The Defence Burden

  • R. T. Maddock


In the popular imagination the burden of defence is production and consumption of civilian goods foregone. In a static economy more of one means less of the other; and in the absence of more embracing measures, the defence quotient, the ratio of a nation’s resources spent for military purposes, is a conventional and convenient metric of the static burden. In a growing economy the relationship between civilian and military outcomes is less pre-determined, for more of one category of goods need not necessarily reduce the amount of the other and in some societies military based values and institutions or R and D if successfully implanted in an otherwise sluggish civilian economy may even increase economic potential.1 Military investment — R and D and procurement — does compete directly for the same human and material resources as civilian investment, usually necessary though not sufficient for economic growth and its net effect on economic progress is generally perceived to be detrimental.2


Military Expenditure Military Spending Defence Spending Military Purpose Defence Expenditure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    E. Benoit, ‘Growth and Defense in Developing Countries’. Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 26, 1977–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    North-South: A Programme for Survival. Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the Chairmanship of Willy Brandt (London: Pan, 1980) ch. 7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Mosley, The Arms Race: Economic and Social Consequences (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1985) p. 35.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Domke, R. Eichenberg and C. Kelleher, ‘The Illusion of Choice: Defence and Welfare in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, The American Political Science Review, vol. 77, no. 1, 1983, p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Smith and R. Smith, The Economics of Militarism (London: Pluto, 1983) pp. 96–99.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Smith, ‘The Resource Cost of Military Expenditures’, in M. Kaldor et al (eds), Democratic Socialism and the Cost of Defense, (London: Croom Helm, 1979), p. 264.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Chan, ‘The Impact of Defence Spending on Economic Performance: A Survey of Evidence and Problems’, Orbis, vol. 29, no. 2, 1985, p. 431.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Checinski, ‘The Costs of Armaments Production and the Profitability of Armaments Exports in COMECON Countries’, Ost-Europa Wirtschaft, vol. 20, no. 2, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Dabelko and J. McCormick, ‘The Opportunity Cost of Defense: Some Cross-national evidence’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. XIV, no. 2, 1977, p. 147.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Mosley, op. cit., 1987, p. 56.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Smith and R. Smith, op. cit., 1983, pp. 84–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Chan, op. cit., 1985, p. 407.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. De Grasse, Military Expansion and Economic Decline. The Impact of Military Spending on US Economic Performance (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1983) p. 2.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Mosley, op. cit., 1987, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Congressional Budget Office, Defence Spending and the Economy, Washington DC, 1983, p. 27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Nincic and T. Cusak, ‘The Political Economy of US Military Spending’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. XVI, no. 2, 1979, p. 108.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Markusen, ‘The Militarized Economy’, World Policy Journal, vol. 3, no. 4, 1986, p. 497–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, HMSO, London, 1965, Cmnd 2853, p. 29.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    UK Military R and D. Report of a Working Party, Council for Science and Society, (London: OUP, 1986) p. 41.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Koldziej, ‘French Arms Trade: The Economic Determinants’, World Armaments and Disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook 1983 (London: Taylor and Francis, 1983) p. 379.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Trebilcock, ‘Spin-offs in British Economic History; Armaments and Industry 1760–1914’, Economic History Review, vol. XXII, no. 3, December 1969, p. 480.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. de Grasse, op. cit., 1983, p. 77.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid., p. 77.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid., p. 108.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid., p. 85.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. de Haan, ‘Military Expenditure and Economic Growth: Some Theoretical Remarks’, in C. Schmidt (ed), The Economics of Military Expenditures (London: Macmillan, 1987) p. 94.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Rice, ‘Defence and Security’, in M. McCauley (ed), The Soviet Union Under Gorbachev, (London: Macmillan, 1987) p. 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Russett, ‘Who Pays for Defense?’, American Political Science Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 1969, p. 420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Peroff and M. Podolak-Warren, ‘Does Spending on Defence Cut Spending on Health? A Time Series Analysis of the US Economy’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 9, part 1, 1979, p. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The President’s Blue Ribbon Commmission on Defense Management (Packard Commission), A Quest for Excellence: Final Report to the President, Washington DC, 1986, p. XVII.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. Peroff and M. Podolak-Warren, op. cit., 1979, p. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Russett, ‘Defence Expenditures and National Well-Being’, American Political Science Review, vol. 76, no. 4, 1982, p. 774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    K. Peroff and M. Podolak-Warren, op. cit., 1979, p. 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Hartland-Thunberg, ‘From Guns and Butter to Guns versus Butter: The Relationship Between Economics and Security in the United States’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, 1988.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Chalmers, Paying for Defence. Military Spending and British Decline (London: Pluto, 1985) p. 117.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R. Smith, ‘Military Expenditures and Investment in OECD Countries’, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 4, no. 1, 1980, p. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic Goals and Intergovernmental Policies of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the USA, Washington DC, October-December 1982, p. 296.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. Nardielli and G. Ackerman, ‘Defence Expenditures and the Survival of American Capitalism’, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 3, no. 1, 1976, p. 15.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. Stafford, An End to Economic Growth: Growth and Decline in the UK Since 1945 (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981) ch. 6.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Calleo, The Imperious Economy (Cambridge, Mass.,: Harvard University Press 1982).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S. Huntington, ‘The US: Decline or Renewal’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 67, no. 2, 1988–89, p. 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    K. Rothschild, ‘Military Expenditures, Exports and Growth’, Kyklos, vol. 26, fasc. 4, 1973, p. 809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    P. Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988) pp. 515–521.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    C. Catrina, Arms Transfers and Dependence, (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1988) ch. 13.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    D. Smith and R. Smith, op. cit., 1983, p. 90.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    R. Smith et al, ‘The Economics of Exporting Arms’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 1985, pp. 241–2.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    S. Neuman, ‘Offsets in the International Arms Market. US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency’, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1985, Washington DC, 1985, p. 37.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J. Reppy, Military Research and Development and International Trade Performance. Paper presented for the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association 14–18, April 1987, Washington DC, Table 3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    UK Military R and D, op. cit., 1986, p. 42.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. Kaldor et al, ‘Industrial Competitiveness and Britain’s Defence’, Lloyd’s Bank Review, October 1986, no. 162, p. 41.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    J. Reppy, op. cit., 1987, Table 3.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    F. Long, ‘Federal Defence Budget. Guns versus Butter’, Science, 16 March 1984, vol. 223, no. 4641, p. 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    J. Stowsky, ‘Competing with the Pentagon’, World Policy Journal, Fall 1986, pp. 697–8.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    R. Nimrody et al, Star Wars: The Economic Fall Out, Council on Economic Priorities (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1988) p. 138.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    A. Markusen, op. cit., 1986, p. 504.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    UK Military R and D, op. cit., 1986, p. 35.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    K. Oye, ‘Constrained Confidence and the Evolution of Reagan Foreign Policy’, in K. Oye et al (eds), Eagle Resurgent? The Reagan Era in American Foreign Policy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983) p. 20.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    UK Military R and D, op. cit., 1986, p. 32.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    J. Reepy, ‘Military R and D and the Civilian Economy’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, vol. 41, no. 9, 1985, p. 13.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    R. Nimrody et al, op. cit., 1988, p. 138.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    R. De Grasse, op. cit., 1983, p. 86.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    UK Military R and D, op. cit., 1986, p. 44.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    J. Stowsky, op. cit., 1986, p. 709.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    H. Mosley, op. cit., 1987, p. 78.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    I. Maddock, Civilian Exploitation of Defence Technology, Report to the Electronics EDC, National Economic Development Office, London 1983.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    UK Military R and D, op. cit., 1986, p. 40.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    J. Stowsky, op. cit., 1986, p. 701.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ibid., p. 701.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    M. Kaldor, op. cit., 1986, p. 41.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    The Independent, 20 July 1988.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    J. Reppy, op. cit., Table 3.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    G. Adams, ‘Recasting the Military Spending Debate’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, October 1986, p. 27.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    A. Cappelan et al, Military Spending and Economic Growth in OECD Countries, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 24, no. 4, 1984, p. 371.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    C. Kegley and E. Wittkopf, American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1987) p. 271.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    R. De Grasse, op. cit., 1983, p. 12.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Congressional Budget Office, op. cit., 1983, p. 27.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    M. Kaldor, op. cit., 1986, p. 39.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Congressional Budget Office, op. cit., 1983, p. 43.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    D. Calleo, op. cit., p. 36.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    H. Starr et al, ‘The Relationship Between Defense Spending and Inflation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 28, no. 1, 1984, p. 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    G. Adams, op. cit., 1986, p. 28.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ibid., p. 28.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    H. Mosley, op. cit., 1987, p. 127.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    G. Adams, op. cit., 1986, p. 28.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    H. Starr et al, op. cit., 1984, pp. 116–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    W. Domke, op. cit., 1983, p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© R. T. Maddock 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. T. Maddock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International PoliticsThe University College of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations