Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:13:54.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External Ambition and Economic Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Miles Kahler
Miles Kahler
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access

Abstract

Realist approaches to international politics raise the possibility that external policies based on expanding military power may undermine the economic bases of that power. The links between external strategy and economic performance can be classified as fiscal (macroeconomic effects), structural (microeconomic and structural effects), and protectionist (effects on foreign economic policy). The case of prewar Japan suggests that, for countries at an intermediate position in the international power hierarchy and in the international division of labor, the positive effects of external ambition on economic performance may dominate. Other cases—National Socialist Germany, contemporary developing countries, and the postwar superpowers—seem to confirm that international position is a principal determinant of these effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , July 1988 , pp. 419 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1988

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

1 Keohane, , After Hegemony (Princeton University Press, 1984), 23Google Scholar.

2 Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap, iv; U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1975)Google Scholar.

3 Bruce Russett documents the shift in “Defense Expenditures and National Well-being,” American Political Science Review 76 (December 1982), 767–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Hitch, Charles J. and McKean, Roland N., The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age (New York: Atheneum, 1965), 47Google Scholar.

5 Kennedy, Gavin, Defense Economics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), 186, 204Google Scholar.

6 Capra, James R., “The National Defense Budget and Its Economic Effects,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review (Summer, 1981)Google Scholar, 25–27.

7 Ibid., 28–30; DeGrasse, Robert W. Jr., Military Expansion, Economic Decline: The Impact of Military Spending on U.S. Economic Performance (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1983), 117–25Google Scholar

8 On private consumption, see ibid., 50; on possible trade-offs with civilian public expenditures, in addition to DeGrasse, see Russett (fn. 3), 771; Domke, William K., Eichenberg, Richard C., and Kelleher, Catherine M., “The Illusion of Choice: Defense and Welfare in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1948–1978,” American Political Science Review 77 (March 1983), 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy (fn. 5), 192.

9 Smith, R. P., “Military Expenditure and Capitalism,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 1 (March 1977), 72–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DeGrasse (fn. 7), 47–48 and Appendix B.

10 Kennedy (fn. 5), 204.

11 The principal study is that of Emile Benoit, Defense and Economic Growth in Developing Countries (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1973)Google Scholar; also “Growth and Defense in Developing Countries,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 26 (January 1978), 271–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Perhaps the best-documented case in which military expenditures collided with investment needs to the detriment of the long-term growth prospects of an economy is that of Britain during the Korean War rearmament; see Pollard, Sidney, The Wasting of the British Economy (London: Croom Helm, 1982), 36–37Google Scholar. The choice in favor of consumption and military expenditures over investment has been argued for the Soviet Union by Rush, Myron, “Guns over Growth in Soviet Policy,” International Security 7 (Winter 1982 /83), 167–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 McNeill, William H., The Pursuit of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 269–94Google Scholar.

14 Kennedy (fn. 5), 164; also see Weidenbaum, Murray, The Economics of Peacetime Defense (New York: Praeger, 1974), 44–49Google Scholar.

15 Gansler, , The Defense Industry (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980), 69, 92Google Scholar. Similar arguments are a major theme in the work of Seymour Melman.

16 Stubbing, Richard, “The Defense Program: Buildup or Binge?” Foreign Affairs 63 (Spring 1985), 865–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Kornai, , Economics of Shortage. Vol. B (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980)Google Scholar, esp. chaps. 13 and 22.

18 Gansler, for example, notes the “leading edge” quality of much military R & D and the ease of its transfer to civilian uses (if they exist), while also criticizing the trend toward concentration of research and development in fewer and larger firms rather than in small firms that may have a better record at innovation (fn. 15), chap. 4.

19 John Zysman, and Tyson, Laura, eds., American Industry in International Competition: Government Policies and Corporate Strategies (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), 155Google Scholar; on government assistance in the early years of the semiconductor industry, see pp. 150–56. On this and other sectors, see Nelson, Richard R., High-Technology Policies: A Five-Nation Comparison (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1984), 42–45Google Scholar, 51–52, 78–80. For a more negative view of the role of military procurement in the semiconductor industry, see DeGrasse (fn. 7), 84–96.

20 Kaldor, , The Baroque Arsenal (New York: Hill & Wang, 1981), 34, 40–41Google Scholar.

21 Gansler (fn. 15), 184–203.

22 Magaziner, Ira C. and Reich, Robert B. raise this possibility in Minding America's Business (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), 233Google Scholar.

23 Trebilcock, , “'spin-off in British Economic History: Armaments and Industry, 1760–1914,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 22 (December 1969), 485–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Jacques Marseille suggests that privileged colonial markets in the interwar period served to trap French resources in declining sectors and to skew French trade patterns even after decolonization. See his Empire colonial et capitalisme francais (Paris: Albin Michel, 1984), 84–86Google Scholar.

25 For the debilitating effect of stop-go policies on British investment, see Pollard, Sidney, The Wasting of the British Economy: British Economic Policy 1945 to the Present (London: Croom Helm, 1982)Google Scholar, chap. 6.

26 Allen, G. C., Japan's Economic Expansion (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 1Google Scholar.

27 Described by Morishima, Michio, Why Has Japan Succeeded? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 112, 130–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Admittedly, the line blurs because Japan, by one estimate, was involved in ten internal or international conflicts between the Meiji Restoration and 1945. Nevertheless, with the possible exception of the Russo-Japanese War, the level of economic mobilization remained low until 1937.

29 Patrick, Hugh, “The Economic Muddle of the 1920s,” in Morley, James William, ed., Dilemmas ofGrowth in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 239–44Google Scholar, 255; Allen (fn. 26), 1–2.

30 Patrick (fn. 29), 256.

31 Allen (fn. 26), 6, 227; on the Takahashi program, see Patrick (fn. 29), 256–59, and Nakamura, Takafusa, Economic Growth in Prewar Japan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, chap. 9. Gross national expenditure grew at an average annual rate of 4.6% during the decade of the 1930s, more than during any preceding period; the percentage share of heavy industry in manufacturing output grew from 32.8% in 1930 to 43.5% in 1935, and to 58.8% in 1940. See Nakamura, Tables 1.5 and 1.15, pp. 7 and 23.

32 Patrick (fn. 29), Table 8, p. 251; Nakamura (fn. 31), Table 1.22, p. 39.

33 Ibid., 238.

34 Ibid., 248; compare Nakamura's evaluation with a contemporary one: “relatively small orders for armaments and munitions helped to develop industries which produced a much larger volume of chemical fertilizers, industrial chemicals, metals and machinery for general industrial purposes.” See Schumpeter, Elizabeth B., ed., The Industrialization of Japan and Manchukuo, 1930–1940: Population, Raw Materials, and Industry (New York: Macmillan, 1940), 14–15Google Scholar. Both Nakamura and Schumpeter diverge somewhat from the overall assessment of the impact of military spending given by Henry Rosovsky in Capital Formation in Japan, 1868–1940 (New York: Free Press, 1961), 27Google Scholar.

35 For accounts of this period (1936–1940), see Arthur E. Tiedemann, “Big Business and Politics in Prewar Japan,” in Morley (fn. 29), 302–9; Nakamura (fn. 31), chap. 10; Schumpeter, “Conclusion: Industrial Development and Government Policy, 1936–1940,” in Schumpeter (fn.34).

36 Nakamura (fn. 31), 290–91; the slow growth of consumption as compared with investment was characteristic of the 1930s (and the 1950s): ibid., 7. Cohen, Jerome B. notes that during the Pacific War, consumers in Japan were hit harder than those of any other major belligerent; see his Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949), 56Google Scholar.

37 At earlier times of military exertion, particularly 1893–1913, Japan had turned to the international capital markets to supplement its domestic savings. The collapse of the international capital markets during the Great Depression closed this option during the 1930s. On the question of foreign borrowing, see wood, William W. Lock, The Economic Development of Japan, expanded ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 253–58Google Scholar.

38 Robert M. Spaulding, “The Bureaucracy as a Political Force, 1920–1945,” in Morley (fn. 29), 76.

39 Cohen (fn. 36); cf. the judgments cited in Johnson, Chalmers, MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982), 153–54Google Scholar.

40 See G. C. Allen's excellent contemporary account, “Japanese Industry: Its Organization and Development to 1937,” in Schumpeter (fn. 34).

41 For accounts of the plans, see Nakamura (fn. 31), 276–85, 300–301; Johnson (fn. 39), 130–32; Peattie, Mark R., Ishiwara Kanji and Japan's Confrontation with the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 185–216Google Scholar.

42 Nakamura (fn. 31), 276, 300; Peattie (fn. 41), 216–19.

43 It is hard to imagine a time when Japan did not produce automobiles, but here the military expansion of the 1930s was also a turning point: starting with 500 units in 1930, Japan reached a level of 48,000 units in 1941; aircraft went from 400 to 5,000. See Cohen (fn. 36), 2–3.

44 Nakamura (fn. 31), 252.

45 Tiedemann (fn. 35), 289; also see Peattie (fn. 41), 215–16. On Ayukawa and Nissan, see Halberstam, David, The Reckoning (New York: William Morrow, 1986), 134–36Google Scholar.

46 Peattie, Mark, “Introduction,” in Myers, Ramon H. and Peattie, Mark R., eds., The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 15–18Google Scholar; on the importance of contiguity, see Bruce Cummings, “The Legacy of Japanese Colonialism in Korea,” ibid., 482.

47 Kublin, Hyman, “The Evolution of Japanese Colonialism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (October 1959), 82, 77–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Samuel Pao-San Ho, “Colonialism and Development: Korea, Taiwan, and Kwantung,” in Myers and Peattie (fn. 46), 385.

49 Kublin (fn. 47), 80. 50

50 Ho (fn. 48), 348–50.

51 Cumings, Bruce, “The Northeast Asian Political Economy,” International Organization 38 (Winter 1984), 12–13Google Scholar.

52 Lewis H. Gann, “Western and Japanese Colonialism: Some Preliminary Comparisons,” in Myers and Peattie (fn. 46), 498.

53 Patrick (fn. 29), 215.

54 Schumpeter (fn. 34), 144–47; Ho (fn. 48), 363–64.

55 Schumpeter (fn. 34), 713, 774.

56 On the lack of self-sufficiency in the empire, see Peattie (fn. 46), 35.

57 Peter Gourevitch discusses the configurations that produced other “breaks with orthodoxy” in the 1930s in “Breaking with Orthodoxy: The Politics of Economic Policy Responses to the Depression of the 1930s,” International Organization 38 (Winter 1984), 95–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 McNeill (fn. 13), 180.

59 Schumpeter (fn. 34), 328.

60 Cited in McNeill (fn. 13), 226.

61 Chihiro Hosoya, “Retrogression in Japan's Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process,” in Morley (fn. 28), 88.

62 Cohen (fn. 36), 55.

63 Overy, R. J., The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932–1938 (London: Macmillan, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 47. On Nazi economic policies and their relationship to rearmament, see esp. chaps. 1 and 4.

64 Ibid., 22–25.

65 Ibid., 51–52; Carr, William, Arms, Autarky and Aggression (London: Edward Arnold, 1972), 39, 51–56Google Scholar

66 Overy (fn. 63), chap. 6.

67 Mason, T. W., “Some Origins of the Second World War,” in Robertson, Esmonde M., ed., The Origins of the Second World War (London: Macmillan, 1971), 120–21Google Scholar; Overy (fn. 63), 54–55.

68 Mason (fn. 67), 123; Klein, Burton H., Germany's Economic Preparations for War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959)Google Scholar, 79; Overy (fn. 63), 63; Deist, Wilhelm, The Wehrmacht and German Rearmament (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Overy, R. J., “Hitler's War and the German Economy: A Reinterpretation,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 35 (February 1982), 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Klein (fn. 68), 60–61; Overy (fn. 63), 30.

71 Benoit, “Growth and Defense …” (fn. 11), 271, 276–77; for an earlier statement of Benoit's research, see Defense and Economic Growth (fn. 11).

72 Lim, David, “Another Look at Growth and Defense in Less Developed Countries,” Economic Development and Cultural Change [E.D. & C.C.] 31 (January 1983), 377–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ball, Nicole, “Defense and Development: A Critique of the Benoit Study,” E.D. & C.C. 31 (April 1983), 507–24Google Scholar; Faini, Riccardo, Annez, Patricia, and Taylor, Lance, “Defense Spending, Economic Structure, and Growth: Evidence Among Countries and Over Time,” E.D. & C.C. 32 (April 1984), 487–98Google Scholar; Deger, Saadet and Smith, Ron, “Military Expenditure and Growth in Less Developed Countries,” Journal ofConflict Resolution 27 (June 1983), 335–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, Gavin, The Military in the Third World (London: Duckworth, 1974)Google Scholar, chap. 10; Deger, Saadet, Military Expenditure in Third World Countries: The Economic Effects (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986)Google Scholar.

73 Blackaby, Frank, “Introduction,” in Ball, Nicole and Leitenberg, Milton, eds., The Structure of the Defense Industry: An International Survey (London: Croom Helm, 1983), 16Google Scholar.

74 See, for example, the findings on India by Faini et al. (fn. 72), 496, and Deger and Smith (fn. 72), 175; or those on military spending by military regimes by Benoit (fn. 11, 1978), 273, and Kennedy (fn. 72), 163.

75 Trebilcock, Clive, “British Armaments and European Industrialization, 1890–1914,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 26 (May 1973), 254–72.Google Scholar

76 Wirth, John D., The Politics of Brazilian Development, 1930–1954 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, chaps. 4 and 5.

77 Nolan, Janne E., Military Industry in Taiwan and South Korea (London: Macmillan, 1986), 112–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Ibid.121.

79 On the relationship between arms production and strategies of import substitution and export orientation, see Herbert Wulf in Ball and Leitenberg (fn. 73), chap. 10.

80 On investigations of these relationships, see DeGrasse (fn. 7), and Smith (fn. 9), 61–76; criticisms of these arguments are offered by Blackaby (fn. 73), 8, 15–16.

81 See the analysis of the costs of alternative strategic defense systems and their fiscal impact by Blechman, Barry M. and Utgoff, Victor A., Fiscal and Economic Implications of Strategic Defenses (Washington, DC: Westview Press/Foreign Policy Institute, 1986)Google Scholar.

82 Hartung, William D. et al., The Strategic Defense Initiative: Costs, Contractors & Consequences (New York: Council on Economic Priorities, 1985), 24Google Scholar.

83 Reich, Robert B., “High Technology, Defense and International Trade,” in John Tirman, , The Militarization of High Technology (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984), 33–43Google Scholar; Hartung (fn. 82), 6–10, 107–11; Brooks, Harvey, “The Strategic Defense Initiative as Science Policy,” International Security 11 (Fall 1986), 182–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Yonas, Gerold, “Research and the Strategic Defense Initiative,” International Security 11 (Fall 1986), 185–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 See Rush (fn. 12).

86 For the positive view of structural effects, see Kiser, John W., “How the Arms Race Really Helps Moscow,” Foreign Policy 60 (Fall 1985), 40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Holloway, David, The Soviet Union and the Arms Race (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 146Google Scholar; Agursky, Mikhail, The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex (Jerusalem Papers Peace Problems 31, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1980), 9–16Google Scholar, 25.

88 Holloway (fn. 87), 171.

89 The economic costs and benefits of the Soviet sphere are the subject of considerable controversy. On the question of whether and why the U.S.S.R. subsidizes Eastern Europe, see Marrese, Michael, “CMEA: Effective but Cumbersome Political Economy,” International Organization 40 (Spring 1986), 287–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brada, Josef C., “Soviet Subsidization of Eastern Europe: The Primacy of Economics over Politics?” Journal of Comparative Economics 9 (March 1985), 80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bunce, Valerie, “The Empire Strikes Back: The Evolution of the Eastern Bloc from a Soviet Asset to a Soviet Liability,” International Organization (Winter 1985)Google Scholar, 13–28.

90 For a review, see Gaddis, John Lewis, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security 10 (Spring 1986), 99–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.