DOCSLIB.ORG

How Americans Identify Economic Competitors Shelley D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Americans Identify Economic Competitors Shelley D Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-18-2013 Constructing Threat: How Americans Identify Economic Competitors Shelley D. Wick Florida International University, [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI13042328 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Wick, Shelley D., "Constructing Threat: How Americans Identify Economic Competitors" (2013). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 860. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/860 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida CONSTRUCTING THREAT: HOW AMERICANS IDENTIFY ECONOMIC COMPETITORS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS by Shelley D. Wick 2013 To: Dean Kenneth G. Furton College of Arts and Sciences This dissertation, written by Shelley D. Wick, and entitled Constructing Threat: How Americans Identify Economic Competitors, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. ____________________________________ Thomas Breslin ____________________________________ Steven Heine ____________________________________ Julie Zeng ____________________________________ Paul Kowert, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 18, 2013 The dissertation of Shelley D. Wick is approved. ____________________________________ Dean Kenneth G. Furton College of Arts and Sciences ____________________________________ Dean Lakshmi N. Reddi University Graduate School Florida International University, 2013 ii DEDICATION This Dissertation is dedicated to Ed Montesano. His constant love, patience, encouragement and support made this achievement possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge Florida International University for providing me with financial support first through a Teaching Assistantship (2005-2012), and then through a Dissertation Year Fellowship (2012-2013). I would also like to thank the numerous experts who willingly provided me with guidance and assistance. My committee members Dr. Julie Zeng, Dr. Thomas Breslin, and Dr. Steven Heine each gave me wonderful suggestions and advice throughout the process. Dr. Asia Eaton was helpful in the design of my social scientific experiment. Dr. Paulette Johnson provided a great deal of help as I learned to use Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) Software. Dr. Harry Gould was always available to answer my questions and frequently provided much needed encouragement and support. Lastly, I would like to give a special thank you to the chair of my committee Dr. Paul Kowert, who remained constantly patient with my numerous questions, and whose clear and detailed feedback at every stage of the process was invaluable. iv ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION CONSTRUCTING THREAT: HOW AMERICANS IDENTIFY ECONOMIC COMPETITORS by Shelley D. Wick Florida International University, 2013 Miami, Florida Professor Paul Kowert, Major Professor China’s emergence as an economic powerhouse has often been portrayed as threatening to America’s economic strength and to its very identity as “the global hegemon.” The media’s alarmist response to an economic competitor is familiar to those who remember U.S.-Japanese relations in the 1980s. In order to better understand the basis of American threat perception, this study explores the independent and interactive impact of three variables (perceptions of the Other’s capabilities, perceptions of the Other as a threat versus as an opportunity, and perceptions of the Other’s political culture) on attitudes toward two different economic competitors (Japan 1977-1995 and China 1985- 2011). Utilizing four methods (historical process tracing, public polling data analysis, social scientific experimentation, and content analysis), this study demonstrates that increases in the Other’s economic capabilities have a much smaller impact on attitudes than is commonly believed. It further shows that while perceptions of threat/opportunity played a significant role in shaping attitudinal response toward Japan, perceptions of political culture are the most important factor driving attitudes toward China today. This study contributes to a better understanding of how states react to threats and construct v negative images of their economic rivals. It also helps to explain the current Sino- American relationship and enables better predictions as to its potential future course. Finally, these findings contribute to cultural explanations of the democratic peace phenomenon and provide a boundary condition (political culture) for the liberal proposition that opportunity ameliorates conflict in the economic realm. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. HOW DO AMERICANS FEEL ABOUT CHINA?.........................................................1 Is China a Threat?—the Theoretical Debate ................................................................7 Is China a Threat?—the Empirical Debate.................................................................13 (Mis)Understanding China’s Motives ........................................................................18 Discussion...................................................................................................................21 Dissertation Outline....................................................................................................25 II. WHY STUDY AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD CHINA?................................30 Material Ontology.......................................................................................................30 International Level Theorizing...................................................................................36 Single Factor Focus ....................................................................................................44 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................45 Summary.....................................................................................................................50 III. HOW DO AMERICANS RESPOND TO THE RISING ECONOMIC CAPABILITITES OF DIFFERENT ECONOMIC COMPETITORS?.............................53 The Two Cases ...........................................................................................................60 Economy Size: “Hegemonic Threat” ...................................................................60 Trade Issues ..........................................................................................................68 Foreign Investment and American Debt...............................................................77 Attitudinal Response to Economic Threat..................................................................82 Discussion...................................................................................................................83 IV. WHAT OTHER FACTORS EXPLAIN AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ECONOMIC COMPETITORS?........................................................................................88 The Experiment ..........................................................................................................90 Part I the Impact of Threat, Opportunity, and Political Culture on Attitudes ............93 Part II the Impact of Political Culture and Relationship on Concerns about Capabilities.....................................................................................................................98 Part III Attitudes toward Specific Countries ............................................................101 Discussion.................................................................................................................105 V. HOW HAVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIONS OF CHINA’S POLITICAL CULTURE CHANGED OVER TIME............................................................................116 Apparent Correlation between Media Representation and Public Opinion..............119 Representations of China’s Political Culture over Time..........................................123 Trends in American Discourse on China..................................................................130 The promise of liberalism...................................................................................131 The Human Rights issue....................................................................................135 Power, interdependence, and the need for cooperation.....................................142 vii Discussion.................................................................................................................145 VI. WHAT DO THESE FINDINGS MEAN FOR UNDERSTANDING AND PREDICTING THE SINO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP?.........................................148 WORKS CITED ..............................................................................................................164 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................185 VITA................................................................................................................................197
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: September 23, 1998 Copyright 2000 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born and raised in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Dartmouth College; Harvard Law School World War II influence McCarthy and communism President Eisenhower’s anti-McCarthy speech U.S. Army reserve Derek Bok influence Harvard politics Political views Hawaii - Private Law Practice 1961-1967 Labor law Union organizations Harry Bridges Senator Hiram Fong Republican Party Vietnam War sentiment Department of Labor - NLRB 1967-1969 Appellate lawyer Solicitor of Labor (General Counsel) Labor management affairs Department of Labor - Under Secretary 1970-1973 Nixon administration Secretary of Labor George Shultz Kissinger-Shultz comparison Nixon involvement Ehrlichman White House influence Unions’ political orientation George McGovern 1 Deputy Attorney General 1973-1975 Saturday Night Massacre Archibald Cox Yugoslavia - Ambassador 1975-1977 Recalling 1969-1970 ILO Geneva Conference U.S. unions anti-communism George Meany Lane Kirkland “Towards Presidential Control of the State Department” “Europe’s Fiddler on the Roof” Tito and tactics Soviet-West power struggle World War II fears Internal debate on Yugoslavia Kissinger views of USSR future U.S. ambassador’s 1974-1975 meeting Sonnenfeldt Doctrine Foreign Service officer (FSO) attitude towards political appointees Mack Toon Embassy friction DCM problems CODELs Understanding
    [Show full text]
  • Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
    HONORABLE LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t s The Historical Society of the D i s t r i c t o f C olumbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit Honorable Laurence H. Silberman Interviews conducted by: Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esquire June 26, September 26, and December 13, 2001 January 25 and February 6, 2002 January 23 and February 4, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . i Oral History Agreements Honorable Laurence H. Silberman Agreement. iii Authorization. v Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esq. vi Oral History Transcript of Interviews on: June 26, 2001 . 1 September 26, 2001 . 40 December 13, 2001 . 69 January 25, 2002 . 117 February 6, 2002 . 164 January 23, 2008 . 238 February 4, 2008 . 263 Index . A-1 Table of Cases and Statutes . A-22 Biographical Sketches Honorable Laurence H. Silberman . B-1 Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esq. B-3 Appendix I . C-1 The Origin of Affirmative Action as We Know It–The Philadelphia Plan Pivot, by Judge Silberman, October 10, 2001. Appendix II . D-1 “Will Lawyering Strangle Democratic Capitalism: a Retrospective,” by Judge Silberman, March 30, 2000. Appendix III . E-1 On the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Saturday Night Massacre, by Judge Silberman, June 24, 1999. Appendix IV . F-1 “Judge Silberman’s response to David Brock’s book,” Michael Barone Blog, August 18, 2006 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and edited by the interviewee.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Internationalizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle James E. Goodby
    10. Internationalizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle James E. Goodby Summary: Where We Are Right Now The Bush administration has tried to persuade the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) not to sell technology and equipment for enrichment and reprocessing to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning plants of this type. The proposal was rejected, even by close friends of the United States. The United States is now trying to accommodate its policy to a “criteria-based” approach proposed by France and other NSG members. Efforts to block the spread of en- richment and reprocessing capabilities have fallen short for four main reasons: (1) access to the base technologies required for entry into the field is relatively easy; (2) several states were determined to acquire their own enrichment and/or reprocessing capabilities for various rea- sons, e.g., to reduce energy dependence, conserve energy resources, or to manage nuclear wastes; (3) no combination of incentives and threats short of military action have sufficed to dissuade nations intent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability from exploiting these tech- nologies; and (4) many nations that have no current intention of build- ing nuclear weapons and no special animosity toward the United I acknowledge, with thanks, the invaluable help that many people gave me in writing this paper. They include Chaim Braun, Sidney Drell, Amitai Etzioni, Mark Fitzpatrick, Geoffrey Forden, Charles Forsberg, Subrata Ghoshroy, Daryl Kimball, Pierre Gold- schmidt, Laura Holgate, Fred McGoldrick, Marvin Miller, Pavel Podvig, Burton Rich- ter, Geoffrey Rothwell, Harry Rowen, Larry Scheinman, Andy Semmel, George Shultz, Jim Timbie, and Frank von Hippel.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN in AMERICA: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
    THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers A film by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith USA – 2009 – 94 Minutes Special Jury Award - International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) “Freedom of Expression Award” & One of Top Five Documentaries - National Board of Review Audience Award, Best Documentary - Mill Valley (CA) Film Festival Official Selection - 2009 Toronto International Film Festival Official Selection - 2009 Vancouver Film Festival Official Selection - WatchDocs, Warsaw, Poland Contacts Los Angeles New York Nancy Willen Julia Pacetti Acme PR JMP Verdant Communications 1158 26th St. #881 [email protected] Santa Monica, CA 90403 (917) 584-7846 [email protected] (310) 963-3433 THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers Selects from reviews of The Most Dangerous Man in America: “Riveting! A straight-ahead, enthralling story of moral courage. This story changed the world. The movie offers one revelatory interview after another. CRITICS’ PICK!” – David Edelstein, New York magazine “Detailed, clearly told, persuasive” – Mike Hale, The New York Times “A Must-See! Crams a wealth of material into 90 minutes without losing clarity or momentum. Focuses on (Ellsberg’s) moral turnaround, which directly impacted history. A unique fusion of personal and social drama.” – Ronnie Scheib, Variety “The filmmakers do an astounding job… earnest, smart documentary… "The Most Dangerous Man" offers a brisk and eye-opening approach to recent history.” – Chris Barsanti, Hollywood Reporter “The most exciting thriller I’ve seen in a while… as powerful as anything Hollywood can throw at us.” – V.A. Musetto, New York Post “The essential new documentary.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts on the Gates Hearing on Returning to the United States After Some Gence Community Not Just, Or Especially, the CIA)
    THE WASHINGTON POST. f0 (.6 1 41/ Harry Rowen Thoughts on the Gates Hearing On returning to the United States after some gence community not just, or especially, the CIA). In weeks abroad I am surprised to a degree verging on 1981, short) / after becoming chairman of the National amazement at the course taken by the Senate Intelli- Intelligence Council, I reviewed a draft estimate on gence Committee hearings on Bob Gates this past the pact. At that time Poland was in turmoil, and there week. So much talk about the "politicization" of was a real possibility that the Red Army would invade. intelligence by some of my former colleagues, so little This fissure in the pact was hardly mentioned in the about the main problem of intelligence production— draft, and on being questioned the analyst's response which is to my mind getting high-quality work done of amounted to saying that what was going on in Poland use to policy makers in a timely fashion. was irrelevant to the Warsaw Pact as an alliance. As one of the few people around who have served This seemed, to say the least, implausible, but it in senior jobs in both the intelligence and policy parts couldn't be fixed in that estimate. So Bill Casey agreed of the government in the past decade, I am sensitive that we should do a separate one on the political to the question of the influence of policy on intelli- cohesiveness of the pact. By the time a draft on that gence. This is always a legitimate—and complex— subject appeared on my desk, the crackdown on question.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Change in Taiwan: Implications for American Policy An
    Political Change in Taiwan: Implications for American Policy An address by RICHARD BUSH and Roundtable Discussion on Taiwan’s Historic 2000 Elections October 2000 Table of Contents 5 About the Speaker Welcoming Remarks by Russell Hancock, Director of the 7 Walter H. Shorenstein Forum Introduction by Michel Oksenberg, Senior Fellow, Institute 9 for International Studies, Stanford University Address by Richard Bush, Chairman of the Board and 10 Managing Director, American Institute in Taiwan “Political Change in Taiwan: Implications for American Policy” Roundtable Discussion on Taiwan’s Historic 2000 33 Elections Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow, Hoover Insti- 34 tution and Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Stanford University Suisheng Zhao, Campbell National Fellow, 40 Hoover Institution, Stanford University Ramon H. Myers, Senior Fellow, Hoover Insti- 46 tution and Curator of the East Asian Collec- tion, Stanford University 3 About the Speaker RICHARD BUSH Chairman of the Board and Managing Director The American Institute in Taiwan Richard Bush is chairman of the board and managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private or- ganization that conducts unofficial re- lations with the island of Taiwan on behalf of the United States government. Established in April 1979, AIT has a small headquar- ters in Washington, D.C., and offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung. Dr. Bush was appointed to the AIT Board by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on September 2, 1997, and was selected as chairman and managing director on the same day. Dr. Bush was born in Chicago in 1947. As a boy, he lived in the Philippines (1950–55) and Hong Kong (1960–65), where his par- ents were missionaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary: on Nuclear Deterrence
    Commentary: On Nuclear Deterrence Alain C. Enthoven Albert Wohlstetter was the most important strategic analyst and thinker of our time. His ideas were the foundation of the overall nuclear strategy of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson Administrations. His insights, recommendations, and ensuing policies greatly reduced the otherwise high danger of a thermonuclear war. On a more personal scale, Albert was one of the most important influences in my life: father-figure, teacher, mentor, and friend. He was the intellectual godfather of the Systems Analysis Office that I created and led in the 1960s under the direction of Charles Hitch and Robert McNamara.1 Albert’s effect on defense policy was profound and far- reaching. He was the father of strategic analysis based on systematic, empirical, and interdisciplinary studies. Indeed, he raised the standards for what could pass as an analysis of a policy issue in subsequent years. Albert searched out and asked the most fundamental questions. He insisted that the actual details—missile accuracies, reliabilities and payloads, bomb yields, blast resistance, bomber ranges, operating characteristics, costs, and much more— mattered and must be factored carefully into a systems analysis. Nuclear deterrence could not be dealt with sufficiently at a level of generality that did not consider such details. Economics typically focuses on analyzing choice among a defined set of choices. For Albert, however,out of analysis emerged new choices. Analysis was as much about the invention of new solutions as it was choice among known alternatives. While others made comparable contributions in the realms of politics and management, and may get the recognition in the history books, Albert’s unique and essential contribution was in building the intellectual foundations of American strategy and defense policy, and how it must be studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting a Report on Trade Negotiations March 30, 2005
    Mar. 30 / Administration of George W. Bush, 2005 nest egg you own is for—is to be a part The President. First of all, I want to of a retirement system. In other words, the thank our panelists for joining us. I hope Government is going to be able to afford you found this to be an educational discus- something, and on top of that will be your sion about a problem that we need to solve own nest egg. It’s a part of the retirement now. If you’re over 55 years old, you’ll get system. And that asset base that you build your check. I don’t care what the propa- will not only help you in retirement, but ganda says. I don’t care what the pamphlet- if you so choose, you can leave it to whom- eers say. I don’t care what the ads say. ever you want, which is, I think, a vital You’re going to get your check. Now, if part of having a vibrant society, that assets you’re a younger person here at this fine are passed from one generation to the next. community college, you need to be asking Good job. the people in the United—you don’t have Mr. Knudsen. Thank you. to worry about your Senator and Congress- man, but you need to be a part of people The President. You want to have the final saying, ‘‘We have a problem. You all got word, or you want me to? elected for a reason.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis
    Aaron Wi lda vs ky th e a r t an d c r a f o t f p oli c y a n a l y s R E i IS s SU ED WITH A NEW INTRODUC TION BY B . G U Y P E T E R S The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis “Even after half a century of reading public policy works, if I were to be limited to one professional book, it would be The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Aaron Wildavsky, a founder of the field, was determined to teach its members to above all question ‘received’ wisdom. Criticism, while essential, is not enough, he coun- seled. Policy analysis must contribute to addressing problems. The mark of good public policy is whether today’s problems are less divisive and more soluble than those previously faced. At the end of the 1970s, after two tumultuous decades of revolutionary policies affecting civil rights, social welfare and the environment, Wildavsky was positive about the contribution of policy. Can we come to the same judgement today? This book can teach the reader how to do the analysis.” —Helen Ingram, Professor Emerita in Planning, Policy, and Design and Political Science, University of California, Irvine, USA Aaron Wildavsky The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis Reissued with a new introduction by B. Guy Peters Aaron Wildavsky University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, USA Introduction by B. Guy Peters Pittsburgh University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA ISBN 978-3-319-58618-2 ISBN 978-3-319-58619-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58619-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947756 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Gates - Wikipedia
    11/10/2017 Robert Gates - Wikipedia Robert Gates Robert Michael "Bob"[3] Gates (born September 25, 1943) is an American politician, scholar, and university Robert Gates president who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. Gates initially began his career serving as an officer in the United States Air Force but was quickly recruited by the CIA.[4] Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and was Director of Central Intelligence under President George H. W. Bush. After leaving the CIA, Gates became president of Texas A&M University and was a member of several corporate boards. Gates served as a member of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan commission co- chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, that studied the lessons of the Iraq War. Gates was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush as Secretary of Defense after the 2006 24th Chancellor of the College of election, replacing Donald Rumsfeld. He was confirmed William and Mary with bipartisan support.[5] In a 2007 profile written by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Incumbent Time named Gates one of the year's most influential Assumed office people.[5] In 2008, Gates was named one of America's Best Leaders by U.S. News & World Report.[6] He February 3, 2012 continued to serve as Secretary of Defense in President Barack Obama's administration.[7] He retired in 2011. President Taylor Reveley "He'll be remembered for making us aware of the Preceded by Sandra Day danger of over-reliance on military intervention as an instrument of American foreign policy," said former O'Connor [8] Senator David L.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence: Cult, Craft, Or Business? Charles E
    INCIDENTAL PAPER Seminar on Intelligence, Command, and Control Intelligence: Cult, Craft, or Business? Charles E. Allen Guest Presentations, Spring 2000 Charles E. Allen, Albert J. Edmonds, John J. Garstka, Timothy G. Hoechst, Hans Mark, Dale W. Meyerrose, Mark C. Montgomery, Scott A. Snook July 2001 Program on Information Resources Policy Center for Information Policy Research Harvard University The Program on Information Resources Policy is jointly sponsored by Harvard University and the Center for Information Policy Research. Chairman Managing Director Anthony G. Oettinger John C. B. LeGates Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Not to be reproduced in any form without written consent from the Program on Information Resources Policy, Harvard University, Maxwell Dworkin 125, 33 Oxford Street, Cambridge MA 02138. (617) 495-4114 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.pirp.harvard.edu ISBN 1-879716-74-7 I-01-1 July 2001 PROGRAM ON INFORMATION RESOURCES POLICY Harvard University Center for Information Policy Research Affiliates Anonymous Startup NEST–Boston AT&T Corp. Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp Australian Telecommunications Users Group (Japan) BellSouth Corp. NMC/Northwestern University The Boeing Company PDS Consulting Booz•Allen & Hamilton, Inc. PetaData Holdings, Inc. Center for Excellence in Education Research Institute of Telecommunications CIRCIT at RMIT (Australia) and Economics (Japan) Commission of the European Communities Samara Associates Critical Path Sonexis CyraCom International Strategy Assistance Services DACOM (Korea) United States Government: ETRI (Korea) Department of Commerce Fujitsu Research Institute (Japan) National Telecommunications and Hanaro Telecom Corp. (Korea) Information Administration Hearst Newspapers Department of Defense High Acre Systems, Inc. National Defense University Hitachi Research Institute (Japan) Department of Health and Human IBM Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Project-Air-Force-1996.Pdf
    Photographs on p. 28 courtesy of the U.S. Air Force, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas. Most of the staff photographs were taken by J.R. “Goldy” Goldstein, associate director and vice president of The RAND Corporation in the 1950’s and 1960’s. CONTENTS 5 A Partnership of Trust 47 Analytic Methods 11 Out of the Box 53 Systems Training Program 17 Space 57 Defense Economics 23 Strategy for the Nuclear Era 61 Manpower 29 Theater Air Operations 65 Logistics 33 Computing 71 Acquisition Policy 39 International Studies 75 The Post–Cold War World 43 Arms Control 79 The New Challenge A PARTNERSHIP OF TRUST The 50th anniversary of Project AIR FORCE gives mark, it is worth pondering the environment that made Tus a unique opportunity to reflect on past achieve- such creative work possible. What is it about the RAND ments and the legacy they provide for the future. partnership with the Air Force that fostered productive The essays in this volume offer a montage of per- innovation and continued relevance over so many years? sonal perspectives on that legacy. While they do Part of the answer lies in the revolutionary concept not present a comprehensive history, they help us that was the basis for Project RAND. The founders— grasp the significance of our first 50 years. General of the Army H. H. “Hap” Arnold; MIT’s Edward Readers of these essays may be struck by the sheer Bowles; Donald Douglas, Arthur Raymond, and Franklin number of creative leaps taken by individuals working at Collbohm from Douglas Aircraft Company; and others— Project RAND (1946–1976) and at Project AIR FORCE conceived of RAND as a way of retaining for the Air Force (1976–present).
    [Show full text]