DOCSLIB.ORG

The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Innovation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Innovation The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Innovation Judith Reppy, ed. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PEACE STUDIES PROGRAM OCCASIONAL PAPER #25 ©April 2000 i © 2000 Cornell University Peace Studies Program. All rights reserved. ISSN 1075-4857 The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Innovation Judith Reppy, ed. The Peace Studies Program was established at Cornell in 1970 as an interdisciplinary program concerned with problems of peace and war, arms control and disarmament, and more generally, instances of collective violence. Its broad objectives are to support graduate and post-doctoral study, research, teaching and cross-campus interactions in these fields. Copies of Occasional Papers may be ordered from: Peace Studies Program 130 Uris Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-7601 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ...................................................................v I. COMPETING INSTITUTIONAL PARADIGMS Conceptualizing the Role of Defense Industries in National Systems of Innovation ..........1 Judith Reppy The Defense Industry as a Paradigmatic Case of “Actually Existing Globalization” .........13 John Lovering Should We Welcome a Transnational Defense Industry? ..............................24 Ann Markusen II. THE PLACE OF THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY IN ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS U.S. Defense Industry in the Post-Cold War: Economic Pressures and Security Dilemmas ...47 Kenneth Flamm The Place of the French Arms Industry in its National System of Innovation and in the Governmental Technology Policy ..........................................71 Claude Serfati The Place of the UK Defense Industry in its National Innovation System: Co-evolution of National, Sectoral and Technological Systems ................................96 Andrew D. James Ideas, Identity and the Limits of European Defense Technology Cooperation .............125 Eugene Cobble III. THE PLACE OF THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY IN TRANSITIONAL AND INDUSTRIALIZING ECONOMIES The Russian National System of Innovation .......................................153 Judith Sedaitis The Defense Sector as a Window into China’s National System of Innovation ............168 Corinna-Barbara Francis The Changing Role of the Defense Industry in Israel’s Industrial and Technological Development .........................................................194 Dov Dvir and Asher Tishler iii Economic Restructuring, National Strategies, and the Defense Industry in Newly Industrializing States .............................................217 Etel Solingen CONTRUBUTORS..........................................................227 iv PREFACE Military research and development programs are a substantial component of many countries’ public spending for new technology, but their contribution to innovation processes remains a con- tested issue. Whereas the debate used to center around the question of whether military R&D pro- grams provided useful spin off to the civilian technology base and enhanced economic growth or, conversely, exacted a net cost in terms of missed opportunities, the end of the cold war and the changes associated with globalization have recast the terms of the argument. The lines between mili- tary and civilian technology have been blurred by the increased importance of information technolo- gies—an area in which the military lags behind the civilian sector—and by changes in government policies that aim to increase procurement from civilian sources. In most of the major arms-producing countries, mergers between defense firms have produced a sharp reduction in the number of major contractors. Globalization, variously defined, has opened up the borders of national defense indus- tries to cross-country flows of information and weapons technology that go far beyond the tradition- al exchanges embodied in state-to-state arms transfers. These changes co-exist with (and are, in part, a reaction to) secular trends in the complexity and costs of weapons systems, as well as declining defense budgets. One way of talking about these issues is to consider the place of defense industries in national systems of innovation (NSI), where the national system is taken to be the totality of institu- tions and practices that interact to produce and diffuse new technology. What is the effect of govern- ment funding and regulations on the production of new technology? How do defense firms relate to their major customer or to civilian-oriented firms in their industrial sector? What is the nature of the transnational links and technology flows among defense firms and markets? How have the changes outlined above affected the patterns established in the past? The value of the NSI approach is that it focuses attention on the networks or systems that are involved in innovative activities and at the same time problematizes the boundaries of those systems and the roles of their constituent players. The papers collected here are the product of a workshop on “The Place of the Defense Indus- try in National Systems of Innovation,” held on October 16-18, 1998 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. The workshop brought together specialists in defense industry issues from the United v States and Europe to discuss the changes taking place in the industry and to debate the utility of the NSI approach in a world in which globalizing trends may be undermining the basis for such an ap- proach. The authors chart various national responses to the changes affecting the defense industry and military technology programs, and they reach different conclusions about the ability of the state to retain control over defense technologies. One obvious source of these differences lies in the va- lence assigned to the military sector, something that varies with a country’s role in the international system and its individual history, as Claude Serfati’s chapter on France and Etel Solingen’s on new- ly industrializing states make clear. Variation in the degree to which different states have embraced market liberalization and in the strategies followed by individual firms in response to market changes also affect the emerging configurations of state power over the industry. The case studies range from advanced industrial economies of Europe and the United States to examples of transition economies (Russia) and industrializing countries (China). Opinions at the workshop differed on whether globalization has already spread to the defense sector, is certain to do so in the near future, or will be blocked in leading countries by the state’s interest in maintaining a strong, nationally- based defense industry. The rich discussion and debate during the workshop are reflected in the arguments presented in the following chapters. The authors benefitted from that discussion—particularly the contributions of our named discussants, Susan Christopherson, Rachel Weber, and Adam Segal—in revising their papers for publication. We have grouped the chapters under three main themes: Competing Institu- tional Paradigms; Case Studies of Advanced Industrial States; Examples from Transition and Indus- trializing Economies. The workshop was sponsored by Cornell’s Peace Studies Program, with funding from an institutional grant to the Program from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Judith Reppy and Susan Christopherson organized the workshop, with help from Rachel Weber. Elaine Scott and Sandra Kisner provided essential administrative support for the workshop, and Sandra Kisner contributed significantly to the editorial task of producing this publication. vi I. COMPETING INSTITUTIONAL PARADIGMS Conceptualizing the Role of Defense Industries in National Systems of Innovation Judith Reppy Background The concept of national systems of innovation first emerged in the work of a network of scholars based at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex, notably Chris Freeman’s studies of Japan’s system of innovation (Freeman 1987) and in related work by Bengt-Åke Lundvall and his colleagues at the University of Åalborg in Denmark. Now, more than a decade later, the concept has become well established as a leading paradigm for analyzing innova- tion processes; it has also come under attack for being both too broad and insufficiently theorized (e.g., Radosevic 1998). In this essay I summarize briefly the main elements of a national system of innovation approach and discuss its utility in analyzing the role of the defense industry in innovation. The NSI Approach A national system of innovation (NSI) can be defined as “the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies” (Freeman 1987, 1). This definition takes for granted that the network is bounded by national borders, an assumption that may or may not be warranted. Other noteworthy features of the definition are the systems approach, here expressed as a network; the emphasis on institutions; and the inclusive definition of innovation to include technology transfer and diffusion. Each of these fea- tures is problematic in some applications, but the definition nevertheless captures the essential features of the NSI approach.1 1 See Edquist (1997), “Introduction” for an extended discussion of variants to the Freeman defini- tion. 1 2 NSI approaches gained popularity in the late 1980s in the context of rising “techno-national- ism” in western countries, a phenomenon that was, itself, a reaction to the increased competition in world markets for high technology
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MILITARY VEHICLES MILITARY VEHICLES Aitegrn N Al Approach
    anNTE I GRAL APPROACH MILITARY VEHICLES MILITARY VEHICLES AI N NTEGRal APPROACH A CASE IN POINT THE CV9035NL INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE At TNO, we are well aware of the difficulties − Protection: mine protection qualification connected with the acquisition of advanced test for accurate assessment of the load military systems. By this we mean any on the human body in case of a mine system, like the next generation Infantry attack. Fighting Vehicles. For one thing, this will − Firepower: target definition, munitions require you to look ahead, sometimes for lethality analysis, munitions develop- the next three or more decades. Which is, ment, and firing doctrine determination TNO.NL of course, a complicated matter. TNO has in connection with the gun system At TNO Defence, Safety and A military vehicle is always a compromise. been acting as a strategic partner to the calibre. Security more than 1,000 scientific A few extra inches of armour will provide Netherlands MoD for many years now. This − Mobility: operational analysis of mobility TNO researchers, engineers, IT and more safety. But it also means more weight is one of the reasons why we are confident requirements to support tracked or TNO is an independent innovation organisa- and less mobility. The ideal military vehicle operations research specialists and that we will be able to help you solve any wheeled solutions. tion that connects people and knowledge should always be custom-made for its problem in connection with protection, − Command & Control: 10 years of in order to create the innovations that countless other experts daily work anticipated mission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Defense Contracting: Incentives and Performance
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Issues in Defense Economics Volume Author/Editor: Roland N. McKean, editor Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-490-1 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/mcke67-1 Publication Date: 1967 Chapter Title: The Economics of Defense Contracting: Incentives and Performance Chapter Author: Oliver E. Williamson Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5165 Chapter pages in book: (p. 217 - 278) The Economics of Defense Contracting.' Incentives and Performance OLIVER E. WILLIAMSON UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA My purpose in this paper is to examine current practices and trends in defense contracting with a view to establishing what factors are re- sponsible for the performance results obtained and how improved per- formance might be secured. In particular, I will emphasize the incen- tives that are experienced by defense contractors and government con- tracting agencies in negotiating and executing defense contracts. My analysis of these relations leads me to conclude that neither the manipula- tion of profit incentives .nor the monitoring of contract progress can be expected, in any dependable sense, to yield significant improvements in contract performance as long as the specification of the task remains unchanged. From a contractual point of view at least, the "systems approach" to weapons procurement which has prevailed since 1953 1 appearsto be distinctly suboptimal. Whether this is true when viewed more generally will not be a principal concern of mine here, although this issue will be considered at least tangentially in my concluding re- marks.
    [Show full text]
  • Aqualis ASA (A Public Limited Liability Company Organised Under the Laws of Norway) Org.No
    Aqualis ASA (A public limited liability company organised under the laws of Norway) Org.no. 913 757 424 The information in this prospectus (the "Prospectus") relates to (i) a underwritten rights issue (the “Rights Issue”) by Aqualis ASA (“Aqualis” or the “Company”, and when taken together with its consolidated subsidiaries, the “Group” or the “Aqualis Group”) and the listing on Oslo Børs of up to 8,882,575 new shares in the Company with a par value of NOK 0.1 each (the “Rights Issue Shares”), issued for a subscription price of NOK 3.96 per share (the “Subscription Price”), (ii) listing of 4,375,000 new shares in Aqualis, each with a par value of NOK 0.1 each (the “Private Placement Shares”) and (iii) listing of 14,865,621 new shares in Aqualis, each with a par value of NOK 0.1 each (the “Consideration Shares”, and together with the Rights Issue shares and the Private Placement Shares the “New Shares”). Subscription Period for the Rights Issue: From 24 June 09:00 (CET) to 8 July 16:30 (CET) Trading in Subscription Rights: From 24 09:00 (CET) 4 July 16:30 (CET) The shareholders of the Company as at 11 June 2019 (and being registered as such in the Norwegian Central Securities Depository (the "VPS") on 13 June 2019 pursuant to the two days' settlement procedure (the "Record Date")) (the "Existing Shareholders"), will be granted subscription rights in the Rights Issue that, subject to applicable law, provide preferential rights to subscribe for and be allocated Rights Issue Shares at the Subscription Price (the "Subscription Rights").
    [Show full text]
  • Aqualis Offshore Holding ASA (A Public Limited Liability Company Organised Under the Laws of Norway) Org.No
    Aqualis Offshore Holding ASA (A public limited liability company organised under the laws of Norway) Org.no. 913 757 424 Listing of 43,190,544 shares in Aqualis Offshore Holding ASA (the “Shares”) on the Oslo Stock Exchange (the “Listing”) The first day of listing of Aqualis Offshore Holding ASA (“New Aqualis” or the “Company”, together with its subsidiaries the “New Aqualis Group” or the “Group”) on the Oslo Stock Exchange is expected to be 13 August 2014 and trading in the shares will commence on the date of listing, under the trading symbol AQUA. Investing in the Shares involves a high degree of risk. See section 2 “Risk Factors” beginning on page 15. THIS PROSPECTUS SERVES AS A LISTING PROSPECTUS ONLY, AS REQUIRED BY NORWEGIAN LAW AND REGULATION. THIS PROSPECTUS DOES NOT CONSTITUE AN OFFER TO BUY, SUBSCRIBE OR SELL ANY OF THE SECURITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND NO SECURITIES ARE BEING OFFERED OR SOLD PURSUANT TO IT. Manager: 12 August 2014 AQUALIS OFFSHORE HOLDING ASA IMPORTANT INFORMATION For the definitions of terms used throughout this Prospectus, see section 17 "Definitions and glossary of terms" of this Prospectus. This prospectus (the “Prospectus”) has been prepared to comply with the Norwegian Securities Trading Act of 29 June 2007 no. 75 (the “Norwegian Securities Trading Act”) and related secondary legislation, including the Commission Regulation (EC) no. 809/2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 regarding information contained in prospectuses (the “Prospectus Directive”) as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (hereafter “EC Regulation 809/2004”).
    [Show full text]
  • Weapon Group Feats for Pathfinder: Class: Weapon Group Proficiencies
    Weapon Group Feats for Pathfinder: Class: Weapon Group Proficiencies at 1st Level: Alchemist Basic weapons, Natural, Crossbows, any other 1 Barbarian Basic weapons, Natural, any other 4 Bard Basic weapons, Natural, any other 3 Cavalier Basic weapons, Natural, Spears, any other 3 Cleric Basic weapons, Natural, deity’s weapon group, any other 2(3 groups if not following a deity) Druid Basic weapons, Natural, druid weapons, any other 1 Fighter Basic weapons, Natural, any other 5 Gunslinger Basic weapons, Natural, firearms, any other 3 Monk Basic weapons, and all monk weapons Inquisitor Basic weapons, Natural, deity’s weapon group, Bows or Crossbows, any other 3 (4 groups if not following a deity) Magus Basic weapons, Natural, any other 4 Oracle Basic weapons, Natural, any other 1 (+3 if taking Skill at Arms) Paladin/Anti­Paladin Basic weapons, Natural, any other 4 Ranger Basic weapons, Natural, any other 4 Rogue Basic weapons, Natural, any other 3 Sorcerer Basic weapons, Natural, spears, crossbows , any other 1 Summoner Basic weapons, Natural, spears, crossbows , any other 1 Witch Basic weapons, Natural, spears, crossbows , any other 1 Wizard Basic weapons, Natural, spears, crossbows This system doesn’t change Racial Weapon Familiarity. Weapon Group Name: Weapons In Group: Axes bardiche, battleaxe, dwarven waraxe, greataxe, handaxe, heavy pick, hooked axe, knuckle axe, light pick, mattock, orc double axe, pata, and throwing axe Basic club, dagger, quarterstaff, and sling Blades, Heavy bastard sword, chakram, double chicken saber, double
    [Show full text]
  • Other Approaches to Civil-Military Integration: the Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries
    Other Approaches to Civil-Military Integration: The Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries March 1995 OTA-BP-ISS-143 GPO stock #052-003-01408-4 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Other Approaches to Civil-Military Integration: The Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries, BP-ISS-143 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1995). Foreword s part of its assessment of the potential for integrating the civil and military industrial bases, the Office of Technology Assessment con- sidered how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Japan, two Asian states with sizable defense industries, have succeeded in Aachieving significant levels of civil-military integration (CMI). CMI involves the sharing of fixed costs by promoting the use of common technologies, processes, labor, equipment, material, and/or facilities. CMI can not only lower costs, but in some cases, it can also expedite the introduction of advanced commercial products and processes to the defense sector. The paper is divided into two sections, one on the PRC and one on Japan. Each section describes the structure and management of the respective defense industrial base and then compares it with its U.S. counterpart. The paper then assesses the degree to which lessons from the PRC and Japanese cases can be applied to the U.S. defense technology and industrial base (DTIB). Although the political and security situations of the PRC and Japan, as well as their CMI objectives, differ from those of the United States, several interest- ing observations can be made. The Japanese, for example, with a limited de- fense market and an American security guarantee, emphasize dual-use design as well as the commercial aspects of many defense developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Industry Restructuring in Russia
    S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y C I S A C Center for International Security and Arms Control The Center for International Security and Arms Control, part of Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies, is a multidisciplinary community dedicated to research and train- ing in the field of international security. The Center brings together scholars, policymakers, scientists, area specialists, members of the business community, and other experts to examine a wide range of international security issues. CISAC publishes its own series of working papers and reports on its work and also sponsors a series, Studies in International Se- curity and Arms Control, through Stanford University Press. Center for International Security and Arms Control Stanford University 320 Galvez Street Stanford, California 94305-6165 (415) 723-9625 http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/CISAC/ Contents Acknowledgments iv Executive Summary v I Introduction 1 Section One: Case Studies II The Central Aerohydrodynamic Research Institute (TsAGI) 9 III ELVIS+ and The Moscow Center for SPARC Technology (MCST) 28 IV Impuls 45 V The Mashinostroenie Enterprise 59 VI The Saratov Aviation Plant 79 Section Two: Analysis VII Privatization at Four Enterprises 111 VIII Organizational Restructuring 137 IX Principal Differences in Accounting Systems in Russia 163 and the United States X Reallocation of the Social Services 183 XI Conclusion 207 Glossary 216 1 Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this report, and still more have contributed to the research leading up to it. In writing this report, we have not attempted to reach consensus among the authors on the interpretations to be drawn from the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Arms Makers' Corporate Social Responsibility
    Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 74:201–217 Ó Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9228-9 Assessing Arms MakersÕ Corporate Social Responsibility Edmund F. Byrne ABSTRACT. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has Introduction become a focal point for research aimed at extending business ethics to extra-corporate issues; and as a result Over the last century in and beyond the United States many companies now seek to at least appear dedicated to large corporations attained almost complete auton- one or another version of CSR. This has not affected the omy in law and in cultural understandings as well arms industry, however. For, this industry has not been (Cray and Drutman, 2005). Prominent abuses of this discussed in CSR literature, perhaps because few CSR insularity led to the emergence of business ethics, scholars have questioned this industryÕs privileged status as an instrument of national sovereignty. But major changes which has focused on moral issues within the in the organization of political communities call tradi- boundaries of a corporate entity. But some business tional views of sovereignty into question. With these ethicists take the social and political context into ac- considerations in mind I assess the U.S. arms industry on count as they assert stakeholdersÕ rights or call for so- the basis of CSR requirements regarding the environ- cially responsible investing (SRI) and/or corporate ment, social equity, profitability, and use of political social responsibility (CSR). Scholars differ regarding power. I find that this industry fails to meet any of these what kinds of issues should be included under CSR four CSR requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Appeasement
    Colonial Appeasement coming to power in 1933, even though the Nazi leader’s territorial ambitions focused (1935–38) on Eastern Europe, as indicated in his infa- PAUL W. DOERR mous memoir Mein Kampf.Afewsenior Acadia University, Canada Nazis also hoped for a colonial foothold in Africa, but the early years of Hitler’s regime were taken up with other, more urgent Colonial appeasement is a largely forgotten matters. aspectofBritishappeasement.Duringthe British officials and policy-makers had, years from 1935 to 1938 the British govern- throughout the 1920s, strongly rejected any ment gave serious attention to the possibility suggestion of returning colonies to Germany. of granting Germany colonial possessions But the deteriorating world economic situa- in Africa as part of a “general settlement” tion after 1929, combined with the growing with the Nazi regime. Various schemes for threat to the peace from Hitler’s Germany, transferring African territories to German forced the British to rethink their position. jurisdiction were considered, but serious Gradually the idea began to emerge that per- obstacles arose and, with the exception of haps colonies could be returned to Germany one formal proposal from the British in early as part of a much larger general settlement of 1938, talks with the Germans on the subject the situation in Europe. never moved beyond vague generalities. On March 7, 1936, Hitler sent German Prior to the First World War, Germany troops into the demilitarized zone of Ger- held four territories in Africa, namely Ger- many. He then issued a series of demands, man East Africa, German South-West Africa, oneofwhichwasacallforequalityofcolonial Kamerun, and Togoland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Battle
    NAVAL WAR COLLEGE NEWPORT PAPERS 16 The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines N ES AV T A A L T W S A D R E C T I O N L L U E E G H E T R I VI IBU OR A S CT MARI VI Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program The Third Battle Innovation in the U.S. Navy’s Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines Owen R. Cote, Jr. Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island Naval War College The Newport Papers are extended research projects that the Newport, Rhode Island Editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the Center for Naval Warfare Studies President of the Naval War College consider of particular Newport Paper Number Sixteen interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. Candidates 2003 for publication are considered by an editorial board under the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. President, Naval War College Rear Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy Published papers are those approved by the Editor of the Press, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the President Provost, Naval War College Professor James F. Giblin of the Naval War College. Dean of Naval Warfare Studies The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the Professor Alberto R. Coll authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Naval War College Press Editor: Professor Catherine McArdle Kelleher Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers may be Managing Editor: Pelham G.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Peace Operations
    OROLSI is comprised of five components: “UN Peacekeeping deploys to some of the most complex OFFICE OF RULE OF LAW & SECURITY INSTITUTIONS and difficult places, protecting some of the world’s most United Nations Police Division (PD) vulnerable. We are working in partnership with Member States to implement the Secretary-General’s Action for Where requested and mandated, United Nations Police (UNPOL) supports Member States to realize effective, efficient, representative, responsive and accountable police services that Peacekeeping initiative to strengthen peacekeeping, including serve and protect the population. UNPOL build and support police capacity to prevent and to improve how we protect civilians, which is at the heart of detect crime, protect life and property and maintain public order and safety in adherence our work. For hundreds of millions, peacekeeping is the last to the rule of law and international human rights norms. The United Nations Police Division best hope and it needs all our support.” supports UNPOL by selecting, recruiting, deploying and rotating personnel in UN peace operations; developing policy and guidance; providing strategic and operational support, Jean-Pierre Lacroix Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations including through the Standing Police Capacity; and facilitating assessments and evaluations. Justice and Corrections Service (JCS) Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) OROLSI colleagues are at the forefront of efforts to enhance The Justice and Corrections Service serves as a center of expertise on justice and the performance and accountability of peacekeepers, includ- corrections areas and supports the work of justice and corrections components in OROLSI is committed to ing by conducting trainings and assessments of Formed Police United Nations peace operations and other UN entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Turkey
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bilkent University Institutional Repository MILITARY EXPENDITURES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN TURKEY The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent University by ÖMÜR CANDAR In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration in THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA July 2003 I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Business Administration. Asst. Prof. Süheyla Özyıldırım I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Business Administration. Assoc. Prof. Jülide Yıldırım Öcal I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Business Administration. Asst. Prof. Levent Akdeniz Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Kürşat Aydoğan ii ABSTRACT MILITARY EXPENDITURES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN TURKEY by Ömür Candar Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Süheyla Özyıldırım Department of Management July 2003 This study estimates the impact of military expenditures on economic growth in Turkey over the period of 1950-2001 by employing a cointegration analysis developed by Engle and Granger (1987). The model integrates some of the commonly used variables in defence economics models into a simple growth specification and allows the influences of the defence spending on economic growth to be revealed empirically.
    [Show full text]