Most efforts directed at security sector reform (SSR) in African countries have had very little impact. This includes efforts aimed at a more rational allocation of tasks and resources in the sector. This article is concerned with the strongest form of SSR, the total disbanding of military forces. The best example of effective demilitarization is Costa Rica, which has flourished since it disbanded its military some 70 years ago. The strategic situation, the negative behavior of its defense force since its formation, and the opportunity costs of military expenditure provide a strong case for the demilitarization of Lesotho, a small country in southern Africa. Five necessary conditions for a successful demilitarization can be identified, namely its acceptance by a country’s citizens, a willing government, a detailed demilitarization plan, an implementing agency, and adequate finances. While these are interrelated, the article focuses on financial aspects, including the need for foreign assistance to finance the initial investment required. The peace dividend resulting from demilitarization could be used to provide a basic income grant to all adult citizens. We estimate that this would raise average incomes of the poorest 95 percent of households by around 20 percent per annum.
{"title":"Demilitarizing a small African country: Rationale, necessary conditions, and financing","authors":"G. Harris, Tlohang W. Letsie","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.39","url":null,"abstract":"Most efforts directed at security sector reform (SSR) in African countries have had very little impact. This includes efforts aimed at a more rational allocation of tasks and resources in the sector. This article is concerned with the strongest form of SSR, the total disbanding of military forces. The best example of effective demilitarization is Costa Rica, which has flourished since it disbanded its military some 70 years ago. The strategic situation, the negative behavior of its defense force since its formation, and the opportunity costs of military expenditure provide a strong case for the demilitarization of Lesotho, a small country in southern Africa. Five necessary conditions for a successful demilitarization can be identified, namely its acceptance by a country’s citizens, a willing government, a detailed demilitarization plan, an implementing agency, and adequate finances. While these are interrelated, the article focuses on financial aspects, including the need for foreign assistance to finance the initial investment required. The peace dividend resulting from demilitarization could be used to provide a basic income grant to all adult citizens. We estimate that this would raise average incomes of the poorest 95 percent of households by around 20 percent per annum.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44391773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The empirical analysis of datasets covering a large number of countries and time periods has become an integral part of conflict and peace economics. As such, numerous studies examine relationships between and among macroeconomic, political, and conflict variables and this often involves the merging of disparate datasets to combine relevant variables for which the country unit of analysis, however, is not necessarily the same. This article highlights difficulties in the data merging process and, by way of example, presents detailed country coding unit comparison for two economic (UN Comtrade and World Development Indicators), two democracy (Polity IV and V-Dem), and two conflict datasets (UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset and COW Militarized Interstate Disputes Dataset). We find that merging datasets can result in the elimination of very large numbers of observations due to unmergeable records and that dropped observations often include the very countries or territorial entities most of interest in conflict and peace economics.
{"title":"'Tis but thy name that is my enemy: On the construction of macro panel datasets in conflict and peace economics","authors":"V. Boese, Katrin Kamin","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"The empirical analysis of datasets covering a large number of countries and time periods has become an integral part of conflict and peace economics. As such, numerous studies examine relationships between and among macroeconomic, political, and conflict variables and this often involves the merging of disparate datasets to combine relevant variables for which the country unit of analysis, however, is not necessarily the same. This article highlights difficulties in the data merging process and, by way of example, presents detailed country coding unit comparison for two economic (UN Comtrade and World Development Indicators), two democracy (Polity IV and V-Dem), and two conflict datasets (UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset and COW Militarized Interstate Disputes Dataset). We find that merging datasets can result in the elimination of very large numbers of observations due to unmergeable records and that dropped observations often include the very countries or territorial entities most of interest in conflict and peace economics.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49057474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across the world, the perceived common ground regarding global safety and security is changing. Facing divergent threats, in addition to their cooperation on defense states will increasingly need to collaborate on additional dimensions to protect their citizens. Hence, next to the military burden-sharing debate, questions as to whether states are contributing their fair shares in other arenas as well will be subject to debate also. This article analyzes national contributions by 28 NATO states to five dimensions connected to today’s safety and security situation, namely military expenditures, foreign aid, combating terror financing, carbon dioxide reductions, and refugee protection. We find that states vary in their contributions to safety and security, each preferring to fund some dimensions more than others. We suggest that acknowledging and allowing for a certain degree of complementarity among states could help transform the debate on burden-sharing, which is cost-focused, to include benefit-sharing behavior. Thus, it may become possible to value every country’s contributions and, building on national strengths, to further cooperation for safety and security along all necessary dimensions.
{"title":"Burden-sharing for global cooperation on safety and security","authors":"M. Bogers, R. Beeres, M. Bollen","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.14.1.27","url":null,"abstract":"Across the world, the perceived common ground regarding global safety and security is changing. Facing divergent threats, in addition to their cooperation on defense states will increasingly need to collaborate on additional dimensions to protect their citizens. Hence, next to the military burden-sharing debate, questions as to whether states are contributing their fair shares in other arenas as well will be subject to debate also. This article analyzes national contributions by 28 NATO states to five dimensions connected to today’s safety and security situation, namely military expenditures, foreign aid, combating terror financing, carbon dioxide reductions, and refugee protection. We find that states vary in their contributions to safety and security, each preferring to fund some dimensions more than others. We suggest that acknowledging and allowing for a certain degree of complementarity among states could help transform the debate on burden-sharing, which is cost-focused, to include benefit-sharing behavior. Thus, it may become possible to value every country’s contributions and, building on national strengths, to further cooperation for safety and security along all necessary dimensions.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41348364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s data on the 100 largest arms (and military services) producing firms is very widely used for various purposes, there is relatively little quantitative statistical analysis of it. This article discusses some of the issues involved in the econometric analysis of the data. This is complicated by the difficulty of modeling the processes of mergers, acquisitions, and divestments which drives entry and exit from the list. Various models are estimated to examine (a) the relationship between arms sales and military expenditure, (b) the evolution of concentration and the size distribution of firms, (c) the cross-section relationship between size and growth of firms, (d) the times-series properties of the arms sales of individual firms, and (e) of arms sales by country of ownership.
{"title":"Issues in the quantitative analysis of the SIPRI arms industry database","authors":"Ronald Smith, J. Dunne","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.11","url":null,"abstract":"Although the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s data on the 100 largest arms (and military services) producing firms is very widely used for various purposes, there is relatively little quantitative statistical analysis of it. This article discusses some of the issues involved in the econometric analysis of the data. This is complicated by the difficulty of modeling the processes of mergers, acquisitions, and divestments which drives entry and exit from the list. Various models are estimated to examine (a) the relationship between arms sales and military expenditure, (b) the evolution of concentration and the size distribution of firms, (c) the cross-section relationship between size and growth of firms, (d) the times-series properties of the arms sales of individual firms, and (e) of arms sales by country of ownership.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44636526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article describes the history of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) arms producing and military services companies database (AIDB) as well as its purpose, its main strengths and deficiencies, and its data collection and implementation processes. It presents ideas to improve the AIDB discussed at an expert workshop held in Stockholm on 23–24 March 2018 and reports on concrete recommendations that SIPRI wishes to take forward to improve the database. The article’s first section provides an overview of the database’s history. The second section moves on to AIDB’s weaknesses and strengths, its data collection approach, and the sources and methods used. Section three discusses deficiencies of the database. Section four details aspects of the expert workshop and the important takeaways from the two-day meeting. The final section offers possible solution approaches to problems with the database.
{"title":"SIPRI’s arms producing and military services companies database","authors":"Aude Fleurant, Nan Tian","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.5","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes the history of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) arms producing and military services companies database (AIDB) as well as its purpose, its main strengths and deficiencies, and its data collection and implementation processes. It presents ideas to improve the AIDB discussed at an expert workshop held in Stockholm on 23–24 March 2018 and reports on concrete recommendations that SIPRI wishes to take forward to improve the database. The article’s first section provides an overview of the database’s history. The second section moves on to AIDB’s weaknesses and strengths, its data collection approach, and the sources and methods used. Section three discusses deficiencies of the database. Section four details aspects of the expert workshop and the important takeaways from the two-day meeting. The final section offers possible solution approaches to problems with the database.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46669742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses patterns of corruption in the arms business around the world. It finds corruption to be widespread, almost ubiquitous in some sectors such as submarines, and affecting developed democracies as recipients as much as other countries. Anti-corruption efforts face severe challenges in proving corruption in highly complex financial cases involving multiple jurisdictions. However, they also face obstruction from exporter governments who are reluctant to prosecute their national defense industry champions so that even where investigations bear fruit, companies tend to receive light treatment. The article argues that corruption in the arms trade is not merely and simply a matter of individual and corporate greed, but is, on the seller’s side, also an element of defense industrial policy as countries seek to maintain advanced technological capabilities in the face of limited domestic demand, widespread international competition, and a buyer’s market. For recipients in buyer, and sometimes also seller, countries, an underemphasized aspect is the role of arms trade corruption as a means of securing political finance by senior politicians involved in decisionmaking. Thus, the practice occupies a systemic role in political competition, complicating efforts to tackle it.
{"title":"Arms, corruption, and the state: Understanding the role of arms trade corruption in power politics","authors":"Sam Perlo-Freeman","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.37","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses patterns of corruption in the arms business around the world. It finds corruption to be widespread, almost ubiquitous in some sectors such as submarines, and affecting developed democracies as recipients as much as other countries. Anti-corruption efforts face severe challenges in proving corruption in highly complex financial cases involving multiple jurisdictions. However, they also face obstruction from exporter governments who are reluctant to prosecute their national defense industry champions so that even where investigations bear fruit, companies tend to receive light treatment. The article argues that corruption in the arms trade is not merely and simply a matter of individual and corporate greed, but is, on the seller’s side, also an element of defense industrial policy as countries seek to maintain advanced technological capabilities in the face of limited domestic demand, widespread international competition, and a buyer’s market. For recipients in buyer, and sometimes also seller, countries, an underemphasized aspect is the role of arms trade corruption as a means of securing political finance by senior politicians involved in decisionmaking. Thus, the practice occupies a systemic role in political competition, complicating efforts to tackle it.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47739449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article surveys the past, present, and possible future nature and features of the global defense, arms, and security industry and associated data collection issues. It concludes with remarks on the economics of data, the public goods nature of data, and the incentive–reward system in the data market.
{"title":"Arms industry data: Knowns and unknowns","authors":"K. Hartley","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.2.30","url":null,"abstract":"This article surveys the past, present, and possible future nature and features of the global defense, arms, and security industry and associated data collection issues. It concludes with remarks on the economics of data, the public goods nature of data, and the incentive–reward system in the data market.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46421346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article proposes that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s top-100 dataset of the world's largest arms producers and military service providers be expanded to permit comparison of the value of arms/service sales not only in absolute terms across countries and time but also relative to countries’ industrial output. Specifically, the article suggests setting the sum of the arms/service sales of a country’s top-100 members in SIPRI’s list in relation to that country’s output in its machinery and equipment sector. Illustrating the suggestion with data for 2015 finds that countries such as Israel, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. have a far greater percentage of its machinery and equipment sector vested in arms production than do countries such as France, Germany, or Japan. The article also suggests comparing a country’s top-arms producers to its top non-arms producers, that is, comparing country’s arms-makers listed in SIPRI’s top-100 list with, for example, companies in the Fortune Global 500 list. The article concludes with a discussion of methodological issues.
本文建议扩大斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)关于世界上最大的武器生产商和军事服务提供商的前100大数据集，以便不仅可以比较不同国家和时间的武器/服务销售的绝对价值，还可以比较各国工业产出的相对价值。具体来说，文章建议设定SIPRI名单中一个国家前100名成员的武器/服务销售总额与该国机械和设备部门的产出之间的关系。2015年的数据表明，以色列、俄罗斯、英国和美国等国家的机械和设备部门用于武器生产的比例远远高于法国、德国或日本等国家。这篇文章还建议将一个国家的顶级武器制造商与其顶级非武器制造商进行比较，也就是说，将SIPRI前100名名单上的国家武器制造商与财富全球500强名单上的公司进行比较。文章最后讨论了方法论问题。
{"title":"Analysis of SIPRI’s arms production data: Some suggestions for expansion","authors":"H. Wulf","doi":"10.15355/epsj.13.2.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/epsj.13.2.26","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s top-100 dataset of the world's largest arms producers and military service providers be expanded to permit comparison of the value of arms/service sales not only in absolute terms across countries and time but also relative to countries’ industrial output. Specifically, the article suggests setting the sum of the arms/service sales of a country’s top-100 members in SIPRI’s list in relation to that country’s output in its machinery and equipment sector. Illustrating the suggestion with data for 2015 finds that countries such as Israel, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. have a far greater percentage of its machinery and equipment sector vested in arms production than do countries such as France, Germany, or Japan. The article also suggests comparing a country’s top-arms producers to its top non-arms producers, that is, comparing country’s arms-makers listed in SIPRI’s top-100 list with, for example, companies in the Fortune Global 500 list. The article concludes with a discussion of methodological issues.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41787787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The focus in the security and development debate is on collective violence and the World Bank’s World Development Report 2017 is typical by mainly considering the effects of organized armed conflict. In this article I argue that interpersonal violence affects many more people globally and should receive more attention as well as aid. The adverse consequences from interpersonal violence on socioeconomic development are likely to be large but much of this violence is hidden in plain sight. Women and children are at particularly high risk of being victims of violence but since most of this violence is perpetrated in the domestic sphere it is less likely to affect the collective conscience.
{"title":"Security and development: Shifting the focus to interpersonal violence","authors":"Anke Hoeffler","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.1.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.1.12","url":null,"abstract":"The focus in the security and development debate is on collective violence and the World Bank’s World Development Report 2017 is typical by mainly considering the effects of organized armed conflict. In this article I argue that interpersonal violence affects many more people globally and should receive more attention as well as aid. The adverse consequences from interpersonal violence on socioeconomic development are likely to be large but much of this violence is hidden in plain sight. Women and children are at particularly high risk of being victims of violence but since most of this violence is perpetrated in the domestic sphere it is less likely to affect the collective conscience.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"12-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42796309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Oslo peace process established a modified economic union between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Economic unions require extensive collaboration and are generally found between states that enjoy pacific relations and are looking to deepen integration and political ties. The choice of an economic union between these adversaries is puzzling given that the aim of the peace process was to disentangle Israelis and Palestinians by establishing two separate states. Today, after the optimism surrounding the process has faded, it is easy to see the arrangement as a perpetuation of Israeli control over Palestinian life. However, such assessments fail to consider, first, the depth of the negotiations; second, the significant differences between the outcome of the negotiations and what was previously imposed by Israel; and, third, the gap between what was negotiated and what was later implemented. This article traces the genealogy of the economic union by exploring all three factors. While the negotiators did not start with a tabula rasa, they attempted to alter the existing economic arrangement along the European neo-functionalist model of integration. This approach was later largely abandoned, and what followed bore little resemblance to the positive spillover effects in Europe.
{"title":"The European origins of the Israeli-Palestinian economic union: A genealogical approach","authors":"J. Levin","doi":"10.15355/EPSJ.13.1.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15355/EPSJ.13.1.24","url":null,"abstract":"The Oslo peace process established a modified economic union between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Economic unions require extensive collaboration and are generally found between states that enjoy pacific relations and are looking to deepen integration and political ties. The choice of an economic union between these adversaries is puzzling given that the aim of the peace process was to disentangle Israelis and Palestinians by establishing two separate states. Today, after the optimism surrounding the process has faded, it is easy to see the arrangement as a perpetuation of Israeli control over Palestinian life. However, such assessments fail to consider, first, the depth of the negotiations; second, the significant differences between the outcome of the negotiations and what was previously imposed by Israel; and, third, the gap between what was negotiated and what was later implemented. This article traces the genealogy of the economic union by exploring all three factors. While the negotiators did not start with a tabula rasa, they attempted to alter the existing economic arrangement along the European neo-functionalist model of integration. This approach was later largely abandoned, and what followed bore little resemblance to the positive spillover effects in Europe.","PeriodicalId":43334,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Peace and Security Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"24-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42638785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：