Advertisement

Introduction

  • Judith Holdren
  • Judith Reppy

Abstract

The sudden end of the Cold War in 1989–91 brought widespread expectations of a ‘peace dividend’ to be reaped from the redirection of economic resources that until then had been devoted to the massive military establishments, in both East and West, spawned by four decades of confrontation. The peace dividend was expected to arise in two ways: reductions in military spending overall (which would allow governments to increase spending on social programs, or to reduce deficits and pay down debt, or to decrease taxes and thereby stimulate increased economic activity in the private sector); and from the ‘conversion’ of resources with high economic leverage to the pursuit of increased quantity, quality, and variety of civilian goods and services and hence improved quality of life. These resources included specifically the productive capacities of high-technology defense-oriented firms and the inventiveness of defense-oriented research-and-development (R&D) establishments.

Keywords

Military Spending Civilian Sector Military Sector Military Budget Defense Contractor 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    See, e.g., National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    In the large literature of this subject, see, e.g., U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Federal Support for High-Technology Industries (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985);Google Scholar
  3. Kenneth Flamm, Targeting the Computer: Government Support and International Competition (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1987);Google Scholar
  4. Michael E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990);Google Scholar
  5. U.S. National Academy of Engineering, Technology and Economics (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991);Google Scholar
  6. John A. Alic, Lewis M. Branscomb, Harvey Brooks, Ashton B. Carter, and Gerald L. Epstein, Beyond Spinoff. Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1992);Google Scholar
  7. Lewis M. Branscomb and Fumio Kodama, Japanese Innovation Strategy: Technical Support for Business Visions (Cambridge: Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Uniersity, 1993);Google Scholar
  8. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United States, Science in the National Interest (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1994);Google Scholar
  9. Edwin Mansfield, ‘Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing,’ The Review of Economics and Statistics (February 1995), pp 55–65;Google Scholar
  10. U.S. National Research Council, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  11. U.S. Council on Competitiveness, Endless Frontier, Limited Resources: U.S. R&D Policy for Competitiveness (Washington, DC, April 1996 ).Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    See also the book Beyond Spinoff by Alic et al. cited in note 5; and Robin Cowan and Dominique Foray, ‘Quandaries in the Economics of Dual Technologies and Spillovers from Military to Civilian Research and Development,’ Research Policy 24 (1995): 851–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 7.
    For example, while Japan, West Germany, and the United States spent similar fractions of their 1990 GDPs on R&D - 3.1 per cent, 2.8 per cent, and 2.7 per cent, respectively - the United States was at a substantial disadvantage in the percentage of GDP spent on nondefense R&D: 1.9 per cent, versus 2.7 per cent for Germany and 3.0 per cent for Japan. See National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    In the 1990 U.S. military budget, for example, the procurement account was some $80 billion and the operation and maintenance account nearly $90 billion, compared to $40 billion in the R&D account. See, e.g., Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994). Note that these proportions vary drastically among countries owing to differences in policies, economic circumstances, and accounting conventions.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    See, for example, Michael Oden, ‘Cashing-in, Cashing-out and Converting: Restructuring of the Defense Industrial Base in the 1990s,’ paper presented to the Council on Foreign Relations Study Group on ‘Consolidation, Downsizing and Conversion in the U.S. Military Industrial Base,’ New York, 9 February 1996 (mimeo); and Ann Markusen, ‘The Post Cold War American Defense Industry: Options, Policies, Probable Outcomes,’ in Efraim Inbar and Ben-Zion Zilberfarb, eds., Politics and Economics of Defense Industries in a Changing World (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    See, e.g., Bonn International Center for Conversion, Conversion Survey 1996: Global Disarmament, Demilitarization, and Demobilization (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996), p. 81.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Of course, the admission of the nuclear-weapon states that they do not foresee any end to their asserted need to maintain nuclear-weapon stockpiles and nuclear-weapon-design capabilities is highly problematic in the context of nonproliferation policy. For an extensive discussion of the difficulties created by this contradiction, see, e.g., Joseph Rotblat, Jack Steinberger, and Bhalchandra Udgaonkar, eds., A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Desirable? Feasible? (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources 1994 (NSF 95–304, Arlington, VA, 1995), p. 87;Google Scholar
  19. Directorate-General III (Industry), The European Aerospace Industry Trading Position and Figures (III/5021/96-EN, European Commission, Brussels, May 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Holdren
  • Judith Reppy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations