Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 175, Issue 1–2, pp 111–134 | Cite as

How defense shapes the institutional organization of states

  • Fabio Padovano
  • Yvon Rocaboy
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

We analyze theoretically how the provision of military services explains the vertical and horizontal fragmentation of a state. The model innovates on the previous political economy literature which views such institutional arrangements arising only as a response to internal ”technological” forces, not to strategic interactions within the state and with neighboring states. The model explains how these interactions lead communities of individuals to choose among three alternative types of institutional arrangements: 1) a union, i.e., a setting wherein both the vertical and the horizontal fragmentation of a state is minimized; 2) an alliance, whereby a state becomes more vertically fragmented by creating an upper government tier devised to take advantage of economies of scale; 3) autonomy, where horizontal fragmentation is maximized, as no merging of communities occurs and no higher government tier is created. A series of simulations of the model define the conditions under which each alternative institutional arrangement emerges in equilibrium.

Keywords

Institutional organization Military goods Vertical and horizontal fragmentation Strategic interactions between countries 

JEL Classification

C35 D70 H40 H72 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 EPCS Meeting in Groningen, the Netherlands, the Seminars of the CREM at the University of Rennes 1, France, and at the University of Roma Tre, the 2016 SIEP Conference in Lecce, Italy, and the 2016 PEARL seminar in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. We thank participants in those conferences. We also are grateful to Peter Leeson, Enrico Spolaore, William F. Shughart II and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. Part of the paper was written while the second author was visiting the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, Canberra. Yvon Rocaboy is grateful to Professor Robert Breunig, director of the Crawford School, for his kind hospitality and support. The usual caveat applies.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Jaravel, X., Persson, T., & Rouzet, D. (2014). Education and military rivalry. Mimeo: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlerup, P., & Hansson, G. (2011). Nationalism and government effectiveness. Journal of Comparative Economics, 39, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aidt, T., Dutta, J., & Loukoianova, E. (2006). Democracy comes to europe: Franchise extension and fiscal outcomes 1830–1938. European Economic Review, 50, 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Hoxby, C. (2004). Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 348–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alesina, A., Giuliano, P., & Reich, B. (2017a). Nation building. Mimeo: Harvard University .Google Scholar
  7. Alesina, A., Reich, B., & Riboni, A. (2017b). Nation-building, nationalism and wars. Harvard University: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  8. Alesina, A., & Spolaore, E. (2003). The Size of Nations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Alesina, A., & Spolaore, E. (2005). War, peace and the size of countries. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1333–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Allen, D. W., & Leeson, P. T. (2015). Institutionally constrained technology adoption: Resolving the longbow puzzle. The Journal of Law and Economics, 58, 683–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Anderton, C., & Carter, J. (2009). Principles of conflict economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bates, R. (2001). Prosperity and violence. The political economy of development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2009). The origins of state capacity: Property rights, taxation, and politics. American Economic Review, 99, 1218–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2011). Pillars of prosperity: The political economics of development clusters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bush, W., & Mayer, L. (1974). Some implications of anarchy for the distribution of property. Journal of Economic Theory, 8, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conybeare, J., Murdoch, J., & Sandler, T. (1994). Alternative collective-goods models of military tactics. Economic Inquiry, 32, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowen, T. (1990). Economic effects of a conflict-prone world order. Public Choice, 64, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cowen, T. (1992). Law as a public good—the economics of anarchy. Economics and Philosophy, 8, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gennaioli, N., & Voth, H. (2015). State capacity and military conflict. Review of Economic Studies, 82, 1409–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomez-Reino, J., & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2013). An international perspective on the determinants of local government fragmentation. In S. Lago-Penas & J. Martinez-Vazquez (Eds.), The Challenge of Local Government Size (pp. 8–54). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ko, C., Koyama, M., & Sng, T.-H. (2017). Unified China. Divided Europe. Forthcoming in International Economic Review.Google Scholar
  23. Koyama, Moriguchi, C., & Sng, T.-H. (2017). Geopolitics and Asia’s little divergence: State building in China and Japan after 1850. GMU Economics Department Working paper.Google Scholar
  24. Levi, M. (1988). Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Long, A. G. (2008). From Cold War to long war : Lessons from six decades of Rand deterrence research. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  26. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. North, D. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  28. North, D., Wallis, J., & Weingast, B. (2009). Violence and Social Orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New york: Harcourt brace jovanovich edition.Google Scholar
  30. Olson, M. (1993). Dictatorship, democracy, and development. American Political Science Review, 87, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Olson, M., & Zeckhauser, R. (1966). An economic theory of alliances. Review of Economics and Statistics, 48, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Padovano, F., Petrarca, I., and Rocaboy, Y. (2012). Historical determinants of government fragmentation: A cross-country analysis. Condorcet Center for Political Economy Working paper.Google Scholar
  34. Panizza, U. (1999). On the determinants of fiscal centralization: Theory and evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 74, 97–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skaperdas, S. (1992). Cooperation, conflict and power in the absence of property rights. American Economic Review, 82, 720–39.Google Scholar
  36. Stringham, E. (2017). Anarchy and the Law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Sutter, D. (1995). Asymmetric power relations and cooperation in anarchy. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 602–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verdier, D. (2005). Democracy and International Trade: Britain, France, and the United States (pp. 1860–1990). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CREM-CNRS, Condorcet Center for Political EconomyUniversity of Rennes 1Rennes CedexFrance
  2. 2.DSPUniversity of Roma TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options