Search results

The chapter examines the current trade war between the United States and China and its impact on the two countries’ military industrial complex in relation to economic growth and development. The trade war has both positive and negative impacts on the country’s economic growth and development. Both countries depend heavily on each other for trade and account for an incredibly significant portion of the global trade. The trade war also impacts on the military industrial complex with respect to the defense budgetary allocation and trade in arms. One of the rationales for the trade war by the Trump Administration is to boost up the domestic economy, which would benefit the military industrial complex. Likewise, the retaliatory tariffs by China are designed to protect the domestic economy and showcase its ability to withstand and challenge the United States. The military industrial complex is important to both the countries. The chapter applied a quantitative design with canonical correlation method to multiple regression, where there are multiple intercorrelated outcome variables relative to military industrial complex and the processes of economic growth and development. It shows that trade wars in the form of increased imposed tariffs on each other by the United States and China has had no significant adverse effect on the Military Industrial Complexes of the two biggest economies of the world.

The goal of this chapter is to reexamine the nature and structure of the military–industrial complex (MIC) through the works of John Kenneth Galbraith. MIC, or military power as he prefers, is a coalition of vested interests within the state and industry that promoted the military power in the name of “national security” for their interests. Galbraith’s theory of giant corporations helps us understand the role of military corporations in the MIC. Moreover, he is a critical scholar in examining this topic because he was a political insider in the Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations and a prominent public intellectual against the Vietnam War. Against this background, this chapter has three parts. After explaining the development of military Keynesianism with respect to the main economic thoughts, it examines the history of the MIC and its impact on economic priorities during and after the Cold War through Galbraith’s works. Finally, this chapter discusses MIC’s relevancy today and evaluates Galbraith’s prophecies.

Discusses the military‐defense industry conversion in the USA, particularly the state of California. Describes specific American federal and state programs which link and co‐ordinate the effort. Argues that the basic economic structure of post‐Cold War America has been changed dramatically forever. Out of defense conversions are emerging new economic opportunities which will change the USA and affect world economies. Meanwhile, the US has much to learn from European (and Asian) economic programs.

In recent years, and especially with the war in Iraq, the U.S. military's reliance on private contractors as forces in the theater of war has grown and become increasingly clear. We critically evaluate some of the best literature on the emergence of this phenomenon – especially Ken Silverstein's Private Warriors and P. W. Singer's Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry – and find a neglect of the historical path-dependent character of the rise of the new corporate armed forces. In particular, we concentrate on American experience and two silences that are integral to understanding the path-dependent character of this process: (1) earlier historical reliance on private armed force to suppress the labor movement in America, the template for this new form of irregular armed force and (2) the ghost of Vietnam as a continuing political liability in the mobilization of sufficient troop levels under neo-imperialist aspirations and “the global war on terror,” as the main condition for the rise of the new private military form. Both elements suggest the theoretical importance of state strength/weakness in any explanation of private armed force. We discuss several important political implications of our findings.

The relationship between military expenditure and economic growth is complex. The purpose of this paper is to examine this relationship in India.

The design of this study is descriptive in the theoretical part, and quantitative in the applied one. The study uses time series approach, and Hendry General-to-Specific (GTS) modeling methodology, to examine and analyze the relationship between military expenditure and economic growth in India, during the period 1980-2016.

The study shows the following: Absence of causal relationship between military expenditure and economic growth in India, during indicated period. The continuous regional tensions facing India represent the main factor for adopting Indian military strategy and emphasizing military capabilities. India has been able to build and develop links between civilian and military sectors. The Indian military scientific and manufacturing policies have achieved self-sufficiency in some of its military needs, a strong military industrial base and high levels of military exports. India participated with developed countries in military strategic industries. Such participation contributed to the integration of civilian and military sectors. India gave rights to private sector and foreign direct investment (FDI) for manufacturing in military industries, giving full marketing rights to the Indian government. These new policies considered a great move toward deep changes for Indian military manufacturing policy.

The findings shed light on the importance of stimulating links between civilian and military sectors, particularly in the industrial sectors and scientific activities.

This study has a contribution to literature of military expenditures' economic effects. Theoretically, this study tries to fill the research gap regarding the impact of military expenditure in Indian case. Furthermore, to the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that examines the relationship between military expenditure and economic growth in India using Hendry general-to-specific (GTS) modeling methodology and time series approach.

The concept of productive/unproductive work is relevant for better understanding the current capitalist economy. As the contradiction between production and the appropriation of surplus value by financial capital becomes more pronounced as it expands, it exerts intense pressure on the appropriation and redistribution of the surplus value. It puts different factions of capital into growing conflict with each other and defines the boundaries of the current geopolitical map of power. The maximization of profits in the productive sector carries on until the possibilities of greater profits are exhausted and the rationale of the capitalist system of exploitation becomes virtually meaningless. The current level of technology with Artificial Intelligence eliminates at the same time any technical impediment to planning an economy. It also has the potential to create the objective conditions for making the move to the most democratic forms of participation in planning.

This paper seeks to present an analysis of the historical emergence of international business and management studies (IBMS) within the context of the post‐World War II USA. It seeks to show how certain conditions of this time and place shaped the orientation of foundational IBMS texts and set a course for the subsequent development of the field.

The approach is primarily conceptual. The paper pursues both a historical analysis and a close reading of foundational texts within IBMS. It first examines the key conditions for the emergence of IBMS including: the internationalization of the US economy and businesses; the Cold War and perceived expansion of Soviet interests; and finally decolonisation processes around the world. These are interrelated aspects of a commercial‐military‐political complex, which simultaneously enabled and constrained the emergence of IBMS scholarship. The paper moves on to link these conditions to two seminal IBMS texts.

The paper reveals the localised and particular conditions that surrounded the emergence of IBMS and how IBMS was constituted to serve particular and localised interests associated with those conditions.

The paper's originality and value lie in a unique historical and discursive analysis of the conditions for the emergence of IBMS that were, in part, instrumental in the development of the field. It thus responds to calls for a “historical turn” in International Business scholarship.

The military of today depends on the availability and readiness of high-technology weapon systems. As the military often has to focus on core tasks (the usage of systems), logistics and support tasks are outsourced to industry, which means that industrial suppliers gain importance for making weapon systems available and mission ready. However, companies are profit-maximizing and invest their best resources in the most promising business areas, which might be clients other than the (domestic) military customer. This raises the question of how the military can ensure that the defense industry provides the best performance: preferential treatment for the military. The purpose of this study is to investigate preferential treatment in the specific context of defense.

This paper reports on the examination of factors influencing preferential treatment for the military. The analysis uses structural equation modeling and data from a sample of German defense suppliers.

The results show that the perceived customer attractiveness has a strong effect on preferential customer treatment. Attractiveness is influenced by trust, commitment and a comparison with other customers.

There are several implications for defense theory and practice, including the need for further consideration of relational in contrast to transactional practices in military–industrial supply collaboration, as these seem highly relevant for getting the best resources for producing and maintaining weapon systems. In addition, increasing customer attractiveness, in particular if the military lacks a domestic defense industry base, is proposed.

The findings are based on a focus sample of only defense suppliers. This paper transfers the industrial discussion about the buyer–supplier relationships and preferential customer treatment to the defense logistics research context.

This chapter is a contribution to the intellectual history of the anxiety that full employment in the modern United States depended somehow on military spending. This discourse (conveniently abbreviated as “military Keynesianism”) is vaguely familiar, but its contours and transit still await a full study. The chapter shows the origins of the idea in the left-Keynesian milieu centered around Harvard’s Alvin Hansen in the late 1930s, with a particular focus on the diverse group that cowrote the 1938 stagnationist manifesto An Economic Program for American Democracy. After a discussion of how these young economists participated in the World War II mobilization, the chapter considers how questions of stagnation and military stimulus were marginalized during the years of the high Cold War, only to be revived by younger radicals. At the same time, it demonstrates the existence of a community of discourse that directly links the Old Left of the 1930s and 1940s with the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s, and cuts across the division between left-wing social critique and liberal statecraft.