IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkwp/483.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defence and space expenditures in the US: An inter-firm analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Chakrabarti, Alok K.
  • Glismann, Hans H.
  • Horn, Ernst-Jürgen

Abstract

The economic impact of defence and space expenditures has been an important policy issue because of the secondary benefits expected to be accruing from it. Although defence and space activities can stimulate the early development of many technologies, the lasting economic impact of these technologies is difficult to measure. To capture the scientific and technological values added of defence and space financed productions, we have depended on the patents and scientific and technical publications as the indicators. The economic performance has been measured by two separate indicators: (a) firm growth in terms of average annual rate of change in the number of employees, and (b) rate of return on sales measured by the company's net profits in relation to sales. From 1970-75 and 1980-85 the weight within the manufacturing sector of both defence contractors and the civilian companies increased. Defence firms gained considerably in terms of sales, employment, gross plants and company funded R&D in the latter period under the Reagan Administration. Whereas this may be considered a Reagan effect in defence procurement, other indicators point to in the opposite direction: (a) decrease in the shares of defence R&D contracts, (b) relatively low growth of patent output as percent of total manufacturing from the defence firms, and (c) decrease in scientific publications from defence firms per 1000 employees. Firm level analysis showed that military R&D contracts did not contribute to economic or technical efficiency. Space expenditure did not contribute to improvement of economic performance as measured by company growth and profitability. NASA contracts were not associated with technical progress measured by patents, but they improved scientific publications. Defence expenditures are not of importance for the overall economic efficiency. The standard financial variables, capital formation and own R&D activities prove mostly relevant. The study is restricted to an efficiency analysis in a cross sectional comparison and does not include the effect of market structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Chakrabarti, Alok K. & Glismann, Hans H. & Horn, Ernst-Jürgen, 1991. "Defence and space expenditures in the US: An inter-firm analysis," Kiel Working Papers 483, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkwp:483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/46702/1/256491062.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mueller,Dennis C., 2009. "Profits in the Long Run," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521101592, October.
    2. James M. Cypher, 1987. "Military Spending, Technical Change, and Economic Growth: A Disguised Form of Industrial Policy?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 33-59, March.
    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. Bletschacher, Georg & Klodt, Henning, 1992. "Strategische Handels- und Industriepolitik: theoretische Grundlagen, Branchenanalysen und wettbewerbspolitische Implikationen," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 456, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    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. Stefan Hirsch & Adelina Gschwandtner, 2013. "Profit persistence in the food industry: evidence from five European countries," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(5), pages 741-759, December.
    2. André de Waal, 2011. "Strategy Only Matters A Bit: The role of Strategy in the High Performance Organization," Working Papers 2011/02, Maastricht School of Management.
    3. Chang, Sungyong & Kim, Hyunseob & Song, Jaeyong & Lee, Keun, 2024. "Dynamics of imitation versus innovation in technological leadership change: Latecomers’ catch-up strategies in diverse technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    4. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    5. Villalonga, Belen, 2004. "Intangible resources, Tobin's q, and sustainability of performance differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 205-230, June.
    6. Dennis Mueller, 1996. "Antimerger policy in the United States: History and lessons," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 229-253, October.
    7. Hans Schenk, 1996. "Bandwagon mergers, international competitiveness, and government policy," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 255-278, October.
    8. Andrea Vaona, 2010. "On the gravitation and convergence of industry profit rates in Denmark, Finland, Italy and the US," Working Papers 02/2010, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    9. Tammy L. Madsen & Michael J. Leiblein, 2015. "What Factors Affect the Persistence of an Innovation Advantage?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(8), pages 1097-1127, December.
    10. Emilio Galdeano-Gómez & José Céspedes-Lorente, 2004. "The Effect of Quality-Environmental Investment on Horticultural Firms' Competitiveness," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(3), pages 371-386, November.
    11. Singh, Ajit & Singh, Alaka & Weisse, Bruce, 2002. "Corporate governance, competition, the new international financial architecture and large corporations in emerging markets," MPRA Paper 53665, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Rajat Mishra & Randy Napier & Mahmut Yasar, 2019. "Do competitors respond to capacity changes? Evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 159-172, December.
    13. Marcel Canoy & Patrick Rey & Eric van Damme, 2004. "Dominance and Monopolization," Chapters, in: Manfred Neumann & Jürgen Weigand (ed.), The International Handbook of Competition, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Catia Montagna, 2001. "Efficiency Gaps, Love of Variety and International Trade," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 27-44, February.
    15. Germano Mendes Paula & João Carlos Ferraz & Mariana Iootty, 2002. "Economic Liberalization And Changes In Corporate Control In Latin America," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 40(4), pages 467-496, December.
    16. Luís Cabral & Gonçalo Pacheco-de-Almeida, 2019. "Alliance Formation and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 879-895, February.
    17. Christopher F Baum & Hans Lööf & Pardis Nabavi, 2019. "Innovation strategies, external knowledge and productivity growth," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 348-367, March.
    18. Michael Salinger, 1990. "The Concentration-Margins Relationship Reconsidered," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 287-335.
    19. Adelina Gschwandtner & Michael Hauser, 2008. "Modelling profit series: nonstationarity and long memory," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(11), pages 1475-1482.
    20. Isabelle Le Breton-Miller & Danny Miller, 2015. "The paradox of resource vulnerability: Considerations for organizational curatorship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 397-415, March.

    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:zbw:ifwkwp:483. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.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.