Citation

Williams LK. J. Conflict Resolut. 2019; 63(5): 1193-1221.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022002718785969

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The popular notion of a trade-off between social and defense spending--or guns versus butter--appears often in elite discourse, popular media, and empirical studies of budgetary politics. Yet, there are good reasons to suspect that the public's preferences for these types of spending do not reflect that trade-off. I develop a theory that whether social and defense spending preferences are competing or complementary depends on if the respondent views the government as an important contributor to job creation. Using data from fifty-nine surveys in twenty-seven countries from 1985 to 2008, I show that favoring government-financed job creation makes a respondent much more likely to view social and defense spending as complementary. Indeed, aside from the anomalous case of the United States, preferences are consistent with guns yield butter instead of guns versus butter. This theory has important implications for the thermostatic model of policy responsiveness and theories of budgetary politics.

Language: en