Don’t just click 'download': The case of U.S. military expenditure data

Jurgen Brauer

Abstract


With a view toward two purposes, the article examines measures of United States military expenditure. It first discusses what types of data would be most suitable for the analysis of the economic burden of such expenditure and it explains, second, why existing databases with U.S. (and global) military expenditure coverage have limited validity, and therefore utility, for the first purpose. The article advances the concepts of minimal and maximal augmented military expenditure measures to better capture the full economic resource burden imposed on an economy than do the presently available measures. The difference of current measures to the proposed augmented measures is not primarily one of an intercept change but mostly of a slope change. The article claims that, by fiscal year 2018, the economic burden imposed by military expenditure on the U.S. economy when using the augmented measures is about double the size of the burden as measured by all of the currently available measures. Since, to date, most empirical work on the effects of military expenditure on economies tends to rely on inappropriate measures, misleading findings may have resulted.

Keywords


United States; military expenditure; data

Full Text:

 Subscribers Only

References


Anderton, C.H., and J.R. Carter. 2019. Principles of Conflict Economics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316875506

[BEA] 1988. “Government Transactions.” Methodology Paper Series MP-5. U.S. National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http: //www.bea.gov/bea/ARTICLES/ NATIONAL/NIPA/Methpap/methpap5.pdf [accessed 12 April 2019].

[BEA] 2005. “Government Transactions.” Methodology Paper Series MP-5. U.S. National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http: //www.bea.gov/bea/mp5.pdf [accessed 12 April 2019].

Brauer, J. 2007. “Data, Models, Coefficients: The Case of United States Military Expenditures.” Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940601102845

Brauer, J., J.P. Dunne, and N. Tian. 2019. “Towards Demilitarisation? The Military Expenditure—Development Nexus Revisited,” pp. 90–117 in Ron Matthews, ed. The Political Economy of Defense. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108348058.005

Dunne, J.P. 1991. Quantitative Marxism. London: Pluto Press.

Dunne, J.P., and N. Tian. 2016. “Military Expenditure and Economic Growth, 1960–2014.” The Economics of Peace and Security Journal. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 50–56. https://doi.org/10.15355/epsj.11.2.50

[IMF] International Monetary Fund. 2019. “Regional Economic Outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa: Recovery Amid Elevated Uncertainty.” April. IMF: Washington, D.C.

Kjar, S.A., and W.L. Anderson. 2010. “War and the Austrian School: Applying the Economics of the Founders.” The Economics of Peace and Security Journal. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 6–11. https://doi.org/10.15355/epsj.5.1.6

Ludwick, M., and B. Brankin. 2018. “NIPA Translation of the Fiscal Year 2019 Federal Budget.” Survey of Current Business. Vol. 98, No. 3, unpaginated. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2018/03-march/pdf/0318-nipa-translation-of-the-fiscal-year-2019-federal-budget.pdf.

Smith, R.P. 2019. “Military Expenditure and Growth,” pp. 73–89 in Ron Matthews, ed. The Political Economy of Defense. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108348058.004

Stålenheim, P., and E. Sköns. 2008. “Appendix 5C. Sources and Methods for Military Expenditure Data.” SIPRI Yearbook 2008. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15355/epsj.14.2.55

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.