IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cty/dpaper/19-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Allocating Security Expenditures under Knightian Uncertainty: an Info-Gap Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ben-Gad, M.
  • Ben Haim, Y.
  • Peled, D.

Abstract

We apply the information gap approach to resource allocation under Knightian (non-probabilistic) uncertainty in order to study how best to allocate public resources betweencompeting defense measures. We demonstrate that when determining the level and composi-tion of defense spending in an environment of extreme uncertaintyvis-a-visthe likelihood ofarmed conflict and its outcomes, robust-satisficing expected utility will usually be preferableto expected utility maximisation. Moreover, our analysis suggests that in environments withunreliable information about threats to national security and their consequences, a desirefor robustness to model misspecification in the decision making process will imply greaterexpenditure on certain types of defense measures at the expense of others. Our results alsoprovide a positivist explanation of how governments seem to allocate security expendituresin practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben-Gad, M. & Ben Haim, Y. & Peled, D., 2019. "Allocating Security Expenditures under Knightian Uncertainty: an Info-Gap Approach," Working Papers 19/06, Department of Economics, City University London.
  • Handle: RePEc:cty:dpaper:19/06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22151/1/Dept_Econ_WP1906.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    2. Michael Intriligator & Dagobert Brito, 1981. "Nuclear proliferation and the probability of nuclear war," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 247-260, January.
    3. Wallace J. Thies, 1987. "Alliances and Collective Goods," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 298-332, June.
    4. Brito, D L, 1972. "A Dynamic Model of an Armaments Race," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 13(2), pages 359-375, June.
    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. Michael Ben‐Gad, 2022. "Russia versus the West: Facing the long‐term challenge," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 385-394, June.
    2. Gitana Dudzevičiūtė & Vida Česnuitytė & Dalia Prakapienė, 2021. "Defence Expenditure–Government Debt Nexus in the Context of Sustainability in Selected Small European Union Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.

    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. Michael P. Leidy & Robert W. Staiger, 1985. "Economic Issues and Methodology in Arms Race Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 503-530, September.
    2. Michael D. Intriligator, 1982. "Research on Conflict Theory," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 307-327, June.
    3. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    4. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "False targets vs. redundancy in homogeneous parallel systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 588-595.
    5. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    6. Bhan, Aditya & Kabiraj, Tarun, 2018. "Countering Terror Cells: Offence versus Defence," MPRA Paper 88873, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Michael D. Intriligator & D. L. Brito, 1976. "Formal Models of Arms Races," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(1), pages 77-88, February.
    8. Bose, Gautam & Konrad, Kai A., 2020. "Devil take the hindmost: Deflecting attacks to other defenders," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    9. Robert H. Kupperman & Harvey A. Smith, 1976. "Formal Models of Arms Races: Discussion," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(1), pages 89-96, February.
    10. Szidarovszky, Ferenc & Luo, Yi, 2014. "Incorporating risk seeking attitude into defense strategy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 104-109.
    11. Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu & Sandler, Todd, 2021. "Counterterrorism policy: Spillovers, regime solidity, and corner solutions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 811-827.
    12. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "Intelligence and impact contests in systems with redundancy, false targets, and partial protection," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1927-1941.
    13. van der Ploeg, F. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1987. "Conflict over arms accumulation in market and command economies," Research Memorandum FEW 265, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T -Period Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 46-70, March.
    15. Sanjeev Goyal & Adrien Vigier, 2014. "Attack, Defence, and Contagion in Networks," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1518-1542.
    16. Vicki M. Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Jaime Menoyo & Rae Zimmerman & Alison M. Culpen, 2008. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Defense of Targets Based on Differing Measures of Attractiveness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 763-770, June.
    17. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    18. Devi Prasad DASH & Debi Prasad BAL & Manoranjan SAHOO, 2016. "Nexus between defense expenditure and economic growth in BRIC economies: An empirical investigation," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(1(606), S), pages 89-102, Spring.
    19. Rehman, Faiz Ur & Nasir, Muhammad & Shahbaz, Muhammad, 2017. "What have we learned? Assessing the effectiveness of counterterrorism strategies in Pakistan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 487-495.
    20. Yanling Chang & Alan Erera & Chelsea White, 2015. "Value of information for a leader–follower partially observed Markov game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 129-153, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Defense; Knightian Uncertainty; Robustness; Info-gap;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cty:dpaper:19/06. 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: Research Publications Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decituk.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.