IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v17y1999i2p145-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-National Comparison of Post-Cold-War Defense Conversion and Labor Policies: Sweden and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • S Deitrick

    (Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA)

Abstract

Defense and military priorities have changed in the post-Cold-War era in many nations. Decreases in military and defense spending have resulted in layoffs in defense-related industries, creating dislocated defense-dependent workers and affecting economic and social conditions in their communities. How countries cope with the labor repercussions of restructuring in defense differs across nations. Their policy choices are rooted in the historical and institutional paths of their political economies. In this paper the author compares defense restructuring and its effects on workers through an analysis of policies in Sweden and the United States. Both the United States and Sweden have maintained strong military and defense sectors, for different reasons, but demonstrate most-different systems design with regard to labor policies affecting a dislocated workforce. It is argued that the dominant ‘warfare’ state policies of the United States forced the country to develop a set of reactive policies to defense restructuring, more focused on technology and existing defense firms than on the retraining and reemployment needs of its former defense workforce. Sweden's welfare state model, by contrast, enabled defense-sector dislocations to be treated in the same way as other industrial restructuring in the past, by a set of well-developed labor and social policies that encouraged retraining and reemployment of workers. Case studies from both nations highlight these differences. The anticipatory policies in Sweden were better able to cope with structural changes from defense restructuring than were the largely reactive policies of the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • S Deitrick, 1999. "Cross-National Comparison of Post-Cold-War Defense Conversion and Labor Policies: Sweden and the United States," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(2), pages 145-160, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:17:y:1999:i:2:p:145-160
    DOI: 10.1068/c170145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c170145
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c170145?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maryellen R. Kelley, 1997. "From Mission to Commercial Orientation: Perils and Possibilities for Federal Industrial Technology Policy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 11(4), pages 313-328, November.
    2. Atkinson, Michael M. & Coleman, William D., 1989. "Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 47-67, January.
    3. Markusen, Ann & Hall, Peter & Campbell, Scott & Deitrick, Sabina, 1991. "The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195066487, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chris F. Wright, 2017. "Employer Organizations and Labour Immigration Policy in Australia and the United Kingdom: The Power of Political Salience and Social Institutional Legacies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 347-371, June.
    2. Susan Christopherson & Jennifer Clark, 2010. "Limits to ‘The Learning Region’: What University-centered Economic Development Can (and Cannot) do to Create Knowledge-based Regional Economies," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 25(2), pages 120-130, March.
    3. Yu Zhou, 2005. "The Making of an Innovative Region from a Centrally Planned Economy: Institutional Evolution in Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(6), pages 1113-1134, June.
    4. Michael Powe & Jonathan Mabry & Emily Talen & Dillon Mahmoudi, 2016. "Jane Jacobs and the Value of Older, Smaller Buildings," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(2), pages 167-180, April.
    5. G Hooks & V Getz, 1998. "Federal Investments and Economic Stimulus at the End of the Cold War: The Influence of Federal Installations on Employment Growth, 1970–1990," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(9), pages 1695-1704, September.
    6. Sanjoy Chakravorty, 2003. "Capital source and the location of industrial investment: a tale of divergence from post-reform India," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 365-383.
    7. Riccardo Crescenzi & Alexander Jaax, 2017. "Innovation in Russia: The Territorial Dimension," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 93(1), pages 66-88, January.
    8. Reyes Renny & Romano Alessandro & Sottilotta Cecilia Emma, 2015. "Regulatory Impact Assessment in Mexico: A Story of Interest Groups Pressure," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 99-121, June.
    9. Levi-Faur, David & Jordana, Jacint, 2004. "The Rise of the Regulatory State in Latin America: A Study of the Diffusion of Regulatory Reforms Across Countries and Sectors," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30621, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    10. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    11. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
    12. Paul W. Rhode, 2003. "After the War Boom: Reconversion on the U.S. Pacific Coast, 1943-49," NBER Working Papers 9854, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Feldman, Maryann P. & Kelley, Maryellen R., 2006. "The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1509-1521, December.
    14. Al James & Mia Gray & Ron Martin, 2004. "(Expanding) the Role of Geography in Public Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(11), pages 1901-1905, November.
    15. Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2015. "An Overview of Discourses on Knowledge in Policy: Thinking Knowledge, Policy and Conflict Together," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 10-31, December.
    16. Gregory Hooks & Clayton Mosher & Thomas Rotolo & Linda Lobao, 2004. "The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties, 1969–1994," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 37-57, March.
    17. D I Lyons, 1994. "Changing Patterns of Corporate Headquarter Influence, 1974–89," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 26(5), pages 733-747, May.
    18. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    19. Jennifer J Clark, 2014. "Siting ‘Scientific Spaces' in the US: The Push and Pull of Regional Development Strategies and National Innovation Policies," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(5), pages 880-895, October.
    20. Wood, Amanda & Tenbensel, Tim & Utter, Jennifer, 2013. "The divergence of country of origin labelling regulations between Australia and New Zealand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 132-141.

    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:sae:envirc:v:17:y:1999:i:2:p:145-160. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.