IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v8y1994i4p91-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition Policy, Rivalries, and Defense Industry Consolidation

Author

Listed:
  • William E. Kovacic
  • Dennis E. Smallwood

Abstract

Declining outlays for new weapons programs have triggered a process of consolidation that promises to shrink the U.S. defense industry drastically. Consolidation in the defense industry raises complex competition policy issues that are not amenable to conventional antitrust merger analysis. This paper presents a framework for identifying important contractor competencies, assessing rivalries in defense industry segments, and evaluating the competitive effects of mergers and other consolidation events. As applied to antitrust oversight and to Department of Defense funding, program, and acquisition strategy decisions, this framework can help preserve supply alternatives for developing state-of-the-art weapons needed to satisfy national security requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:8:y:1994:i:4:p:91-110
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.4.91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.8.4.91
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith J. Crocker & Kenneth J. Reynolds, 1993. "The Efficiency of Incomplete Contracts: An Empirical Analysis of Air Force Engine Procurement," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 126-146, Spring.
    2. Kovacic, William E, 1991. "Commitment in Regulation: Defense Contracting and Extensions to Price Caps," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 219-240, September.
    3. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 1990. "Measuring the effectiveness of competition in defense procurement: A survey of the empirical literature," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 60-79.
    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. 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.
    2. Yugank Goyal, 2019. "How Governments Promote Monopolies: Public Procurement in India," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(5), pages 1135-1169, November.
    3. 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).
    4. Wipprich, Mark, 2007. "Preisbindung als Kooperationsinstrument in Wertschöpfungsnetzwerken," Arbeitspapiere 60, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    5. David R. King & John D. Driessnack, 2007. "Analysis Of Competition In The Defense Industrial Base: An F‐22 Case Study," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(1), pages 57-66, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard L. Fullerton & R. Preston McAfee, 1999. "Auctioning Entry into Tournaments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 573-605, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Simonyan, Karen, 2014. "What determines takeover premia: An empirical analysis," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 93-125.

    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. 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.
    2. Dean V. Williamson, 2010. "Financial-Market Contracting," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Roussey, Ludivine & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2018. "Overburdened judges," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-32.
    4. Ciccotello, Conrad S & Hornyak, Martin J & Piwowar, Michael S, 2004. "Research and Development Alliances: Evidence from a Federal Contracts Repository," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 123-166, April.
    5. Jose Alcalde & Matthias Dahm, 2016. "Proportional payoffs in legislative bargaining with weighted voting: a characterization," Discussion Papers 2016-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Vettas, Nikolaos & Biglaiser, Gary, 2004. "Dynamic Price Competition with Capacity Constraints and Strategic Buyers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4315, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    8. Ganesh Prasad Neupane, 2017. "Heuristics as an Aid to Inter-organizational Value Creation," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(1), pages 238-244.
    9. Weisman, Dennis L., 2002. "Is there 'Hope' for price cap regulation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 349-370, September.
    10. Bart S. Vanneste & Phanish Puranam, 2010. "Repeated Interactions and Contractual Detail: Identifying the Learning Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 186-201, February.
    11. Saussier, Stephane, 2000. "Transaction costs and contractual incompleteness: the case of Electricite de France," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 189-206, June.
    12. Helm, Roland & Kloyer, Martin, 2004. "Controlling contractual exchange risks in R&D interfirm cooperation: an empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1103-1122, October.
    13. M. Bensaou & Erin Anderson, 1999. "Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 460-481, August.
    14. Michael E. Sykuta, 2010. "Empirical Methods in Transaction Cost Economics," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Seitz, Michael & Watzinger, Martin, 2017. "Contract enforcement and R&D investment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 182-195.
    16. Phalippou, Ludovic & Rauch, Christian & Umber, Marc, 2018. "Private equity portfolio company fees," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 559-585.
    17. Desmond (Ho-Fu) Lo & Kellilynn M. Frias & Mrinal Ghosh, 2012. "Price Formats for Branded Components in Industrial Markets: An Integration of Transaction Cost Economics and the Resource-Based View," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1282-1297, October.
    18. Rajeev K. Goel, 1999. "On contracting for uncertain R&D," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 99-106.
    19. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2019. "Dual sourcing with price discovery," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 225-246.
    20. Crocker, Keith J & Lyon, Thomas P, 1994. "What do Facilitating Practices Facilitate? An Empirical Investigation of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Natural Gas Contracts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 297-322, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War

    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:aea:jecper:v:8:y:1994:i:4:p:91-110. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.