̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Arab Spring

Military spending did not 'crowd out' welfare in Middle East prior to Arab Spring

fpjl2 — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:00:34 +0000

Research casts doubt on the widely-held view that spiralling military expenditure across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 'crowded out' investment in healthcare and public services, leading to civil unrest that eventually exploded in the Arab Spring revolutions.

̽��ֱ��so-called 'guns versus butter' or 'welfare versus warfare' hypothesis – that prioritised military spending resulted in neglect of health and education, thereby creating conditions that fomented public rebellion – is considered by many experts to be a root cause of the uprisings that gripped the region during 2011.

However, a team of researchers who analysed economic and security data from MENA nations in the 16 years leading up to the Arab Spring found no evidence of a trade-off between spending on the military and public services, specifically healthcare.

̽��ֱ��researchers from Cambridge and the Lebanese American ̽��ֱ�� argue that much of the evidence for the ‘guns versus butter’ causal link come from analyses of wealthy European nations, which has then been assumed to hold true for the Middle East.

They say the study’s findings, published today in the journal Defence and Peace Economics, provide a “cautionary note” against a reliance on simplistic correlations based on data from OECD nations to draw important policy conclusions about the causes of turmoil in the Middle East.

“Our research finds reports of this apparent spending trade-off prior to the Arab Spring to be somewhat spurious,” said Dr Adam Coutts, based at Cambridge ̽��ֱ��’s Department of Sociology.

“Academics and policy-makers should be careful in assuming that models and results from studies of other regions can be transplanted onto the Middle East and North Africa,” he said.

“Determining the cause of unrest is a rather more complex task than some experts may suggest. Historical experiences and political economy factors need to be considered.”

While only Saudi Arabia is in the top ten global nations for military spending in terms of hard cash, when calculated as a share of GDP six of the top ten military spenders are MENA nations.

Coutts and colleagues ran World Bank data through detailed statistical models to explore the trade-off between spending on military and on welfare – health, in this case – of 18 different MENA nations from 1995 up to the start of the Arab Spring in 2011.

̽��ֱ��team also looked at casualties resulting from domestic terror attacks in an attempt to estimate security needs that might have helped drive military spending in a region plagued by terrorism.

They found no statistically significant evidence that increased military spending had an impact on health investment. “Contrary to existing evidence from many European nations, we found that levels of military expenditure do not induce or affect cuts to healthcare in the Middle East and North Africa,” said co-author Dr Adel Daoud from Cambridge’s Centre for Business Research.

̽��ֱ��researchers also found no evidence for casualties from terrorism affecting either health or military spending – perhaps a result of the routine nature of such occurrences in the region.

“There may have been a policy adaptation in which regional conflicts and security threats are no longer the main influence on government security and military spending decisions,” said Daoud.

Adam Coutts added: “It has been argued that Arab populations accepted an ‘authoritarian bargain’ over the last forty years – one of societal militarisation in return for domestic security – and that this came at the expense of their welfare and social mobility.

“However, health and military spending cannot be predicted by each other in this troubled region. Policy analysts should not single out military spending as a main culprit for the lack of investment in public goods.

“Once again we find that straightforward explanations for unrest in the Middle East and North Africa are tenuous on close analysis.”

Findings dispute 'guns versus butter' narrative as a major factor behind the Arab Spring. Researchers caution against uncritically applying lessons from Western nations to interpret public policy decisions in the Middle East.

Policy analysts should not single out military spending as a main culprit for the lack of investment in public goods

Adam Coutts

Hossam el-Hamalawy

Medics transferring injured protesters in Abbassiya Square, Egypt

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Old suspicions remain after the Arab Spring

mjg209 — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:19:25 +0000

Western hopes that the Middle East's new democrats will be grateful for their support in ousting dictatorial regimes is misguided, a leading researcher will tell a debate on the aftermath of the first wave of the Arab Spring.

Glen Rangwala, lecturer in the Department of Politics at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, will be speaking at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas debate Where Next for the Arab Spring? on 25th October.

He says: "Old suspicions in the region of Western powers have not ended with the Arab Awakening - this was seen most obviously in the 'video riots' last month. Many politicians here and in the US assume that because Western governments are helping with democratic transitions or participated in the ousting old rulers, this will bring closer relations between the West and the Middle East. That is wrong: democrats throughout the Arab world saw the West as supporting the old autocrats until the very last moment, and even then remaining only lukewarm to the prospect of democratic revolution. ̽��ֱ��idea that the Middle East's democrats will be grateful to the West is misguided; old suspicions remain."

Rangwala will argue that despite the fact that many of the countries that experienced popular revolution, particularly Egypt and Tunisia, are currently going through large-scale economic change and seeking external investment this will not necessarily bring closer relationships with outside powers. In fact, economic problems mean many are seeing new waves of migration to Europe, and the rise of nationalist and leftwing parties that challenge more vocally than the Islamists the alliances with Western countries.

He will also touch on Western suspicions about popular political forces in the Arab world, particularly the Islamic parties, even when they are not totally justifiable. He says: " ̽��ֱ��Arab Awakening has the potential to perpetuate, even deepen, the awkward relations between the Arab world and the West, even as their political systems come to resemble one another all the more."

Also taking part in the debate, which will be chaired by Ed Kessler, Executive Director of the Woolf Institute, is Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at the ̽��ֱ�� of Bradford. He will argue that the Arab Spring promises much that will prove difficult to realise.

He says: "Continuing resistance from autocracies, high expectations of reform and deep societal divisions all make the process fraught. If the Arab Awakening does succeed it will also serve to marginalise radical Islamists. If it fails their power will be renewed."

Other speakers include writer and commentator Nesrine Malik, who will talk about the impact on women of the Arab Spring, and Dr Toby Matthiesen, Abdullah al-Mubarak Research Fellow in Islamic & Middle Eastern Studies at Pembroke College, Cambridge. He will be talking about how the Arab Spring protests affected the Gulf states, particularly Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and how these states responded to protests both at home and in the wider Arab world.

̽��ֱ��debate is one of many at this year's Festival of Ideas, a 12-day celebration of the arts, humanities and social sciences.

̽��ֱ��biggest free festival of its type in the UK, it takes place from October 24-November 4, and features more than 170 mostly free events in and around Cambridge.

With a theme of ‘Dreams and Nightmares’, this year’s festival features talks and presentations from a range of leading academics, journalists and thinkers, including renowned BBC correspondent Kate Adie, Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Radio 4 Controller Gwyneth Williams and Executive Editor of ̽��ֱ��Economist Daniel Franklin.

As well as discussions and debates on some of the biggest issues facing mankind, this year’s Festival of Ideas includes opera at the Fitzwilliam Museum, real ghost stories at the Scott Polar Research Institute and ‘Just a Minnow’ at the Zoology Museum.

It will also feature dozens of events and activities for children, including a performance by children’s poet Benjamin Zephaniah and a talk by Charlie and Lola creator Lauren Child, as well as live graffiti demonstrations, storytelling and print workshops.

̽��ֱ��Festival of Ideas is supported by Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Press, Arts Council England, Barclays, Cambridge City Council, Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ��, ESRC Festival of Social Science, Irwin and Joan Jacobs, Heffers and Darwin Anniversary Festival.

*Where next for the Arab Spring? takes place at the McCrum Lecture Theatre in Bene't Street on 25th October from 7.30-9pm. More information: www.cam.ac.uk/festivalofideas/

A debate at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas asks What next for the Arab Spring?

" ̽��ֱ��idea that the Middle East's democrats will be grateful to the West is misguided; old suspicions remain."

Glen Rangwala

Hossam el-Hamalawy, Creative Commons

tahrir

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes