Does Militarization Hinder Female Labor Income Share?
-
Adem Yavuz Elveren
Abstract
This study addresses the underexplored dimension of the relationship between military expenditures and gender inequality, drawing upon the insights of feminist security and international relations scholars. The influence of militarization on gender inequality is profound, manifesting itself significantly in both conflict and peacetime situations. The destruction of essential infrastructure further restricts women’s access to vital resources. In peacetime, the convergence of militarization and patriarchy reinforces women’s secondary roles in society, while higher military expenditures can divert resources from social spending, disproportionately affecting women and children reliant on public services. Despite extensive theoretical discussions, empirical studies on this nexus are limited. This paper contributes by presenting original evidence using a comprehensive dataset spanning 1991–2019, examining the Female Labor Income Share across over 100 countries. Findings reveal that militarization correlates with reduced the Female Labor Income Share, underscoring the urgency of addressing this critical linkage between militarization and gender inequality.
Appendix: List of Countries
Low-income group (n = 6): Burkina Faso, Chad, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan*
Low-middle income group (n = 26): Angola, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cabo Verde*, Cambodia, Cameroon, Egypt*, India, Indonesia, Iran*, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan*, Lesotho, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua*, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Ukraine, Zimbabwe.
Upper-middle income group (n = 29): Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon*, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Namibia, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation*, South Africa, Thailand, Türkiye.
High-income group (n = 42): Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic*, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea*, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta*, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia*, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US, Uruguay.
Coefficients of various democracy variables.
| Variables | Low* | Middle | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polity2 | 0.019 | 0.060*** | 0.018** |
| (0.019) | (0.021) | (0.008) | |
| Polyarchy | 0.020*** | 0.014** | 0.056*** |
| (0.003) | (0.006) | (0.004) | |
| Libdem | 0.022*** | 0.021*** | 0.049*** |
| (0.005) | (0.007) | (0.003) | |
| Partipdem | 0.025*** | 0.004 | 0.054*** |
| (0.005) | (0.014) | (0.004) | |
| Delibdem | 0.013** | 0.015* | 0.032*** |
| (0.005) | (0.008) | (0.003) | |
| Egaldem | 0.029*** | 0.012 | 0.058*** |
| (0.008) | (0.014) | (0.004) | |
| Empower | 0.019*** | −0.011 | 0.009*** |
| (0.003) | (0.016) | (0.002) |
-
Coefficients are taken from standard GMM estimations to save space. All estimations were conducted with two-step efficient GMM and small sample corrections to the covariance matrix estimate. Standard errors in parentheses ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10. Low* includes low-income and low-middle-income countries.
*Not included in GMM analysis due to nonavailability of data.
References
Benson, M., and I. Gizelis. 2022. Militarization and Women’s Empowerment in Post-Conflict Societies. New York: Research Paper, The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.Suche in Google Scholar
Blackburne, E.F., and M.W. Frank. 2007. “Estimation of Nonstationary Heterogeneous Panels.” STATA Journal 7 (2): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x0700700204.Suche in Google Scholar
Bowman, K. S. 2002. Militarization, Democracy, and Development The Perils of Praetorianism in Latin America. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Burke, C. 1998. Women and Militarism. Geneva: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.Suche in Google Scholar
Cabeza-García, L., E. B Del Brio, and M. L. Oscanoa-Victorio. 2019. “Female Financial Inclusion and its Impacts on Inclusive Economic Development.” Women’s Studies International Forum 77: 102300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102300.Suche in Google Scholar
Carlitz, R. 2022. Comparing Military and Human Security Spending: Key Findings and Methodological Notes. New York: Research Paper, The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.Suche in Google Scholar
Caruso, R., and A. Biscione. 2022. “Militarization and Income Inequality in European Countries (2000–2017).” Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy 28 (3): 267–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2022-0026.Suche in Google Scholar
Cockburn, C. 2011. “Gender Relations as Casual in Militarization and War: A Feminist Standpoint.” In Making Gender, Making War: Violence, Military and Peacekeeping Practices, edited by Annica Kronsell, and Erika Svedberg, 29–46. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
De Henau, J. 2022. “Simulating Employment and Fiscal Effects of Public Investment in High-Quality Universal Childcare in the UK.” ICEP 16: 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-022-00096-y.Suche in Google Scholar
Dunne, J.P., and R. P. Smith. 2020. “Military Expenditure, Investment and Growth.” Defence and Peace Economics 31 (6): 601–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2019.1636182.Suche in Google Scholar
Elgin, C., and A. Y. Elveren. 2021. “Informality, Inequality, and Feminization of Labor.” Women’s Studies International Forum 88: 102505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102505.Suche in Google Scholar
Elgin, C., A. Kose, F. Ohnsorge, and S. Yu. 2021. Understanding Informality. CERP Discussion Paper 16497. London: CEPR.10.2139/ssrn.3914265Suche in Google Scholar
Elveren, A. Y. 2022. The Impact of Militarization on Gender Inequality. New York: Research Paper, The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.Suche in Google Scholar
Elveren, A. Y. 2023. “Militarization, Gender Inequality, and Growth: A Feminist-Kaleckian Model.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2023.2201823.Suche in Google Scholar
Elveren, A. Y., and H. Kırmızıoğlu. 2022. “Financial Development and Female Labor Income Share: Evidence from Global Data.” World Journal of Applied Economics 8 (1): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.22440/wjae.8.1.3.Suche in Google Scholar
Elveren, A. Y., and V. M. Moghadam. 2022. “Militarization and Gender Inequality: Exploring the Impact.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (4): 427–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2022.2034430.Suche in Google Scholar
Elveren, A. Y., V. M. Moghadam, and S. Dudu. 2022. “Militarization, Women’s Labor Force Participation, and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Global Data.” Women’s Studies International Forum 94: 102621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2022.102621.Suche in Google Scholar
Enloe, C. 1983. Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives. London: Pluto Press Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar
Enloe, C. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520923744Suche in Google Scholar
Enloe, C. 2016. Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link, 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Suche in Google Scholar
Freedom House. 2019. Freedom in the World 2019 Data. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world.Suche in Google Scholar
Frees, E. W. 1995. “Assessing Cross-Sectional Correlation in Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics 69 (2): 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-m.Suche in Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1937. “The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 32 (200): 675–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. S. 2001. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ilkkaracan, I., K. Kim, T. Masterson, E. Memiş, and A. Zacharis. 2021. “The Impact of Investing in Social Care on Employment Generation, Time-Income-Poverty by Gender: A Macro-Micro Policy Simulation for Turkey.” World Development 144: 105476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105476.Suche in Google Scholar
International Labour Office (ILO). 2018. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture. Geneva: International Labour Office.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, K., İ. İlkkaracan, and T. Kaya. 2019. “Public Investment in Care Services in Turkey: Promoting Employment & Gender Inclusive Growth.” Journal of Policy Modeling 41 (6): 1210–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.05.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Kollias, C., and P. Tzeremes. 2022. “Militarization, Investment, and Economic Growth 1995–2019.” Economics of Peace and Security Journal 17 (1): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.15355/epsj.17.1.17.Suche in Google Scholar
Marshall, M. G., T. R. Gurr, and K. Jaggers. 2019. Polity IV Project Data [p4v2018], Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2018. Center for Systemic Peace. https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Moghadam, V. M. 2003. Modernizing Women Gender and Social Change in the Middle East. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.10.1515/9781685858995Suche in Google Scholar
Moser, C. O. N., and F. C. Clarke, eds. 2001. Victims, Perpetrators, and. Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence. New York: Zed.Suche in Google Scholar
Neef, T., and A-S. Robilliard. 2021. “Half the Sky? The Female Labor Income Share in a Global Perspective.” World Inequality Lab – Working Paper No: 2021/22.Suche in Google Scholar
Olmsted, J. C. 2020. Feminist Critique of Neoliberalism in the MENA Region. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/beirut/16019-20200422.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Olmsted, J. C. 2021. “Gendered Coping Strategies and Armed Conflict in the Middle East.” In The Routledge Handbook on the Middle East Economy, edited by H. Hakimian, 358–69. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315103969-28Suche in Google Scholar
Olmsted, J. C. 2022. “Gendered Socioeconomic Consequences of Armed Conflict in the Middle East.” In Routledge Handbook on Women in the Middle East, edited by Suad Joseph, and Zeina Zaatari, 684–95. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315165219-57Suche in Google Scholar
Oyvat, C., and Ö. Onaran. 2022. “The Effects of Social Infrastructure and Gender Equality on Output and Employment: The Case of South Korea.” World Development 158: 105987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105987.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesaran, H. 2004. “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels.” Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics.10.2139/ssrn.572504Suche in Google Scholar
Pesaran, M. H. 2007. “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 22: 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesaran, M. H., and R. Smith. 1995. “Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 68 (1): 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-f.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesaran, M.H., Y. Shin, and R. Smith. 1999. “Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 94: 621–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474156.Suche in Google Scholar
Peterson, V. Spike, and Anne Sisson Runyan. 1999. Global Gender Issues: Dilemmas in World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Plümper, T., and E. Neumayer. 2006. “The Unequal Burden of War: The Effect of Armed Conflict on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy.” International Organization 60 (3): 723–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818306060231.Suche in Google Scholar
Reardon, B. 1985. Sexism and the War System. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sjoberg, L., and S. Via. 2010. Gender, War, and Militarism. Oxford: Praeger.10.5040/9798400655999Suche in Google Scholar
Teorell, J., M. Coppedge, S. Lindberg, and S. E. Skaaning. 2019. “Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017.” Studies in Comparative International Development 54 (1): 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z.Suche in Google Scholar
Töngür, Ü., A. Y. Elveren, and C. Elgin. Forthcoming. “Informality and Female Labor Income Share.” Under Review.Suche in Google Scholar
True, J. 2012. The Political Economy of Violence Against Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755929.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
UN (United Nations). 2022. The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook Volume 46 (Part II): 2021. New York: Office for Disarmament Affairs.Suche in Google Scholar
Vaccaro, A. 2021. “Comparing Measures of Democracy: Statistical Properties, Convergence, and Interchangeability.” European Political Science 20: 666–84. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-021-00328-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Vanhanen, T. 2019. Measures of Democracy 1810–2018 Version 8.0. Finnish Social Science Data Archive. https://services.fsd.tuni.fi/catalogue/FSD1289.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Two Against One: Deterrence in the Triad
- Rationality of the Terrorist Group and Government’s Policy: A Game Theoretic Approach
- Does Militarization Hinder Female Labor Income Share?
- Analyzing the Tripartite Relationship Among Public Debt, Economic Growth, and Political Risks: A Panel VAR Approach
- Armed Conflicts and Household Socioeconomic Status in the Lake Chad Basin: A Random Coefficient Model Approach
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Two Against One: Deterrence in the Triad
- Rationality of the Terrorist Group and Government’s Policy: A Game Theoretic Approach
- Does Militarization Hinder Female Labor Income Share?
- Analyzing the Tripartite Relationship Among Public Debt, Economic Growth, and Political Risks: A Panel VAR Approach
- Armed Conflicts and Household Socioeconomic Status in the Lake Chad Basin: A Random Coefficient Model Approach
