Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:02:17.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of military research and development priorities on the evolution of the civil economy in capitalist states

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Barry Buzan  and
Gautam Sen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The objective of this paper is to identify the process by which military research and development (R&D) priorities affect the evolution of major sectors of the civil economy in capitalist states. Military priorities channel a significant proportion of the resources that capitalist societies devote to R&D: for the United States in the period 1982–4, military R&D amounted to 28.9 per cent of gross domestic expenditure on R&D. The nature of military priorities favours some areas of technological development over others, and when these favoured areas are opened up for military purposes, it is often possible to build a major civil industry on the resultant technology. Examples of this process include nuclear power, civil aviation, space satellites and computers. Some, though by no means all, of the commanding heights of civil economies are thus powerfully shaped by the opportunities created by specifically military R&D.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 321 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 SIPRI, Yearbook of World Armaments and Disarmament 1986 (Stockholm, 1986Google Scholar).

2 Thee, Marek, ‘Science and Technology for War and Peace: the Quest for Disarmament and Development’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals 19, no. 3 (1988), p. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the complex impact of military involvement on the computer industry see Flamm, Kenneth, Creating the Computer: Government, Industry and High Technology (Washington D.C., 1988), pp. 29–79Google Scholar. On the specific question of the simultaneity of invention and innovation in the development of the computer and associated electronics advances, see Misa, Thomas G., ‘Military Needs, Commercial Realities, and the Development of the Transistor’, in Smith, Merritt Roe (ed.), Military Enterprise and Technological Change (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), pp. 253–287Google Scholar.

3 Thee, , ‘science and Technology’, p. 5.Google Scholar

4 Gleditsch, Nils Peter, ‘Economic Incentives to Arms? Effects of Military Spending on Industrialized Market Economies’, PRIO 21, no. 86 (1986), p. 17.Google Scholar

5 Mary Kaldor, Unpublished Seminar Discussion, (Political Economy Seminar, November 1987); Rosenberg, Nathan, ‘Civilian “Spill-overs” from Military R&D Spending; the American Experience since WWII’, Unpublished Conference Paper, 1986Google Scholar.

6 Deger, Saadet and Sen, Somnath, ‘Defence, Entitlement and Development’, in Deger, S. and West, R. (eds.), Defence Security and Development (London, 1987), pp. 81–101.Google Scholar

7 Blunden, Margaret and Greene, Owen (eds.), Science and Mythology in the Making of Defence Policy (London, 1989), pp. 178–179.Google Scholar

8 Smith, (ed.), Military Enterprise, esp. pp. 1–37Google Scholar, and passim.

9 Misa, Thomas J., ‘Military Needs’, pp. 272–276Google Scholar.

10 Centrally planned economies are not considered directly in this discussion because the distinction between state and market processes and also the empirical separation between civil and military sectors are conceptually invalid as a starting point of the analysis, as we have assumed here for capitalist market econmies. However, the relationship between analytically separable civil and military economic processes in such economies is likely to be analogous to the situation in capitalist economies.

11 Wells, Louis T. Jr., ‘Automobiles’, in Vernon, Raymond (ed.), Big Business and the State (London, 1974, pp. 227–254.Google Scholar

12 Council for Science and Society, UK Military R&D (Oxford, 1986), p. 42Google Scholar; also see Goldstein, Nance, ‘A Preliminary Look at the Impact of Military R&D Spending on the US Software Industry’Google Scholar, and DiFillipo, Anthony, ‘Military Spending and Government High Technology Policy: A Summary Analysis of Three Industrial Nations’, Review of Radical Political Economics 20, nos. 2 and 3 (1988), pp. 290–302Google Scholar.

13 Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven, 1982).Google Scholar

14 It has been argued that the superior growth of productivity in Japan and Europe compared to the US during the post-WW II period was partly due to the not unexpected phenomenon of ‘catching up’ by economies which were further behind the technological frontier—which the US occupied. More recently, it has been suggested that manufacturing productivity growth in the US since 1980 has been broadly comparable to Japan's and it is the service sector which lags behind and reduces the overall productivity growth of the US economy. See Wee, Harmann Van Der, Prosperity and Upheaval The World Economy 1945–80 (Harmondsworth, 1987), pp. 50–54Google Scholar; and Nakamae, Tadashi, ‘The Decline of America's Service Economy And Short-Term Policy Implications’, MS, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

15 Brzoska, Michael, and Ohlson, Thomas, Arms Production in the Third World (London, 1986), pp. 281–282Google Scholar.

16 Smith, Merritt Roe, ‘Army Ordnance and the “American” System of Manufacturing, 1815–1861’, in Smith, (ed.) Military Enterprise, pp. 39–86.Google Scholar

17 Buzan, Barry, An Introduction to Strategic Studies: Military Technology and International Relations (London, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Sen, Gautam, The Military Origins of Industrialisation and International Trade Rivalry (London, 1984).Google Scholar

18 SIPRI, yearbook (Stockholm, 1986), pp. 299–303Google Scholar.

19 See McNeill, William H., The Pursuit of Power (Chicago, 1982Google Scholar); Chase-Dunn, Christopher, ‘Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?’, International Studies Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1981), pp. 19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallerstein, Immanuel, ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, no. 4 (1974), pp. 387–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, E. L., The European Miracle (Cambridge, 1983Google Scholar).

20 Sen, , The Military Origins, pp. 64–101Google Scholar; McNeill, , The Pursuit, pp. 170–172, 177, 210–211Google Scholar; Smith, , Military Enterprise, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

21 McNeill, , The PursuitGoogle Scholar; Pearton, Maurice, The Knowledgeable State: Diplomacy, War and Technology Since 1830, (London, 1982Google Scholar).

22 McNeill, , The Pursuit, pp. 240–241, 278–285, 334.Google Scholar

23 Pearton, , The Knowledgeable State, pp. 239–244Google Scholar.

24 Interviews at Bell (Fort Worth, August 1987).

25 The Economist (13 June 1986), p. 72.

26 Sampson, Anthony, The Arms Bazaar (Sevenoaks, UK, 1988), pp. 91–113Google Scholar.

27 Brodie, Bernard, and Fawn, M., From Crossbow to H-Bomb (Bloomington, Indiana, 1973), pp. 254–257.Google Scholar

28 Buzan, , An Introduction, pp. 57–65Google Scholar.

29 Sampson, , The Arms, p. 101Google Scholar.

30 Misa, Thomas J., ‘Military Needs’, pp. 253–287Google Scholar; Also Flamm, , Creating pp. 29–79Google Scholar.

31 Hills, Jill, Information Technology and Industrial Policy (London, 1984), p. 91Google Scholar.

32 Arnold, Erik, and Guy, Ken, Parallel Convergence: National Strategies in Information Technology (London, 1986), p. 35Google Scholar.

33 Hills, , Information, p. 159Google Scholar; also see Blunden, and Greene, (eds.), Science, p. 118Google Scholar.

34 Arnold, and Guy, , Parallel, p. 40Google Scholar.

35 Arnold, and Guy, , Parallel, p. 42Google Scholar.