IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v37y1981i1p41-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic arms limitation treaties and innovations in weapons technology

Author

Listed:
  • Dagobert Brito
  • Michael Intriligator

Abstract

Treaties to limit strategic arms, such as those resulting from the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), are generally viewed as resulting in a reduced level of military spending and an increased level of security for both countries. This paper shows that such treaties generally would accelerate the qualitative arms race and could lead to the introduction of new and potentially destabilizing weapon systems. Thus, the result might be an increase in military spending and a decrease in the level of security for both countries. This result is supported by a formal model of bureaucratic decision making, in which defense bureaus choose between purchases of existing weapons systems or research and development expenditures on new weapons systems. The formal model leads to two theorems which identify the conditions under which arms limitation treaties lead to innovations in weapons technology and to increased military spending. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1981

Suggested Citation

  • Dagobert Brito & Michael Intriligator, 1981. "Strategic arms limitation treaties and innovations in weapons technology," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 41-59, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:37:y:1981:i:1:p:41-59
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00124231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00124231
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00124231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael D. Intriligator & D. L. Brito, 1976. "Formal Models of Arms Races," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(1), pages 77-88, February.
    2. Brito, D L, 1972. "A Dynamic Model of an Armaments Race," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 13(2), pages 359-375, June.
    3. D. L. Brito & Michael Intriligator, 1977. "A Fixed Point Approach to Multiagent Adaptive Control," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 6, number 2, pages 137-145, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Michael P. Leidy & Robert W. Staiger, 1985. "Economic Issues and Methodology in Arms Race Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 503-530, September.
    2. Michael D. Intriligator, 1982. "Research on Conflict Theory," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 307-327, June.
    3. Akerman, Anders & Seim, Anna Larsson, 2014. "The global arms trade network 1950–2007," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 535-551.
    4. Barry Nalebuff, 1988. "Minimal Nuclear Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 411-425, September.
    5. Michael D. Intriligator & Dagobert L. Brito, 1985. "Wolfson on Economic Warfare," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 8(2), pages 21-25, February.
    6. Harald Witzke, 1986. "Endogenous supranational policy decisions: The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 157-174, January.

    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. Michael P. Leidy & Robert W. Staiger, 1985. "Economic Issues and Methodology in Arms Race Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 503-530, September.
    2. van der Ploeg, F. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1987. "Conflict over arms accumulation in market and command economies," Research Memorandum FEW 265, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Cheng-Te Lee, 2007. "A New Explanation of Arms Races in the Third World: A Differential Game Model," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 3(2), pages 161-176, July.
    4. Isard Walter & Anderton Charles H., 1999. "Survey of the Peace Economics Literature: Recent Key Contributions and a Comprehensive Coverage Up to 1992 (Part I)," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(4), pages 1-42, October.
    5. Gong, Liutang & Zou, Heng-fu, 2003. "Military spending and stochastic growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 153-170, October.
    6. Charles E. Lucier, 1979. "Changes in the Values of Arms Race Parameters," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 17-40, March.
    7. Kendall D. Moll & Gregory M. Luebbert, 1980. "Arms Race and Military Expenditure Models," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 153-185, March.
    8. Deng-Shan Wang & Yan Wang & Yifang Liu & Heng-fu Zou, 2009. "Optimal Military Spending, Trade and Stochastic Economic Growth," CEMA Working Papers 373, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    9. D. L. Brito & M. D. Intriligator, 1977. "Nuclear Proliferation and the Armaments Race," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(2), pages 231-238, February.
    10. Michael D. Intriligator & D. L. Brito, 1976. "Formal Models of Arms Races," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(1), pages 77-88, February.
    11. Robert H. Kupperman & Harvey A. Smith, 1976. "Formal Models of Arms Races: Discussion," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(1), pages 89-96, February.
    12. Devi Prasad DASH & Debi Prasad BAL & Manoranjan SAHOO, 2016. "Nexus between defense expenditure and economic growth in BRIC economies: An empirical investigation," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(1(606), S), pages 89-102, Spring.
    13. Seiglie, Carlos & Liu, Peter C., 2002. "Arms races in the developing world: some policy implications," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(7-8), pages 693-705, November.
    14. Vally Koubi & David Lalman, 2007. "Distribution of Power and Military R&D," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 133-152, April.
    15. Vally Koubi, 1998. "Interstate Military Technological Races and Arms Control Agreements," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 16(1), pages 57-75, February.
    16. Dina A. Zinnes & John V. Gillespie & G. S. Tahim, 1978. "Transforming a Nation-Dominant International System," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 547-564, December.
    17. Juan M. C. Larrosa, 2016. "Arms build-up and arms race in optimal economic growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 12(2), pages 167-182, June.
    18. Angus C. Chu & Ching-Chong Lai, 2012. "On the Growth and Welfare Effects of Defense R&D," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(3), pages 473-492, June.
    19. Jean-Christian Lambelet & Urs Luterbacher & Pierre Allan, 1979. "Dynamics of Arms Races: Mutual Stimulation vs. Self-Stimulation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 4(1), pages 49-66, February.
    20. Michael Ben-Gad & Yakov Ben-Haim & Dan Peled, 2020. "Allocating Security Expenditures under Knightian Uncertainty: An Info-Gap Approach," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(7), pages 830-850, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:pubcho:v:37:y:1981:i:1:p:41-59. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.