Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:23:14.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Swords to Plowshares: An Evaluation of the U.S. Legislative Attempts on Economic Conversion and Human Resource Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

S. Muthuchidambaram
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with the genesis, development, and impact of Military Keynesianism in the U.S. Its impact on the civilian sector is examined in terms of: geographical distribution of military spending, sectoral militarization, labor market and occupational distortion, the militarization of R & D, R & D's impact on American competitiveness in the international market, the parasitic role of the military contract system and the unethical and exploitative role of military contractors.

This paper examines the issues related to disarmament and economic conversion with special reference to bills pending before the Congress. The author suggests a redefinition of “national security” in tune with the INF Treaty and the end of cold-war ideology.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Galbraith, J. K., The Age of Uncertainty (1977), p. 121.Google Scholar

2 David, Mermelstein (ed.), Economics: Mainstream Readings and Radical Critiques (Random House, 1970), p. 190.Google Scholar

3 Seymour, Melman, “Consequences of a Permanent War Economy, and Strategies for Conversion to a Demilitarized Society,” in The Military-Industrial Complex: Eisenhower's Warning Thirty Years Later, An Interdisciplinary Conference Proceedings, Oregon State University, October, 1988, p. 15.Google Scholar

4 Treddenick, John M., “The Anns Race and Military Keynesianism,” Canadian Public Policy, XI: 1, p. 81.Google Scholar

5 Keynes, New Republic, July 29, 1940.

6 The General Theory, p 129. Emphasis added.

7 The General Theory, p. 383.

8 Paul, Mattick, Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy (1968), p. 123.Google Scholar

9 Seymour, Melman, The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline (Simon & Schuster, 1974), p. 18.Google Scholar

10 Keyserling, Leon H., American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (May, 1972), p. 136. Emphasis added.Google Scholar

11 Seymour, Melman, The Permanent War Economy, op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar

12 Holdren, John P. and Bailey, Green F., “Military Spending, The SDI, and Government Support of Research and Development: Effects on The Economy and The Health of American Science,” F.A.S. Public Interest Report, Special Issue on DOD and R&D, Vol. 39, No. 7 (September 1986).Google Scholar

13 See World Military and Social Expenditures 1987–88, 12th Edition, World Priorities, 1987 Washington, D.C., pp. 6–9.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 9.

15 Jobs with Peace, Military Spending Research Services, 1989.

16 Dumas, L. J., “The Military Burden on the Economy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (October 1986), p. 25.Google Scholar

17 Ibid.

18 Michael, Dee Oden, “Military Spending Erodes Real National Security,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (June 1988), pp. 36–42.Google Scholar

19 Cited in Melman, S., op. cit., note 9, p. 129.Google Scholar

20 Ibid.

21 Muthuchidambaram, S., “Diffusion of Technology vis a vis Transformation: Increasing Contradictions Between Technocratic Market Values and Social Democratic Values,” in Byrne, E. F. and Pitt, J. C. (eds.), Technological Transformation: Contextual and Conceptual Implications (Kluwer 1989), p. 231;Google ScholarTreddenick, J. M., op. cit., note 4, p. 83.Google Scholar

22 Oden, op. cit., note 18, p. 36.

23 Ibid., Also see Dumas, L. J., “The Military Burden on the Economy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (October 1986), pp. 22–26.Google Scholar

24 Dumas, L. J., “The Military Economy as Resource Diversion,” Appendix Six in Feldman, J., An Introduction to Economic Conversion, ECD Briefing Paper One (1988).Google Scholar Also see other papers in this series: Krinsky, R., An Introduction to Disarmament, Briefing Paper Two (1988);Google ScholarUlmann, J. E., Economic Conversion: Indispensable for America's Economic Recovery, Briefing Paper Three (1989);Google ScholarFeldman, J., Krinsky, R. and Melman, S., Criteria for Economic Conversion Legislation, Briefing Paper Four (1988).Google Scholar These sources will be cited hereafter respectively as ECD-BPI; BPII, BPIII, and BPIV.

25 Anderson, Marion, Michael, Frisch, and Michael, Oden, The Empty Pork Barrel: The Employment Cost of the Military Buildup 1981-1985 (Lansing, MI: Employment Research Associates, 1986);Google ScholarAnde, Cappelen, Nils, Petter Gleditsh, Olav, Bjerkholt, “Military Spending and Economic Growth in the O.E.C.D. Countries,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1984);Google ScholarSmith, R. P., “Military Expenditure and Capitalism,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, No. 1 (1977);CrossRefGoogle Scholar “Military Expenditure and Capitalism: A Reply,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, No. 2 (1978); “Military Expenditure and Investment in O.E.C.D. Countries 1954-1973,” Journal of Comparative Economics, No. 4 (1980), pp. 19-32. Also see the items cited in note 24.

26 ECD-BP1, op. cit., note 24.

27 Dumas, L. J., “The Military Burden on the Economy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (October 1986), p. 25.Google Scholar

28 World Military and Social Expenditure 1987-1988, p. 36.

29 Deparment of Defense, Atlas/State Data Abstract for the United States, Fiscal Year 1984 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985).Google ScholarNortheast-Midwest Institute, The Pentagon Hit: Regional Biases to Defense Spending and Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Northeast-Midwest Institute, 1984), pp. 1, 24, 26.Google Scholar

30 The New York Times (May 23, 1984).

31 J. E. Ullman, BPIII, op. cit., note 24, p. 12.Google Scholar

32 Dumas, L. J., op. cit., note 27, p. 31.Google Scholar

33 Blank, R. and Rothchild, E., “The Effect of United States Defense Spending on Employment and Output,” International Labour Reivew, Vol. 124, No. 6 (November-December 1986), p. 693.Google Scholar

34 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment by Occupation and Industry: 1982 and Projected 1995 Alternatives (Washington, D.C.: 1984).Google Scholar

35 Dumas, L. J., “Economic Conversion: The Critical Link,” Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1988), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Reuschlein, R. W., “The Military Role in National/Regional Economics and National Politics,” in The Military-Industrial Complex: Eisenhower's Warning Thirty Years Later, Conference Proceedings, October 13-15, 1988, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, p. 287.Google Scholar

37 Muthuchidambaram, S., “Evolution of Ethical Positivism in Military Science and Technology and its Implications for Democratic Control,” paper presented at the World Conference on Ethical Choices in the Age of Pervasive Technology, October 25-29, 1989, University of Guelph, Ontario, p. 20.Google Scholar

38 Dumas, L. J. in John, Tirman (ed.), The Militarization of High Technology (Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984), p. 129.Google Scholar

39 L. J. Dumas, ibid., p. 131.

40 Adams, G. and Gold, D., “Recasting the Military Spending Debate,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (October 1986), p. 31.Google Scholar

41 Nim, Noody, Star Wars: The Economic Fallout (1988), p. 98.Google Scholar

42 See Dumas, L. J. in The Military-Industrial Complex, note 3;Google Scholar S. Melman, The Permanent War Economy, note 9; and Melman, S., The Demilitarized Society (Harvest House, 1988).Google Scholar

43 Dumas, L. J. in The Military-Industrial Complex, note 3, p. 30.Google Scholar

44 Dumas, L. J., ibid., at p. 7.Google Scholar

45 Melman, S., op. cit., note 9, p. 55, 56.Google Scholar

One of the most striking examples of the contrast between the way in which products produced for military as opposed to civilian markets lies in the comparison of the Boeing 747 and the Lockheed C5A cargo plane. Both of these are jumbo jets of roughly comparable size, but the former was designed and produced for sale to commercial civilian airlines and the latter for sale to the U.S. Air Force. The 747 is a smooth flying, highly reliable aircraft flown daily by most of the world's major airlines, and is as energy efficient when fully loaded as a Volkswagen “bettle” carrying only its driver. The C5A has been plagued by severe operating difficulties, including cracking of the wing pylons, crash-producing failures of the rear cargo door, and considerable landing gear problems. The Air Force has acknowledged that a cargo version of the 747 was selling at about $23 million per plane as against the $60 million per plane cost of the C5 A. Furthermore, the wing defects on the C5A, which reduced its estimated service life by more than 70%, were projected to cost some $1.3 billion to repair, nearly doubling the original cost estimates for the program.

L. J. Dumas, op. cit., p. 31.

46 Note 13, p. 38.

47 McMurtry, J., Understanding War: A Philosophical Inquiry, Science for Peace, Samuel Stevens, 1989, pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

48 Melman, S., The Demilitarized Society, note 42, p. 81.Google Scholar

49 Galbraith, J. K., “The Military Power: Tension as a Servant; Arms Control as an Illusion,” in Perry, T. L. and Foulks, J. K. (eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (Vancouver: Gordon Soules, 1986), pp. 103–10.Google Scholar

50 Krinsky, R., “Swords and Sheepskins: Militarization of Higher Education in the United States and Prospects of its Conversion,” in Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1988), pp. 33–52, at p. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 New York Times, National, November 27, 1989.

52 CBS National News, January 28 and 29, 1990.

53 Melman, op. cit., pp. 24 and 25; and Dumas, L. L., op. cit., note 35, p. 4.Google Scholar

54 L. Dumas, ibid.

55 National Economic Conversion Commission, hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 88th Congress 2nd Session, on S.2274, May 25, June 22, 1964.

56 S.2279, November 2, 1977.

57 Melman, S., op. cit., note 9, p. 65.Google Scholar

58 See John, Lynch, “Pentagon's Community Aid Program,” and Robert Krinsky, “Community Programs Aid Pentagon,” in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (October 1986), respectively pp. 34-37 and 37–39.Google Scholar

59 Krinsky, R., op. cit., p 38.Google Scholar

60 Office of Economic Adjustment, “Department of Defense Support for the President's Private Sector Initiatives Program” (Dec. 3, 1984), p. 2.

61 Ullman, J. E., Economic Conversion: Indispensable for Americas Economic Recovery, op. cit., note 24, ECD-BP1, at p. 1.Google Scholar

62 J. Feldman, op. cit., note 24, ECD-BP1, at p. 1.

63 Meyer, Stephen M., “Revolutionary Changes in East-West Relations Should Revitalize the Field of Security Studies,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 7, 1990), A-56.Google Scholar

64 R. Krinsky, op. cit., note 50, pp. 43-44.

65 R. Krinsky, ibid., pp. 45-46.

66 John, McMurtry, Understanding War: A Philosophical Inquiry, Canadian Papers in Peace Studies, 1988, No. 2, Forward by Anatol Rapoport, pp. VI–VIII.Google Scholar

67 See Time, Feburary 12, 1990, pp. 30-37; Manchester Guardian Weekly, December 3, 1989, p. 9 and December 10, 1989, p. 1, pp. 6-8 and p. 13, 17, and 18.

68 See “How Much is Too Much,” reported by J. Peterzell and Bruce van Voorst, Washington, Time, ibid., at p. 32. Emphasis added.

69 Noted in Time, ibid., at p. 32.

70 Time, ibid., at p. 33; Kaufman, W. W., “A Plan to Cut Military Spending in Half,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March 1990), pp. 35–39.Google Scholar

71 Bruce Franklin, H., “Fatal Fiction: A Weapon to End All Wars,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (November 1989), pp. 18–25.Google Scholar

72 Cited by Senator, Mark O. Hatfield, “Peace Through Strength is a Fallacy,” Congressional Record, Vol. 135, No. 107, Aug. 2, 1989, Washington.Google Scholar