticalthan socioeconomicin character.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...