Various claims are frequently made to present a strong case for military expenditure, but they are rarely subject to careful scrutiny. Such an assessment could include both direct benefits, such as protecting civilians from war and hunger, as well as global public goods, including upholding international law and reducing the instability associated with mass poverty. For example, contributions to Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion could be compared to civilian forms of overseas aid. That is, military spending should be compared to alternative public and private expenditures - ideally those with comparable benefits. In any such assessment, expenditure that significantly reduces the existential risk of invasion, air attack or naval blockade can be regarded as essential.Īny other use of military power needs to be assessed in terms of opportunity costs and benefits. And in the absence of any specific rationale for particular defence expenditure projects, such as a current or imminent war, a variety of economic benefits have been cited as reasons for approving those projects.ĭecision-making with respect to military expenditure should begin with a single central objective, that of national self-defence against invasion, with other possible uses of military force being regarded as peripheral. ![]() ![]() Because defence is an essential function of any national government, military spending has rarely - if ever - been subject to benefit-cost analysis. ![]() Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the PacificĪustralia’s purchase of nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement has been framed in terms of the jobs that would be created in submarine construction, rather than the security benefits that would flow to Australia from their deployment some decades hence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |