The Changing Military Industrial Complex
The first reference to a military industrial complex (MIC) was made by US President Eisenhower in 1961. He then referred to something historically specific: the build-up of a large permanent military establishment and a permanent arms industry, which raised his concerns for the unwarranted influence of these societal forces. Subsequently the meaning of the MIC evolved to refer to the vested interests within the state and industry in expanding the military sector and in increasing military spending, with external threats providing the justification. During the Cold War, when the defence was strongly focused on deterrence, this produced a set of specific state-industry relationships that in turn generated a beneficial environment for the development and strengthening of the MIC. With the end of the Cold War, the conditions for a strong MIC were less favourable, at least initially, with changes in the international security environment, cuts in military spending and arms production, and ensuing privatisation, commercialisation, and internationalisation of military activities as well as of arms production. This paper discusses how the MIC has been affected by these changes and the degree to which there has been continuity of old power structures and a continuing MIC.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 0117 328 3610|
Phone: 0117 328 3610
Web page: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/bl/research/bristoleconomics.aspx
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dunne, J. Paul, 1995. "The defense industrial base," Handbook of Defense Economics, in: Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler (ed.), Handbook of Defense Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 399-430 Elsevier.
- Smith, Ron & Dunne, Paul, 1994. "Is Military Spending a Burden? A 'Marxo-Marginalist': Response," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 515-21, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwe:wpaper:1104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Felix Ritchie)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.