case, such as the Public Health Ser· through contracting out or paring Recent economic events and a gener­ vice. the Bureau of Indian Affairs support staff the overall trend has al unsteadiness in the world economy Schools, and the Railroad, the been clear, there has been steadily have put pressure on the Administra­ federal government has relinquished less nonmilitary federal employment tion to cut the federal deficit to steady control of these programs to either in Alaska during the last five years the economy. This could mean that private nonprofit corporations or the with just a few agencies bucking the all agencies will be asked to reex­ State of Alaska, overall trend. amine their budgets and try to pare away more employment. In that case It is important to remember that the It seems that those ag encies which the expectations for the next few federal employment numbers, if not have cut their staffs do not expect any years could change significantly. In carefully examined, can overstate the more drastic staff reductions in the some areas of federal employment total employment lost to Alaska's next several years with the possible though, such as the Federal Aviation economy. In addition, the military exception of the Forest Service. On Administration, there seems to be related civilian employment has been the other hand, those agenci s which growing public sentiment to find increasing over this period so that to­ have been in the growth mode forthe money to fund these agencies. In any tal federal employment has remained last several years are not expecting to case while the future of federa I stable. increase as rapidly as they have been government employment in Alaska during the past five years. This points looks steady at this writing, it could A good portion of the nonmilitary to a stabilization of federal employ­ change on a moments notice. federal employment lost has been m ent at somewhere dose to 1986s picked up by either private nonprofits level with some agencies growing and or the State of Alaska. Whether it be others sh rinking.

The Military and Alaska's Economy

By Neal Fried and Greg Huff

eorge Ro gers, a noted Alaskan economist, once wrote that "by the 50s and 60s A laska had become primarily an 'exporter' of m ilitary defe nse" ... and that the m ilita ry had become " the major industry G in the state." It seem s strange that the military would be considered an '·industry" or an "exporter o f defense," but in essence that is what the mili­ tary in A laska does. It exports defense to the rest of the nation. In return, Alaska receives economic benefits from the military in a variety of ways, from the paychecks spent in the loca l economy to payments to local businesses that supply goods and services to the military and to contractors building and repair­ ing the m ilitary's infrastructure.

The economic benefits fro m the military's presence have been great and in­ deed the military was "the m ajor industry in Alaska during the 1950s and The military in Alaska 1960s." T he m ilitary's economic might has declined since that time but still has considerably more provides a solid economic foundation. During the early 1980s the impacts of economic clout than in the military on the A laskan economy were obscured by the flood of o il dollars that ignited our economy into a period of unprece dented growth but by 1986 most states. the rapid growth came to a sc reeching halt and the m ilitary was again in the limel ight.

T he m ilitary in Alaska has considerably more economic clout than in most states. For example, the number of active duty personnel and the amount of defense expenditures on a per capita basis are far higher in A laska than in most other states. In this article we will explore the m ilitary's influence on Alas­ ka's population and econom y,

The Military Population in Alaska 1980-1987

In 1980 the m ilitary accounted for 15.7 % of A laska's population. While the military population gradually increased during the early 1980s, the nonmili­ tary population in A laska grew so rapidly that by 1985 the military represent­ ed only 12.5% of A laska's popUlation.

6 Table 1 Alaska's Military Population Active Duty, Civilian and Dependents 1980-1987

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Military as % of State Population 15.7% 15.1 % 14.3% 13.4% 131 % 12.5% 13.2% 13.4% Total State Popu lation I 4 19,800 433,800 465,200 497.600 522,000 . 539,600 542,1 51 537.080 Total Military Population 65,828 65,485 66,344 66,747 68,143 67,314 71,747 72,1 10 Dependents: Civilian' 8,545 8,672 9,633 9,757 9,957 10,226 10,547 10,573 Dependents: Active Duty ) 27,903 27,589 27,083 27,100 27,973 26,026 30,007 29.923 Civilian Military (I ncl. NAF/Exch.) 4 6,676 6,775 7.526 7.623 7,779 7,989 8.240 8,260 Active Duty Military ) 22.704 22,449 22 ,102 22.267 22,434 23,073 22,953 23,354

Sources: 1 Figures from Alaska Population Pr oj ect ion, Research and A,nalysis, Demographics . (1986 and 1987 low projection selected).

• Figures estimated from data in Impacts of Military Spending on the Economy of Alaska, Fiscal Years 1980 to 1986, from Alaska Air Command and data from Alaska Department of Labor. A ra tio of 1.28 dependents for every m ilitary civilian was formulated from these sources.

) Alas ka Department of Labor. R&A Demograph ics. unpublished 1987 data. figure estimated because it was not avail­ able at time of publication.

4 Alaska Department of Labor, ES ·202 files.

By 1987. Al aska's recession had prompted people to leave Alaska in sea rch of wo rk. At a time when more people were leaving Alaska than ar­ riving, the military population con­ At a time when more people were ti nued to increase. By 1987 the military accounted for 13.4% of the leaving Alaska than arriving, the· mili­ forecast 537,080 people living in tary population continued to increase. Alaska. This incl udes 23,000 + active duty personnel pl us their 30,000 de­ pendents and 8,000+ civil se rvice personnel (Table 1).

The military in Alaska is represented by the Ai r Force, Army, a nd Navy and are all organized under the Depart­ ment of Defense (DOD). The Coast Figure 1 Guard is organized under the Depart­ ment of Transportation, but provides Military Labor Force by Type of Service many defense rel ated serv ices and 1980 and 1986 impacts a local economy in a fa shi on similar to that of the DOD agencies. Hence, the Coast Guard will be in ­ cluded in the military fi gures unless specifi cally noted that the data is not available. The Army's Corps of En­ gineers and the Army and Air Nation­ al Guard work force figures are also ___ :z..7lI included in the total military figures

Cout _7.0:

7 presented in this article (full-time ac­ doubled over the period_The number tive duty and civil service only )_ of Navy active duty personnel (includ­ ing the Marines) has increased by In 1980 the Air Force was Alaska's lar­ one-third as its presence in the North gest military service, representing Pacific intensifies. over 41 % of the military's active duty and civil service personnel. This share Some of the increase in the National increased to over 44% by 1986, due Guard's share of the military work to a 12% increase in its work force force is attributable to the reclassifi­ and a decline in the number of A rmy ca tion of certain active duty guards­ active duty personnel over the period_ man to full-time_ There is a clear The six yea r decline in the number of trend of expanding the guard and Army active duty personnel ended reserve by the military because it is with the deployment of the 6th Light cost effective_ In late 1987 it was an­ Infantry Division in Alaska in 1987_ nounced that the Alaska National The deployment helped boost the Guard work force would increase by number of Army active duty person­ several hundred over the next year. nel by nearly 1,000 from year ago In 1980 the Air Force levels_ A n important trend in the military was Alaska's largest work force data is the decrease in the There were shifts in the relative work ratio of active duty to civilian em ­ military service. force figures among A laska's ployees. Fo r example, in 1980 there "sm aller" services as wel l (Figure 1). were 3.4 active duty personnel for From 1980 to 1986 the National each civilian em ployee. By 1986 this Guard, Navy, and Army Corps of En­ ra t io had fallen to 2,8_The number of gineers increased their proportion of civi lian perso nnel rose from 6,676 in the total military work force as the 1980 to 8,240 in 1986, an increase of Coast Guard sha re declined. This 23% (Table 1). Prel iminary data fo r does not reflect a drastic cut back in 1987 shows mili tary civilian employ­ Coast Guard personnel, but rather ment growth continued into 1987 but Sig nificant growth in the Corps of En­ at a slower pace. T he increase in the gineers and National Guard civil ser­ number of civilians is a trend consis­ vice work force and the Navy's active tent with the military's increased duty work force_ practice of hiring civilians to do work that in the past was done by active The Corps of Engineers' civilian work duty personnel. force incre ased by 50% from 1980 to ]986, to over 550 (97'10 of the Corps Military Payrolls wo rk force is civilian)_The National Guard full-time work fo rce, both The m il itary exerts its financial in­ civilian and active duty personnel, fluence on the state in a number of

Table 2 Military Expenditures in Alaska FFY 1980-1986

(in millions of dollars)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Payroll $ 473.0 $ 557.7 $ 617.2 $ 657.9 $ 676.1 $ 725.6 $ 733.2 Military 319.8 390.3 440.6 464.4 469.9 503.1 516.0 Civilian 1 129.6 146 156_1 168_7 182.1 189.7 181.5 NAf/Exch 23.6 21.4 20.5 24_8 24.1 32.8 35_7 Construction 78.6 94.1 104.8 141.2 135.1 204 180.3 Operations & Maintenance 303.1 308.3 366.5 380 362.6 389.1 493.3 Other Procurement 168.2 194.4 188.5 219 161 136.9 149.5 Total 1022.9 1,1 54.5 1,277 1,398.1 1,334.8 1,455.6 1,556.3 Retirement payroll 2 113.1 122.3

Source: Impact of Military Spending on the Economy of Alaska by Alaskan Air Command

1 Includes Army, Air Force, Navy, Corps of Engineers, National Guard and Coast Guard

2 Retirement payroll was not available until FFY 1985 and was not included in totals

8 ways. Military personnel spend part of nomic stimulus to the local economy Military expenditures for operations their paychecks locally, they purchase than the active duty personnel. The and maintenance at their facilities goods and supplies in the local mar­ civilians working on base are not have a grea er impact on the local ket, and they employ local contrac­ usually given the many benefits economy than does construction ex· tors for many projects. These funds received by active duty personnel and penditures. Not only is the budget fl ow into the economy and either their dependents, hence more of their larger, but a higher proportion of the directly or indirectly support thou­ paycheck is spent inthe localecono­ money is distributed into the local sands of jobs in Alaska. my. In addition their paychecks are eco nomy. Generally, the purchase of greater. In 1986 the average earnings services by the military has a greater A study by the Institute of Social and of $31 ,000 of a military civilian em­ impact on the local economy than Economic Research shows that the ployee was over $10,000 more than does the purchase of goods. Services military from 1980 to 1983 account­ the average earnings of active duty are likely to be provided locally ed for 15% to 17% of all jobs in perso nnel. whereas goods are usually produced A laska. It is likely that this contribu­ and/or purchased outside of Alaska. tion wa s several percentage points One major benefit received by active The military estimates that 72% of higher in 1987, particularly in light of duty personnel that offsets the higher the operations and maintenance ex· defense expenditure increases during earnings of the civilians is off-base penditures are spent locally. In FFY a period when other sectors were housing assistance. This benefit 1986 that amounted to over $350 reducing expenditures. From Feder­ pumps millions of dollars into local miJlion. al Fiscal Year (FFY) 1983 (October housing markets. In A nchorage, for 1982 to September 1983) through example, it has been estimated that Geographic Distribution FFY 1986 tota l military expenditures 39% of the active duty personnel increased by over $200 m illion dol­ lived off base in May of 1987. They From Coast Guard stations i n lars to $1.5 billion (Ta ble 2) and sig­ Ketchikan to Distant Early Warning nificant increases were expected in (DEW) sites on the North Slope the FFY 1987. m ilitary has over 50 installations lo­ Military from 1980 to cated across the state. Many have no The largest and most dir ct econom­ 1983 acounted for 15% permanent crew, others are remote ic benefit A laska receives from the to 1 7 ~o of all jobs in and isolated, and some are only m i litary is through its payroll. Du ring staffed by a handful to a couple FFY 1986 the payroll totalled $733 Alaska. hundred personnel. Only a relative million and the military estimates few have Larger concentrations of mili­ that 86% of its payroll is spent in re ceived from betwe n $797 to tary personnel. A laska. A lthough m ilitary personnel $1 ,417 a month in housing assistance, m ay spend a high proportion of their depending upon rank. In Fairbanks Generally the larger the installation paychecks in A laska the am ount tha t approximately 30% of active duty . the larger the surrounding communi· actually re aches the local economy is personnel live off base. In Kodiak the ty. Of the 14 installations in 1987 hav­ less given the self-sufficient nature of most current figures show that 312 ing 100 or more personnel, four m ilitary operations. out o f the 1,000 active duty Coast contain three-quarters of A las ka's ac­ Guard live in off base housing. tive duty personnel (Table 3) and an Many goods and services of the active even greater sha re of m ilitary's duty personnel and their dependents Military Construction civilian workforce and m ilitary's de­ are either provided fo r or can be pur­ pendent population (Figure 2). The chased at discount at the mHitary Military co nstruction projects impact two largest of the installations, postal exchanges (PX's) and commis­ the A laska economy in a va riety of Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) and sa ries. Housing, m edical care, child ways depending upon type of con­ Fort Richardson, are located in An­ care, and a va riety of other services struct ion, but it is estimated by the chorage, and the third and fourth lar­ are provided by the military. This in­ m ilitary that 50% of the total con­ gest, E ielson AFB and Fort sulation factor is greater at remote st ruction budget is spent in Alaska. Wainwright, are located in Fairbanks. and isolated installations than at ur· The amount that actua lly circulates ba n installations. through the local economy is proba­ Anchorage is home of the Alaskan bly less because the contractors or Air Command which serves as the In an urban setting the economy the suppliers of construction goods senior m ilitary organization in the receives the benefit of the incidental usually buy materials from outside state and is headquartered at Elmen­ spending m ade by the active duty sources. dorf AFB. In 1987, 6,700 active duty personnel and their dependents. T hey personnel were stat ioned at m ay not buy the bulk of their grocer­ Still, the military's construction Elmendorf-the highest count in the ies at the local grocery store but they projects inject millions of dollars into 1980s. The number of soldiers sta­ do purch ase odds and ends, buy the economy. The primary input to tioned at Fort Richardson totaled gasoline, go to movies, and engage the Alaskan economy is the utiliza ­ 4,860 in 1987, up 360 from 1986. in m any other activities that require tion of A laskan workers that spend T his is the highest recorded level in spending part of their paycheck. wages locally. From FFY 1980 to FFY the 1980s. 1986 construction expenditure in On a per capita basis the military's A laska increased twofold, peaking at The m ilitary's civilian workforce also civilian employees provide more eco­ $240 million in 1985. reached new highs in 1987. Over a 9 Table 3 Alaska Station Str'!ngth, Active duty By Census Area July l,1980-July 1,1987

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Total Alaska Active Duty 22,704 22,449 22,102 22,267 22,434 23,073 22,953 23 ,354

Aleutia n Islands Census Are a 2,213 2,242 2,218 2 ,194 2,307 2.890 2.847 2, 900 1 Ancho rage Borough 11,298 10,833 10,955 10,531 10,904 10,829 10,807 11 ,700 Bethel Census Area 42 47 43 24 0 0 0 0 Bristol Bay Borough 329 351 344 311 273 300 291 275 Dilli ngham Cens us Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairbanks Northstar Boro ugh 5,481 5.529 5,133 5,841 5, 882 5,912 5,938 5,452 Haines Borough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juneau Borough 293 357 292 341 368 316 235 223 Borough 67 68 68 72 70 72 77 72 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 203 204 215 182 163 152 211 276 Kobuk Census Area 2 17 18 17 12 0 0 0 0 Kodiak Island Borough 1,098 1,073 1,010 1,097 921 1,086 1,076 1,000 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nome Census Area 41 43 44 39 29 31 26 31 North Slope Borough 15 16 19 13 0 0 0 0 Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sitka Census Area 174 177 193 201 190 185 195 187 Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 801 810 780 815 784 718 710 689 Valdez- Cordova Census Area 103 103 87 90 94 101 101 96 Wade Hampton Census Area 12 17 15 9 0 0 0 0 Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area 20 21 22 22 13 21 20 23 Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 497 540 647 473 436 460 419 430

I Estimated. Count from Navy was not available at time of publication Alaska Department of Labor, Research & Analys is, Demographics

2 Reorganized as Northwest Arctic Borough in 1986.

events, but most p rom in ent were the Figure 2 activation of 962nd A irborne Warning Military Population: Active Duty, Civilian and' and Control Squadron (AWACS) in 1984 and the arrival of a new F- 15 DependentsA for Selected Areas of Alaska 1987 squadron, and the deployment of the

~ .------, 6th Light Infant ry Division in 1987.

The m ilitary insta llations located in ~ Oependente Fairbanks support a q uarter of Civilian A laska's m ilitary population and con­ ~ Active O uty tain over one-fifth of Fa irbanks' popu­ lation. The deployment of the 6th Infantry Division had the largest im­ 2_ pact on Fo rt Wainwright and t he Fair­ banks area. T hough the division was .aooo activated in 1986, the impacts on the active duty personnel level at Ft. Wainwright were not realized until 1987 when the ra nks increased by 570. .

Anchora<;le A leutian lalanda Fort Greely, south of Fairbanks in the Kadla~ Southeast Fairbanks Census Area is the A rmy's third largest fort in t he state. The deploym ent of the Light In­ seven year period the number of mili­ fa ntry Division has not impacted the tary civil service Jobs increased from personnel levels at Fort Greely. The 4,290 to 5,119. The most recent m ili­ levels of active duty and military tary workforce increases in An­ civilian personnel have been stable chorage were in response to severa l for the past six years. Overall, the 10 military accounts for nearly 2,000 variou D EW sites located t hrough­ people in the area (Table 3), which out the area have been the primary represents 32 % of the area's popu­ cause of declines. lation, Impacts of military installations and The Adak Naval Station on remote related spending on a regional or lo­ Adak Island, far out in the Aleutian cal economy vary considerably. Over· chain, is A laska's fifth largest military all, the impacts of the military are installation. Since the Navy's recent greatest in the urban areas of the buildup In t he Northern Pacific its state because the remote bases have work force has increased by over 30% a greater self sufficiency factor. The from 1980 to 1987. The big increases communities that appear to benefit occurred when the Navy reactivated the greatest from the military a full anti-submarine warfare aircraft presence in Alaska are Fa irbanks, Ko­ squadron and an ai rcraft intermedi­ diak, and Anchorage (Table 4). ate m aintenance department in 1985. When the military populat ion on Future Projects Adak is combined with the m ilitary population of Shemya AFB near Attu Predicting the Pentagon's next move (8th largest military installation in the state) the m ilitary accounts for over 55% of the population in the Aleuti­ Table 4 an Island Census Area. Military Expenditure by Census Area (In m illions of Dollars) Kodiak is home to Alaska's sixth lar­ gest military installation and largest 19 80 1986 U.S. Coast Guard installation in Total Total Alaska. In fact, it is the largest Coast Alaska Total $762.4 $1,186.6 Guard station in the nation. In 1987 over 20% of Kodiak's population was Aleutian Islands Census Area 89.6 169.2 directly related to the Coast Anchorage Borough 454.6 457.5 Bethel Census Area 3.1 4.7 Guard-1,000 active duty, 230 civilian Bristol Bay Borough 6.9 11.0 personnel and 1,400 (active duty) de­ Dillingham Census Area 0.2 0.2 pendents. The number of active duty Fairbanks Northstar Borough 143.0 346.7 personnel has fluctuated from a high Haines Borough 0.9 1.0 of 1 097 in 1983 to a low of 92 1 the Juneau Borough 5.1 4.8 Kenai Peninsula Borough I 3.7 27.8 foll~wing year. T he number of civil Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1.0 1.3 service employees totaled 230 in Kobuk Census Area 2 2.9 2 .2 1987, down from nearly 300 in 1980. Kodiak Island Borough) 0.5 8.5 Matanuska·Susitna Borough 1.4 5.5 Nome Census Area 3.4 6.7 Additional areas with a significant North Slope Borough 5.0 9.6 amount of Coast Guard personnel are Prince of Wales·Outer Ketchikan 0.1 0.2 Ketchjkan, Juneau and Sitka-the Sitka Census Area 0.3 2.8 11th, 12th and 13th largest military Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area 0.1 0.2 installat ions in Alaska. In 1986 the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 22.4 37.9 Juneau Coast Guard station work­ Valdez-Cordova Census Area 1.5 1.6 force was reduced by nearly 100 ac­ Wade Hampton Census Area 0.7 0.0 tive duty personnel when the USCGC Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area 0.0 0.4 Planetree was relocated to Ketchikan. Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 4 16.9 87.0 This transfer reduced the Coast Guard Source: Federal Expenditures by state for FFY 1986 and Geographical workforce by one-third in Juneau and Distribution of Federal Spending in Alaska FFY 1980. increased Ketchikan's by 80%. I 1986 military expenditures included $24 million in procurement contract awards Other military installations with 100

or more personnel are Galena (9th 2 Reorganized as Northwest Arctic Borough in 1986. largest) and Clear AFB (1 3th largest) in Alaska's Yukon-Koyukuk Census ) Change in military expenditures from 1980 to 1986 are mostly due to Area and at King Salmon (1 0th lar­ how Department of Defense Procurement Contract Awards through the Coast Guard were recorded. gest) in the Aleutian Islands Census

A rea. These A i r Force installations 4 1986 military expenditures included $75 million in f~rocurement house fi rs t line defense A ir Force contract awards. Squadrons. Personnel levels in t he (Note: these total expenditures do not match those in t able 2 because Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area peaked non·appropriated and most Coast Guard funds are not included). in 1982 at 647 and by 1987 had fallen to 430. Elimination of positions at the 11 in Alaska is virtually an impossible construction work force of 350 by task. Some analysts predict that 1989·1990. The project is expected to m ounting federal deficits will eventu­ go into operation by 1992. Approxi· ally inhibit the Defense Department's mately 60 operations personnel will ability to grow. Other analysts believe be statione in both Gulkana and Tok that Alaska is again becoming a lo­ (30 civilians and 30 military person· cation of growing strategic im por· nel). An additional 315 people will tance because of the Soviet Union's operate the backscatter's operation· expanding p rese nce in the Pacific, in· al center at E lmendorf AFB (expect· suring futu re defe nse expansion in ed to be mostly military personnel). the state. Notwithstanding this type of speculatio n, there are a num ber of New radar systems in Alaska do not projects the Defense Department al­ end with the backscatter: major work rea dy has planned which will impact is being performed on two other sy s· the state's ecof1omy. tems. Alaska's DEW line (Defense Early Warning System) is being The deployment of the 6th Light In­ modernized. Seven o f the 31 DEW fantry Division at Fort Wainwright line sites are located in Alaska. The near Fa irbanks is the single largest total cost of the project, which in· undertaking. Although the activation cludes the sites in Canada, is $ 1.65 of the brigade began this year, the b illion. The project is expected to be deployment will not be completed un­ completed by 1992 with fewer person· til 1992. An additional 3,564 soldiers nel needed to run the sites. Presently and 300 civil service jobs will be in the majority of these personnel are place at Fort Wainwright, and an ad­ private contract workers. ditional 300 uniformed personnel will be deployed at Fort Richardson in An­ On Amchitka Island, in the Aleutians, Predicting the chorage by 1992. the Navy is building an over·the· horizo n backscatter radar. Wo rk be· Pentagon's next move Construction activity on Fort Wain­ gan on the A mchitka radar in May, in Alaska is virtually an wright will accompany the deploy­ and presently the work force on this ment of the brigade. The Fairbanks project has reached 140. The comple· impossible task. North Star Borough's Community tion date is expected to be the sum· Research Center estimates the con­ mer of 1988. struction work force will reach 585 in 1988 and peak at 755 in 1989. The In addition to Adak, t he number of Center has also estimated that Navy ships visiting Alaska ports has deployment of the division will create been on the increase. Over t he past an additional 1490 direct and indirect two years there have been numerous nonm ilitary jobs in Fairbanks by unsubstantiated rumors in a number 1992. of communities that the Navy is plan· ning to establish a new naval station The deployment of the division will in Alaska. What might lend more ere· reverse the diminishing military role dence to these rumors now is the fact in Fairbanks; bringing the area's to­ that A laska's Senator Stevens an· tal military strength up to levels of the nounced that he had invited t he Navy late 1960s and early 1970s_ But its to assess any potential new home relative importance to Fairbanks' ports in Alaska for Navy vessels. The eco nomy will not reach historical lev­ Navy toured the state in late October. els because the local economy has Ketchikan has al so been ment ioned broadened considerably since the dis­ for the location of a submarine test covery of oil in Prudhoe Bay. facility.

Another sizeable military undertak· On the down side the Kodiak Coast ing w ill be the construction and oper· Guard Station may be experiencing ation of a $450 m illion over·the· major personnel changes during the horizon backscatter radar system. next three to six months which will T h is radar will give the Air Fo rce the result in some cutbacks in staffing. A ability to provide long·ran ge surveil­ contract will be awarded soon to ta ke lance of aircraft and m issiles, Con­ over the m aintenance of the station. struction of the radar will take place Up to now, 220 u niform ed and civil in the vicinity of the Interior com mu­ service personnel (almost equal in nities of Tok (the receiver site) and number) performed this work. The af· Gulkana (the transm itter site). Road fected Coast Guard personnel will be work is planned for 1988 with a peak reassigned to new positions in Kodiak 12 Table 5 Defense Expenditures ilnd Active Duty Military By State 1986

Per Capita Ratio of Pe r Capita Defense Defense Active Duty Resident Defense Procurement Wilges & Milltilry Population/ Expenditures Contracts Salaries by State Active Military

U.S. $ 939 $ 613 $ 127 1,366,866 175

Alabama 841 392 173 23.096 174 ALASKA 2, 223 1,062 525 20,375 26 Arizona 1,172 791 122 20,704 154 Arkansas 621 374 76 9,748 242 California 1,494 1,038 179 204,822 129 Colorado 1,080 579 178 36,914 88 Connecticut 1,880 1,703 70 6,526 486 Delaware 676 355 118 4,662 133 District of Columbia 2,766 1,222 736 12,710 49 888 485 125 73,140 155

Georgia 1,055 575 192 64,390 93 2,341 530 833 46,973 22 Idaho 305 62 80 5,647 178 Illinois 304 150 65 40,874 282 Indiana 602 451 61 6,576 836 263 204 17 399 7,228 1,156 792 149 23,627 104 479 144 144 40,782 91 566 333 85 25,710 174 782 498 99 5,382 216

Maryland 1,589 1,016 235 35,687 123 1,652 1,498 58 9,417 618 347 257 34 8,773 1,036 Minnesota 616 546 22 859 4,881 990 624 142 16,029 163 1,343 1,095 97 16,072 313 291 76 75 3,728 222 480 141 135 12,794 126 573 147 126 9,744 96 920 459 183 4,122 242

New Jersey 619 423 81 18,974 399 New Mexico 946 381 216 16,421 88 New York 635 557 31 21 ,982 809 North Carolina 606 165 176 98,702 63 760 338 194 11,274 61 Ohio 644 484 65 13,815 778 Oklahoma 726 235 200 31,115 106 Oregon 255 126 31 782 3,436 548 357 79 6,711 1,766 764 403 146 4,037 240

South Carolina 810 154 262 44,373 75 464 180 116 5,854 121 Tennessee 403 237 48 10,991 433 Texas 1,013 649 128 127,176 129 Utah 1,012 484 236 6,172 267 347 228 32 74 7,230 Virginia 2,347 934 598 96,588 59 Washington 1,122 566 209 43,669 101 We st Virginia 137 54 22 441 4,390 278 204 26 912 5,236 466 182 109 3,747 136

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Federal Expenditures by State for Fiscal Year ; 986. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987.

Note: Active duty military data is based on Federal Fiscal Year 1985.

13 or to other facilities, and some of the banks, Tok and Gulkana the m ilitary Alaska in tenth place among the civilians may be hired by the contrac­ presence may m ean the difference be· states. tor, but they expect there will be a net tween a shrinki ng o r growing loss in positions. The savings to the economy. Between 1980 and 1985 the number military will be primarily in the form of uniformed military in A laska and of lower wa ges and benefits. The im· A National Comparison the nation has grown a little less than pact to the economy is unclear but lo­ 1% , while the civilian military work cal spending should increase since In defense dollars received by states force has not been quile as stagnanL the contractor's employees will not in FFY 1986, Alaska ranks only 36th Alaska's military civilian work force receive the benefit of the military but given our population base, the grew slightly more rapidly than the commissary and other support. milltary's presence in Alaska is one of nation's, 14% versus 12%. Defense the most prominent in the nation. expenditures in the nation have Projecting military activities is a par­ T here is one act ive duty military per­ grown sl ightly faster than in Alaska, ticular challenge because neither the son for every 17 5 people in the na· growing 48'70 compared to 4 1'70 in state's nor the nation's economy dic­ tion, compared to a ratio of 26 people Alaska. (T hese figures represent FFY tates future trends as much as nation­ for every active duty m ilitary person 1981-1986 and are not adjusted for in­ al and international pol it ics. B udgets in Alaska. A laska is second on ly to flatio n). This trend could be reversed from one year to the next are never Hawaii in the num ber of so ldiers on in the near future because of planned assured but given the m ilitary's inten· a per capita basis. defense expenditures in the state. tions as presented above, its pre sence in A laska will undoubtedly grow dur­ The level of expenditures clearly illus· Conclusion ing the next two to three years. The trates how pervasive the military's deploym ent of the Light Infantry Di· presence is in Alaska. Defense dollars Since Alaska "exports defense" to the vision in Fai rban ks alone guarantees per cap ita spent in Alaska are over rest of the nation it in turn receives this and other evidence suggests a twice as high as the national average, economic benefits from the military growing military presence. In some fourth highest among states, Alaska through the millions of do llars in industries such as construct ion, is fifth highest when rank ing the wages and other expendit ures in the defense relat ed projects may value of procurement contracts on a state. Although the m ilitary's eco­ represent the major impetus for per capita basis, although Alaska nomic m ight in the 1980s is not what growth. In communities such as Fair· manufactures little or no military it was in the 1950s and 1960s, it s in­ hardware. M ilitary procurement in fluence was on the increase by the Alaska represents only the amount mid 1980s. spent to provide supplies, services and construction. Impacts of m ilita ry installations on a regional or local econom y va ry con­ For wages and salaries paid by the siderably, but overall, the impacts are Department of Defense the numbers greatest in the urban areas of the become more striking. Including state because the re m ote bases have uniformed and m ilitary civilians, a greater se lf·sufficiency fa cto r, which Alaska receives four times the insulates it from t he local economy. amount in wages and salaries on a Hence, the communities that appear per capita basis as the national to benefit the greatest from the m ili­ average-$525 versus $1 27. The tary in Alaska are Fa irbanks, Kodiak proportion ately larger m ilitary and A nchora ge, where over three­ In 1986 military presence exp lains most of the differ­ quarters of t he military's population retirement benefits paid ence b ut cost of living adjustm ents is located. fo r military civi l service workers' and to Alaskans totaled $ 58 the active duty personnel provides an In 1987, the military accounted for million. additional boost to Alaska's wages. over 13% of Alaska's population. This Federal civil service workers in Alaska rep resented some 62,000 people lo­ receive a tax free 25% cost of living cated in over 50 installations f rom adj ustment and the uniformed soldi­ Ketchikan to Barrow. Of these, 14 in­ ers receive a cost of living adjustment stallations had 10 0 o r more person· which va ries according to their rank. nel with the ' largest located in A nchorage, Fairbanks, Adak, and Ko· Even after the military personnel diak. leave the se rvice, a port ion of their retirement and disability do llars con· While other econom ic factors were on tinues to be spent in t he economy. In the decline t he m ilitary popUlation 1986 m iliary retirement benefits pai d and expenditures were on the in· to Alaskans total ed $58 m illion, crease. Because of Alaska's strategic which represents $108 for eve ry location it is likely that t he m ilita ry's A laskan. T his figure is 49 % higher economIc infl uence will continue to than the national avera ge and puts increase through the decade.

14