From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:52:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1469100017:cdp:1469100022:000:4296
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Oct 10 16:52:00 1992


To:    sci.space From:  Mark W. Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org) Re:
Benefits of Military Spending?  Date:  10/9/92

Since my posting expressing skepticism about the claimed benefits
of military spending there have been a number of thoughtful (and
some not so thoughtful) replies.  I would like to respond to them
as a group.

Steinn Sigurdsson writes that the article he referred to, claiming
that NASA procurement spending flows through the economy 7 times
while most government spending goes through only twice, was based
on NASA's own studies.  This makes me more skeptical than I was
before.  Beyond the obvious potential for bias in having NASA
evaluate the benefits of its own programs, NASA's terrible track
record in self-promotion through economic "analysis" has left it
with little credibility on such matters.  Still, I have not yet
had the chance to look up the reference, so I won't dismiss it out
of hand.

I am willing to believe that I am wrong about the direct economic
effects of giving money to middle and upper middle income people
versus lower income people.  The former may well have a greater
stimulating effect.  There are, however, significant economic and
social costs of poverty that such arguments fail to capture.

As for the overall argument, I have seen well-reasoned arguments
on both sides of the issue of whether military spending is a
benefit to or a drain on the economy.  The empirical evidence does
not appear to offer a conclusive answer.

To me, the key question is "Compared to what?"  Compared to not
spending the money or spending it in wasteful ways, military
spending may well be beneficial.  Compared to sensible government
investments (and I don't think that's an oxymoron) in
infrastructure, education and training, and technology, military
spending is probably a drain.  I would argue that the most
productive approach should not be to resist military spending cuts
but to push for the money saved to be used in sensible ways
(including reducing the deficit, though it will not go very far).

On the question of spinoffs, several people have challenged my
assertion that spinoffs from military technology are becoming less
common.  I'm not sure whether the empirical evidence supports this
assertion or not, but there are several trends that support my
conclusion.

1) Military technology is increasingly isolated from civilian
technology because of increasingly specialized and arcane military
requirements and specifications, and by secrecy and restrictions
on technology transfer.

2) Military R&D represents a declining portion of overall R&D, and
cutting edge developments are increasingly coming from private,
civilian R&D.  Military technology is no longer particularly
advanced compared to civilian technology, making the impediments
mentioned in point 1) more significant.

3) Military R&D is typically driven by demanding top-down
technical specifications with little concern for cost.  The
resulting technologies may be ill-suited to the open market where
cost/performance tradeoffs are different.

The question I would pose to those who oppose military spending
cuts because they would hurt technology development is this:
Security considerations aside, wouldn't it be more efficient to
invest directly in technologies with civilian applications and to
promote the commercial development of these technologies than to
procure economically useless high-technology weapons systems in
the hope of civilian technological spinoffs?

By the way, thanks for the many kind words of encouragement
regarding my Congressional Science Fellowship.

In this regard, Edmund Hack wites:

>(quoting me):
>>...  Congressional staff
>>members are not expected to pursue their own agendas, but those
of their
>>bosses.
>
><HA! HA! ROFL>
>The staffers of the various subcommittees have agendas of their
own and
>pursue them with vigor. Ask around. Read the book "Hill Rat" that
a
>former staffer wrote. It is in hardback right now.

It is true that Congressional staffers have a certain degree of
discretion to pursue policy agendas of their own, but ultimately
this depends on the autonomy their bosses give them, which can
vary widely.  They serve at the pleasure of their bosses, and
their bosses are ultimately accountable for the actions of their
staffs.