Random thoughts on the consequences of a reduction in military expenditures

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.

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.

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.

John Kenneth Galbraith,The New Industrial State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), pp. 317–323.

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.

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.

Stephen Enke, “Preface”, in Enke ed.,Defense Management (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), n.vi.

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1969 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 83.

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.

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.

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.

Ibid., pp. 878–879.

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.

See James R. Schlesinger, “The Changing Environment for System Analysis”, in Enke ed.),op. cit.,, pp. 89–112.

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).

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.

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.

Richard R. Nelson, “The Impact of Arms Reduction on Research and Development,”The American Economic Review,LIII, No. 2 (May, 1963), pp. 435–446.

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.

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.

H. L. Nieburg, “Social Control of Innovation”,American Economic Review, LVIII, No. 2 (May, 1968), pp. 666–677, especially 672–673.

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.

Ibid.,, p. 664.

Ibid.,, pp. 3–8.

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.

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.

I am indebted to Kenneth Boulding for this observation.

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.”

Business Week, October 12, 1968, pp. 79–80.

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.

Business Week, op. cit., October 12, 1968, p. 79.

Ibid. Business Week, op. cit., October 12, 1968, p. 79.

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.

Nelson,op. cit., “ pp. 436.

Ibid., p. 445.