IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wzb/wzebiv/fsiv00-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Security Needs and the Performance of the Defense Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Blume
  • Asher Tishler

Abstract

Today, leading defense firms are concentrated into just two distinct blocs - those based in the US and those in Western Europe. All US defense firms and most European ones are private. Market structure may thus play an important role in determining procurement levels as well as defense policies in the US and Europe. This paper focuses on the interactions between defense needs and market structure. It presents a model in which two producer blocs (representing the US and Europe) produce an identical homogeneous defense good. The "rest of the world" purchases the defense good from the two producer countries. The security level of each of the two producing countries depends on its purchase of the defense good relative to the amount of defense good purchased by the rest of the world. Each country measures its security level against a target that it sets for itself. The main results of this paper are: (1) Generally, the total world quantity of the defense good is lower when the governments of the producers of the defense good pay the world price (rather than the marginal production cost plus a markup) to their defense industries. (2) The net defense cost (government expenditure on the defense good minus the profit of the defense industry) of each producing country is lower when producing-country governments pay the world price to their own defense industries. (3) Government expenditure on the defense good and the net defense cost for each producing-country are smaller when the number of defense firms in each country is relatively small. (4) Target security levels affect the optimal number of firms in each of the two producing countries. Higher target security levels result in a larger number of defense firms. (5) Multiple equilibria in the game where the developed countries independently choose their own procurement rules are possible. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Sicherheitsbedürfnisse und die Leistungsfähigkeit der Rüstungsindustrie) Heute sind die führenden Rüstungsunternehmen in zwei unterschiedlichen Regionen konzentriert: in den USA und in Westeuropa. Alle US-Unternehmen und die meisten europäischen Unternehmen sind in Privatbesitz. Insofern kann die Marktstruktur als wichtige Einflußgröße des Beschaffungsniveaus und der Verteidigungspolitik in den USA und Europa angesehen werden. Der Beitrag konzentriert sich auf die Interaktion zwischen Verteidigungsbedürfnissen und Marktstruktur. Es wird ein Modell vorgestellt, in dem zwei "Produzentenblöcke" (die USA und Europa) ein identisches, homogenes Rüstungsgut produzieren. Der "Rest der Welt" kauft das Rüstungsgut von den beiden Herstellerländern. Das Sicherheitsniveau jedes der beiden Länder hängt von dem eigenen Beschaffungsvolumen des Rüstungsguts im Vergleich zum Beschaffungsvolumen des Rüstungsguts durch den Rest der Welt ab. Jedes Land bestimmt sein Sicherheitsniveau in dem es dies mit einem selbstgesteckten Ziel vergleicht. Das Hauptergebnis besagt: (1) Im allgemeinen ist das weltweite Gesamtvolumen an Rüstungsgütern niedriger, wenn die Regierung der Herstellerländer der Rüstungsgüter den Weltmarktpreis an ihre Industrien zahlen (im Unterschied zu einer Preisbildung nach Grenzkosten der Produktion plus Zuschlag). (2) Die Nettoverteidigungsausgaben (staatliche Ausgaben für Rüstungsgüter minus der Gewinne der Rüstungsindustrie) eines jeden Herstellerlandes sind geringer, wenn die Herstellerländer den Weltmarktpreis an ihre eigene Industrie zahlen. (3) Die Staatsausgaben für die Rüstungsgüter und die Nettoverteidigungsausgaben für jedes Herstellerland sind geringer, wenn die Anzahl an Rüstungsunternehmen in jedem Land verhältnismäßig gering ist. (4) Die Höhe des gewünschten Sicherheitsniveaus beeinflußt die optimale Anzahl von Unternehmen in jedem der beiden Herstellerländer. Höhere Sicherheitsniveaus führen zu einer höheren Anzahl an Rüstungsunternehmen. (5) Multiple Gleichgewichte des Spiels, in dem die entwickelten Länder unabhängig voneinander ihre Beschaffungsregeln entscheiden, sind möglich.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Blume & Asher Tishler, 2000. "Security Needs and the Performance of the Defense Industry," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-04, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
  • Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv00-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2000/iv00-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1997. "Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 642-662, September.
    2. Goolsbee, Austan, 1998. "Does Government R&D Policy Mainly Benefit Scientists and Engineers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 298-302, May.
    3. Rogerson, William P, 1990. "Quality vs. Quantity in Military Procurement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 83-92, March.
    4. William P. Rogerson, 1994. "Economic Incentives and the Defense Procurement Process," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 65-90, Fall.
    5. Zinde-Walsh, Victoria, 1995. "ESTIMATION AND INFERENCE IN ECONOMETRICSRussell Davidson and James G. MacKinnon Oxford University Press, 1993," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 631-635, June.
    6. Ham, Rose Marie & Mowery, David C., 1998. "Improving the effectiveness of public-private R&D collaboration: case studies at a US weapons laboratory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 661-675, February.
    7. Dvir, D. & Lipovetsky, S. & Shenhar, A. & Tishler, A., 1998. "In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 915-935, December.
    8. Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
    9. William E. Kovacic & Dennis E. Smallwood, 1994. "Competition Policy, Rivalries, and Defense Industry Consolidation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-110, Fall.
    10. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Dunne & Maria del Carmen Garcia-Alonso & Paul Levine & Ron Smith, 2007. "Determining The Defence Industrial Base," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 199-221.
    2. Benny Mantin & Asher Tishler, 2004. "The structure of the defense industry and the security needs of the country: a differentiated products model," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 397-419.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saar Golde & Asher Tishler, 2004. "Security Needs, Arms Exports, and the Structure of the Defense Industry," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(5), pages 672-698, October.
    2. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 645-684, March.
    3. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates & Giammario Impullitti, 2018. "Innovation and Trade Policy in a Globalized World," NBER Working Papers 24543, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Yongmin Chen & Ron Smith, 2001. "Equilibrium Cost Overruns," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 2(2), pages 401-414, November.
    5. Richard M. H. Suen, 2013. "Research Policy and U.S. Economic Growth," Working papers 2013-18, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    6. Andrew James, 2009. "Reevaluating the role of military research in innovation systems: introduction to the symposium," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 449-454, October.
    7. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    8. Teodora Borota & Fabrice Defever & Giammario Impullitti, 2019. "Innovation union: costs and benefits of innovation policy coordination," CEP Discussion Papers dp1640, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Nicolas Serrano-Velarde, 2021. "Back to Basics: Basic Research Spillovers, Innovation Policy, and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 1-43.
    10. A. Minniti & F. Venturini, 2014. "R&D Policy and Schumpeterian Growth: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers wp945, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Graevenitz, Georg von, 2004. "Spillovers Reconsidered: Analysing Economic Welfare under complementarities in R&D," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 29, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    12. Marc Guyot & Radu Vranceanu, 1997. "Quelle réglementation pour le secteur de la Défense : l'expérience américaine," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 12(3), pages 167-193.
    13. Dermot Leahy & J. Neary, 2009. "Multilateral subsidy games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 41(1), pages 41-66, October.
    14. Howell, Sabrina T. & Rathje, Jason & Van Reenen, John & Wong, Jun, 2021. "Opening up Military Innovation: Causal Effects of 'Bottom-up' Reforms to U.S. Defense Research," IZA Discussion Papers 14297, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Renaud Bellais, 2013. "Technology and the defense industry: real threats, bad habits, or new (market) opportunities?," Post-Print hal-00947395, HAL.
    16. Arnott, Richard & Rowse, John, 2009. "Downtown parking in auto city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    18. Howell, Sabrina T. & Rathje, Jason & Van Reenen, John & Wong, Jun, 2021. "Opening up military innovation: causal effects of reforms to US defense research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Sheldon, Ian M. & Pick, Daniel H. & McCorriston, Steve, 2001. "Export Subsidies And Profit-Shifting In Vertical Markets," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Minford, Lucy & Meenagh, David, 2019. "Testing a model of UK growth: A role for R&D subsidies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 152-167.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv00-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jennifer Rontganger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cicwzde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.