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. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
    10. 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.
    11. 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. 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.
    2. Richard M. H. Suen, 2013. "Research Policy and U.S. Economic Growth," Working papers 2013-18, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Benjamin Montmartin & Nadine Massard, 2015. "Is Financial Support For Private R&D Always Justified? A Discussion Based On The Literature On Growth," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 479-505, July.
    6. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 645-684, March.
    7. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    8. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    9. Maemir, H. & Ziesemer, T., 2014. "Multinational production and trade in an endogenous growth model with heterogeneous firms," MERIT Working Papers 2014-038, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2013. "A Schumpeterian Analysis of Monetary Policy, Innovation and North-South Technology Transfer," Economics Working Paper Series 1319, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    11. Danny Givon, 2006. "Factor Replacement versus Factor Substitution, Mechanization and Asymptotic Harrod Neutrality," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_028, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    12. Strulik, Holger & Werner, Katharina, 2014. "Elite education, mass education, and the transition to modern growth," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 205, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    13. Creina Day, 2016. "Non-Scale Endogenous Growth with R&D and Human Capital," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 63(5), pages 443-467, November.
    14. Tadashi Morita & Hajime Takatsuka & Kazuhiro Yamamoto, 2015. "Does Globalization Foster Economic Growth?," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 492-519, December.
    15. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Einiö, Elias & Martin, Ralf & Nguyen, Kieu-Trang & Reenen, John Van, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Bloom, David E. et.al., 2013. "Economic impact of non-communicable disease in China and India: Estimates, projections and comparisons," Working Papers 300, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    17. Angus C. Chu & Guido Cozzi & Haichao Fang & Yuichi Furukawa & Chih-Hsing Liao, 2019. "Innovation and Inequality in a Monetary Schumpeterian Model with Heterogeneous Households and Firms," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 34, pages 141-164, October.
    18. Zeng, Jinli, 2003. "Reexamining the interaction between innovation and capital accumulation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 541-560, December.
    19. Дементьев В.Е., 2013. "Структурные Факторы Технологического Развития," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 49(4), pages 33-46, октябрь.
    20. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.

    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.