All papers are checked via
|← Post Civil War Economics||Assets Purchases Effectiveness →|
The purpose of the article by Pantelis Kalaitzidakis and Vangelis Tzouvelekas (2011) is to determine how military spending affect the growth of a nation’s economy. The authors recognize that investments of the government in different sectors such as health education, military etc, have a different effect on the growth of the economy. However, spending on military, while it may lead indirectly to the growth of the economy may be affected by many factors. The purpose of the paper is to find out how military spending affects the nation’s economic growth in the end. at the same time, the international the article tries to identify if there are any differences between the way military spending affects growth in OECD and non OECD countries, i.e., developed and developing countries.
To determine this and establish the validity of many economic theories of economic growth and military spending in any kind of economies, the study uses massive data from nations. Economic data from the OECD countries was intensively used and was analyzed using a standardized model. The study also used historic economic data from non-OECD data, which included mostly developing or non-developed nations from South America.
The study uses a standardized data model to analyze data from different economies and different economic information.
The result of the study show that there is a correlation between military spending and the economic growth rate in most economies, it also shows that there is a co relation between the military spending and the ratio between the total GDP investments and the amount of military budget. It also shows that the impact of military spending is more pronounced in OECD nations bit with specific exceptions and the impact of military spending may be less in non-OECD countries such as developing nations in Africa and South America.
Is The Question Worth Asking?
Military budgets continue to baffle economists around the world as more governments continually increase their military budgets even in the face of declining economies. As already discussed, military spending does not have a direct positive contribution to economic development and therefore in most cases, it is considered a redundant expenditure and the capital invested in this area can be invested in other productive areas of a nation’s economy. However, no nations on the face of the world can ignore the importance of having a strong military, and how this affects the economy. As a result, it is increasingly important that an informed choice be made by nation about their military spending so they do not have redundant military spending and for them to avoid economic decline due to a weak military. This paper provides the answer to the old question of just how much any government should or must invest in military in relation to its GDP. Therefore, this is a noteworthy study should be heeded by government policy makers.
Are You Persuaded By Their Answer?
Given the amount of data used and the fact that these data was subjected to a standardized economic analysis model, the answer is at least a satisfactory one with regard to the fact that it clearly shows the relationship between military spending, the size of the total GDP and the contribution to military spending to the growth of the economy. While this may not be the total answer, it does point to a significant advancement on understanding military budgets and how they affect the economies of nations. The study did use massive economic data and this is part of what makes the study more believable and persuasive.
What Is The Strongest? Weakest Aspect Of The Argument / Evidence?
Like any other study, the study does have its weakest points. For instance, while the study provides the data about military spending especially in non OECD nations, the study does not have a clear indication or an authoritative coverage to show how this economic data can be directly be linked to the question at hand. Other issues in the study go unattended. For instance, the study shows that while there is a clear correlation between military spending and economic developments in the OECD nations, there are a few exceptions. These exemptions are not well attended or explained in order to maintain the integrity of the rest of the conclusions regarding how military spending affects economic growth. At the same time, the study also fails to explain why in developing nations (non-OECD nations) the government military spending has less effect on economic growth than in OECD nations. Failing to close these gaps with an analytical explanation does punch holes on the integrity of the study, even overriding the clear evidence of the implications of military spending. The authors of the documents must have been affected by the assumptions that the audience of the study will be automatically persuaded by the arguments that military spending does effect (positively) the economic growth.
What Questions Remain For You?
While the data used many economic data from the different economies that were considered, the study did not use enough longitudinal data and this leaves the question of how the results of the study would have been if longitudinal data was used and applied for the data. Economic phenomena in most cases are best identified by longitudinal observations and analysis of longitudinal economic data. It is only by using longitudinal data that the study can fully explain the role of military budgets to economic developments and perhaps explain the differences between the developed (OECD) and developing (non OECD) nations. The other issue is that most economic outcomes are self-fulfilling prophecies because economic behavior is affected by speculation that leads to the economic outcomes being influenced by the economic expectations. The study does not address this directly, but leaves this to the speculation of the audience of the paper. For instance, how do the expectations affect the outcome with regard to the way the governments spend in its military? Other questions that remain unanswered are the specific exemptions pointed out. Example, the US military budget is the largest in the world, yet, the nation has a declining economy. This leads to the question, is the effect of military budgets tied to other non-economic or non-economic factors that actually affect the outcome of such expenditures in the military?
What Would Be A Good Extension Or Elaboration Of This Work?
The one thing missing in this work is the lack of longitudinal economics data that would best display the effect of military spending. Once longitudinal economic data is used, the other important thing would have been to further and fully explain the disparities existing between the OECD and non OECD nations with regard to the way the military budgets, or spending affected economic growth, if these disparities would still exist even after using longitudinal data.