Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2019 | nr 3 (66) | 62--84
Tytuł artykułu

Contemporary Political and R&D Determinants of the Level of the United States Defence Spending

Warianty tytułu
Współczesne uwarunkowania polityczne oraz badawczo- - rozwojowe dla poziomu wydatków obronnych Stanów Zjednoczonych
Języki publikacji
Celem publikacji była analiza uwarunkowań politycznych oraz badawczo-rozwojowych dla poziomu wydatków obronnych w USA. Mają one kluczowe znaczenie dla kształtowania budżetu wojskowego Pentagonu w warunkach, w których uchwycenie stanu zagrożeń, na które odpowiedzią byłby "adekwatny" poziom finansowania, wydaje się bardzo trudne. Debata nad poziomem wydatków obronnych niezbędnych do zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa państwa ma trwały charakter. Kluczowe znaczenie dla określenia wydatków obronnych mają dwa elementy. Po pierwsze, uwarunkowania polityczne o charakterze wewnętrznym (republikanie są bardziej skłonni do wydatkowania większej ilości środków niż demokraci) oraz zewnętrznym (wykorzystywania potencjału militarnego dla utrzymywania hegemonistycznej pozycji Stanów Zjednoczonych wobec sojuszników, jak i adwersarzy); po drugie, uwarunkowania badawczo-rozwojowe, ukierunkowane na zachowanie supremacji technologicznej USA na świecie oraz mające korzystne implikacje dla rozwoju innowacyjności, zarówno w sektorze obronnym, jak też cywilnym. (abstrakt oryginalny)
The aim of the publication was to analyse political and research and development conditions for the level of defense spending in the USA. They are of key importance for shaping the Pentagon military budget in conditions in which it seems very difficult to grasp the state of threats to which an 'adequate' level of financing would be an answer. The debate on the level of defense expenditures required to ensure the security of the state is everlasting. There are two decisive elements for determining defense expenditures. First, political circumstances, both of internal ones (the Republicans are more inclined to spend more on defense than the Democrats) and external ones (using military capabilities to keep hegemonistic position of the United States, including vis-à-vis allies and adversaries); second, research and development circumstances aimed at ensuring technological supremacy of the United States in the world and having positive implications for military and civilian sectors. (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland
  • 2019 Global R&D Funding Forecast (2019) [online]. A Supplement to R&D Magazine. available from < lm=1548101066000&pgs=all> [15 March 2019].
  • Bel, G., and Elias-Moreno, F. (2009) Institutional Determinants of Military Spending [online]. University of Barcelona. Research Institute of Applied Economics. available from < papers/2009/200922.pdf> [9 January 2017].
  • Bernanke, B., O'Hanlon, M., and Muro, M. (2015) The Future of Defense Spending and its Economic Impacts [online]. Brookings Institute. available from < ben-bernanke-michael-ohanlon-and-mark-muro-on-the-future-of-defense-spending-and-its-economic-impacts/> [1 February 2017].
  • Bernstein, I. (1996) Guns or Butter. The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bracken, P. (2015) How Has the Pentagon Shaped Innovation? [online] Yale School of Management. available from <> [15 January 2017].
  • Boone, R., and Cohn, J. (2016) How Much Is Enough. Alternative Defense Strategies [online]. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. available from < How_ Much_is_Enough Final5-web.pdf> [9 January 2017].
  • Collier, P., and Hoeffler, A. (2002) Military Expenditures: Threats, Aid and Arms Races [online]. World Bank. available from <https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/c574/c2a43ef1b619375e7bf6736d2aaf5e1d25f9.pdf> [15 July 2019].
  • Durham, R. B. (2015) Supplying the Enemy: the Modern Arms Industry and the Military - Industrial Complex. Morrisville:
  • Enthoven, A.C., and Smith, K.V. (1971) How Much is Enough. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
  • Gates, R. (2009) 'A Balanced Strategy. Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age'. Foreign Affairs 88 (1), 2840.
  • Hagel, C. (2014) Memorandum of Secretary of Defense. The Defense Innovation Initiative [online] available from < OSD013411-14.pdf> [15 January 2017].
  • Harrison, T. (2016) Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget [online]. Center for Strategic and International Studies. available from <https://www.csis. org/analysis/analysis-fy-2017-defense-budget> [15 July 2016].
  • Hourihan, M. (2015) Federal R&D Budget Trends: A Short Summary [online]. American Association for the Advancement of Studies. available from < D Budget Overview. pdf> [17 January 2017].
  • Johnson, J. T. (2015) Assessing Common Arguments for Cutting National Security Spending: Informing Current and Future Debates [online]. Heritage Foundation. available from < assessing-common-arguments-for-cutting-national-security-spending-informing-current-and-future-budget-debates> [10 January 2017].
  • Kacprzyk, A. (2018), 'Szczyt NATO w Brukseli' ['NATO Summit in Brussels']. Komentarz PISM 53.
  • Kozłowski, G. (2016) 'Czy Stany Zjednoczone płacą za dużo? Wydatki obronne państw NATO' ['Does the United States Pay Too Much? Defense Expenditures of NATO Countries']. Polski Przegląd Dyplomatyczny 1.
  • Lichtenberg, F. (1995) 'The Economics of Defense R&D'. in Handbook of Defense Economics Vol. 1 ed. by Hartley, K., and Sandler, T. New York: Elsevier.
  • Lord, E. M. (2017) Testimony Statement of The Honorable Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) Before the Committee on Armed Services of the United States Senate on Current State of Defense Acquisition and Associated Reforms [online] 7 December. available from < Lord_12-07-17.pdf> [17 March 2019].
  • Mazzucato, M. (2013) State of innovation: Busting the private-sector myth [online]. New Scientist. available from < mg21929310-200-state-of-innovation-busting-the-private-sector-myth/> [14 January 2017].
  • Mercile, J. (2007) The Radical Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of US Military Spending: A Case Study of the John F. Kennedy Administration. Los Angeles: ProQuest LLC.
  • Moretti, E., Steinwender, C., and Van Reenen, J. (2016) The Intellectual Spoils of War? Defense R&D, Productivity and Spillovers [online]. University of Berkeley. available from <> [14 January 2017].
  • NATO (2018a) NATO Press Release 074. Brussels Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels 11-12 July 2018 [online]. available from <> [15 March 2019].
  • NATO (2018b) NATO Press Release 091. Defence Expenditure of NATO countries (2011-2018) [online]. available from <> [16 July 2019].
  • Office of Management and Budget (2018) Efficient, Effective, Accountable. An American Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 [online]. Washington: U.S. Government Publishing Office. available from <> [16 March 2019].
  • Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (2015) National Defense Budget. Estimates for FY 2016 [online]. available from <> [16 July 2019].
  • Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (2018) National Defense Budget. Estimates for FY 2019 [online]. available from < green_book.pdf> [16 July 2019].
  • Reppy, J. (2000) The Place of the Defense Industry in National Systems of Innovation [online]. Cornell University. available from <https://pacs.einaudi.> [15 January 2017].
  • Rucker, P., and Costa, R. (2016) 'Trump Questions Need for NATO, Outlines Noninterventionist Foreign Policy'. Washington Post [online] 21 March. available from < wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/> [15 January 2017].
  • Sapolsky, H. M., Friedmann, B. H., and Green, B. R. (2009) US Military Innovation since the Cold War. Creation without destruction. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Schonberg, K. (2009) Constructing 21st Century. US Foreign Policy. Identity, Ideology, and America's World Role in a New Era. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
  • Smith, R. (2009) 'Determinants of Military Expenditure'. in Economics of Peace and Security. ed. by Galbraith, J.K., Brauer, J., and Webster, L.L. Oxford: Eolls Publishers UNESCO, 46-51.
  • The White House (2015) A Strategy for American Innovation. National Economic Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy [online] available from <> [16 July 2019].
  • The White House (2017) National Security Strategy of the United States of America [online] available from < uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf> [17 March 2019].
  • Walker, S. (2017) Statement by Dr. Steven Walker, Acting Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) submitted to the United States Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense on Defense Innovation and Research [online] 3 May. available from <> [17 March 2018].
  • Zieliński, M. (2010) 'Krzywa możliwości produkcyjnych' ['Production Capacity Curve']. NBP - Portal Wiedzy Ekonomicznej [online] 7 December. available from < krzywa_mozliwosci_produkcyjnych> [9 January 2017].
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.