Skip to main content
Log in

Strategic arms limitation treaties and innovations in weapons technology

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Treaties to limit strategic arms, such as those resulting from the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), are generally viewed as resulting in a reduced level of military spending and an increased level of security for both countries. This paper shows that such treaties generally would accelerate the qualitative arms race and could lead to the introduction of new and potentially destabilizing weapon systems. Thus, the result might be an increase in military spending and a decrease in the level of security for both countries. This result is supported by a formal model of bureaucratic decision making, in which defense bureaus choose between purchases of existing weapons systems or research and development expenditures on new weapons systems. The formal model leads to two theorems which identify the conditions under which arms limitation treaties lead to innovations in weapons technology and to increased military spending.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brito, D.L. (1972) A Dynamic Model of an Armaments Race. International Economic Review, 13: 359–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito, D.L. and Intriligator, M.D. (1977) A Fixed Point Approach to Multiagent Adaptive Control. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 6: 137–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and — (1980) A Game-Theoretic Approach to Bureaucratic Behavior. Dynamic Optimization and Mathematical Economics. ed. P.T. Liu. New York and London: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawthrop, L.C. (1969) Bureaucratic Behavior in the Executive Branch. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.P. (1958) Arms Races: Prerequirements and Results. Public Policy. eds. C.J. Friedrich and S.E. Harris. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intriligator, M.D. and Brito, D.L. (1976) Formal Models of Arms Races. Journal of Peace Science, 2: 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger, H. (1979) Interview. The Economist, February 3, 1979.

  • Mackay, R. and Weaver, C. (1978c) Agenda Control by Budget Maximizers in a Multi-Bureau Setting. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, mimeo.

  • Niskanen, W.A., Jr. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1973) Bureaucracy: Servant or Master? London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, T. and Rosenthal, H. (1978) Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agenda, and the Status Quo. Public Choice, 33: 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and — (1979) Bureaucrats vs. Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93: 563–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P.A. (1947) Foundation of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberberg, E. (1978) The Structure of Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1965) The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1964) The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Support of the National Science Foundation, in the form of collaborative research grants on “Behavioral and Economic Foundation of Arms Races,” is gratefully acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brito, D.L., Intriligator, M.D. Strategic arms limitation treaties and innovations in weapons technology. Public Choice 37, 41–59 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124231

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124231

Keywords

Navigation