Papers of the Regional Science Association

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 177–199 | Cite as

Random thoughts on the consequences of a reduction in military expenditures

  • Bernard Udis
Impact Analyses

Keywords

Military Expenditure Random Thought 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The average share of federal purchases for defense was 10.6 per cent of GNP in the 1950–54 period and 8.1 per cent in 1964–67. During the Korean War period the highest recorded figure was 13.6 per cent in the last two quarters of calendar 1952. This compares with 9.3 per cent in the second quarter of calendar 1968 SeeDefense Indicators, August, 1968, p. 20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Charles Tiebout “The Regional Impact of Defense Expenditures: Its Measurement and Problems of Adjustment”, in: Congress of the United States., Skenate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.Nations' Manpower Revolution, Part 7 (Washington: United State Government Printing Office, 1963). pp. 2561–2573.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul W. Cherington, “The Interaction of Government and Contractor Organizations in Weapons Acquisition” in Richard A. Tybout ed.,Economics of Research and Development (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1965), pp. 327–343.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    John Kenneth Galbraith,The New Industrial State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), pp. 317–323.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murray L. Weidenbaum, “The Transferability of Defense Industry Resources to Civilian Uses”, in United States Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower,Convertibility of Space and Defense Resources to Civilian Needs. A Search for New Employment Potentials (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 848–855, especially pp. 850–851.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Science Foundation,Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities: Fiscal years 1965, 1966, and 1967 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. 150–152.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stephen Enke, “Preface”, in Enke ed.,Defense Management (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), n.vi.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1969 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1969 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1968), and Congress of the United States, Joint Economic Committee,Summer Review of the 1969 Budget, Heartings (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service, 1967, pp. 85–86;Semi-Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service for the Period July 1 to december 31, 1967, p. 37.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vernon M. Uehler, “Economic Impact of Defense Progerams”, in Congress of the United States, Joint Economic Committee.Economic Effect of Vietnam Spending.Vol. II, (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 870–888. The measure of significant dependence on defense in a labor market was more than 500 defense generated workers or a defense dependency rate in excess of 5 per cent.Google Scholar
  12. 32.
    Ibid., pp. 878–879.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The perennial charge of “fat” in the defense budget is also a relevant cosideration. Most recently theCongressional Quarterly (June 28, 1968) has indicated that up to $10.8 billion could be cutfrom the defense budget in areas of excessive, overlapping, and ineffective and unnecessary weapons systems (pp. 1605–1610). For a Pentagon rebuttal seeCongressional Quarterly, September 20, 1968, pp. 2482–2486, 2509.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See James R. Schlesinger, “The Changing Environment for System Analysis”, in Enke ed.),op. cit.,, pp. 89–112.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Congress of the United States, Joint Economic Committee,Economic Effects of Vietnam Spending, 2 volumes, (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1967); Chamber of Commerce of the United States,After Vietnam: A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Economic Impact of Peace After Vietnam (Washington: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, March, 1968); and Committee for Economic Development,The National Economy and the Vietnam War (Washington: Committee for Economic Development, April, 1968).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roger E. Bolton, “Statistics on Industrial and Regional Defense Impact”, presented at the 127th Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Washington, D.C., December 27–30, 1967; see also his “Defense Spending and Policies for Labor Surplus Areas”, paper delivered before the Urban and Regional Economics Research Project, Harvard University, May, 1968.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    That more than the costs of data collection stand in the way of such an effort is suggested by the reception awarded the Report of the Task Force on the Storage of and Access to Government Statistics. See Carl Kaysen, “Data Banks and Dossiers”,The Public Interest, No. 7 (Spring, 1967), pp. 52–60.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara before United Press International Editors and Publishers, San Francisco, September 18, 1967, reprinted as Appendix X in7th Annual Report to Congress, The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, January 1, 1967–January 18, 1968 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 80–90.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richard R. Nelson, “The Impact of Arms Reduction on Research and Development,”The American Economic Review,LIII, No. 2 (May, 1963), pp. 435–446.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,The Dyna-Soar Contract Cancellation, ACDA Publication No. 29 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 70–71, andMartin Company Employees Reemployment Experiences, ACDA Publication No. 36 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. IV–12, IV–13.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrew Shonfield,Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 341–346, and Galbraith,op. cit., pp. 314–324, 361–368.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. L. Nieburg, “Social Control of Innovation”,American Economic Review, LVIII, No. 2 (May, 1968), pp. 666–677, especially 672–673.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walter Adams, “The Military-Industrial Complex and the New Industrial State”,American Economic Review, LVIII, No. 2 (May, 1968), pp. 652–665, especially 656–657.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid.,, p. 664.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murray L. Weidenbaum, “Long-Term Impacts of Big Technology”, Working Paper 6801, Department of Economics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, February, 1968, p. 3.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid.,, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weidenbaum, “The Transferability of Defense Industry Resources to Civilian Uses”,op. cit.,, pp. 852–853. See also his “Defense Cutbacks and the Aerospace Industry”,Astronautics and Aeronautics, June, 1964, reprinted in United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,Defense Industry Diversification: An Analysis with Twelve Case Studies, ACDA Publication 30 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, January, 1966), pp. 309–313.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See, for example, the prepared statement of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in United States Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower,Nation's Manpower Revolution, Hearings, Part 9 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 3049–3054.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    I am indebted to Kenneth Boulding for this observation.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Galbraith,op. cit.,, pp. 346, has indicated that it is a matter of no great concern which government programs replace strategic weaponry provided that they are “roughly equivalent in scale and technical complexity.”Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Business Week, October 12, 1968, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A possible exception is the current Twentieth Century Fund study of the impact of the military on American society, directed by Adam Yarmolinsky of Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Business Week, op. cit., October 12, 1968, p. 79.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid. Business Week, op. cit., October 12, 1968, p. 79.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    For a recent analysis of the national service alternative see Donald J. Eberly, ed.,National Service: A report of a Conference (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968). See also Morris Janowitz, “American Democracy and Military Service,”Trans-action, IV, No. 54 (March, 1967), pp. 5–11, 57–59.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nelson,op. cit., “ pp. 436.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid., p. 445.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regional Science Association 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Udis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ColoradoUSA

Personalised recommendations