Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:13:20.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reactive Linkage Model of the U.S. Defense Expenditure Policymaking Process*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Charles W. Ostrom Jr.
Charles W. Ostrom Jr.*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several alternative explanations of U.S. defense expenditure policy-making behavior have been heralded as theoretically sound and empirically supported representations of U.S. defense expenditure policy making. This has created an atmosphere in which almost as much effort is directed towards criticizing and/or defending existing explanations as is given to improving them through continued theoretical and empirical investigations. To overcome this impasse, I have developed in this article a working synthesis of three current approaches–Arms Race, Organizational Politics, Bureaucratic Politics–based on the insights and observations of Samuel Huntington (1961), Warner Schilling (1962), Colin Gray (1971), and James Rosenau (1971). The resulting formulation, which is labeled the Reactive Linkage Model, characterizes the pattern of U.S. defense spending in terms of an initial response by the armed services to the anticipated USSR expenditure level which is subsequently filtered through the president, Congress, and the Departmen t of Defense to determine the magnitude, scale, and timing of the reaction.

On the basis of the theoretical and empirical analyses here presented, I have reached the following conclusions. First, the Reactive Linkage Model successfully synthesizes the three existing explanations of U.S. defense expenditure policy making into a coherent and plausible whole. Second, the estimated version of the model provides an accurate representation of the pattern of U.S. defense expenditure policy making from 1954 to 1973. Specifically, the individual equations account for a large portion of the variance with parameter estimates that are both sharp and plausible and the model as a whole generates extremely accurate historical forecasts. Finally, I investigate the impact of war, presidential party, and negative public opinion on individual decisions, basing my inquiry on the assumption that the model accurately represents U.S. defense expenditure policy making. The results show that different events have an impact on only some of the steps in the policy-making process and the steps which are so affected vary from event to event. As a consequence of these results, I argue that the Reactive Linkage Model, and hence the idea of combining the key elements from competing explanations, represents a positive step forward in the study of U.S. defense expenditure policy making.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 941 - 957
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1978

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments and criticisms of Paul Abramson, John Aldrich, Kriss Ostrom, Brian Silver, and three anonymous referees on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Allison, Graham T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little Biown.Google Scholar
Bowman, Gary W., Davis, Otto A., Gailliot, Henry J., and Hess, Alan C. (1967). “A Note on Supplemental Appropriations in the Federal Budgetary Process.” In Tullock, Gordon (ed.), Papers on Non-Market Decision Making, Vol. 2, Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy, University of Virginia, pp. 91–101.Google Scholar
Caspary, William R. (1967). “Richardson's Models of Arms Races.” International Studies Quarterly 11:63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christ, Carl F. (1966). Econometric Models and Methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Collins, John M. and Chwat, John S. (1976). The United States/Soviet Military Balance. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Crecine, John P. (1971). “Defense Budgeting.” In Cooper, W. W., Byrne, R. F., Charnes, A., Davis, O. A. and Gilford, D. (eds.), Studies in Budgeting. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., pp. 210–61.Google Scholar
Crecine, John P. (1969). Governmental Problem Solving. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Crecine, John P. and Fischer, Gregory W. (1973). “On Resource Allocation in the U.S. Department of Defense.” In Cotter, Cornelius P. (ed.), Political Science Annual 4:181–236.Google Scholar
Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Dempster, M. A. H., and Wildavsky, Aaron (1974). “Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditures.” British Journal of Political Science 4:419–52.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Dempster, M. A. H., and Wildavsky, Aaron (1966a). “A Theory of the Budgetary Process.” American Political Science Review 60:529–47.Google Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Dempster, M. A. H., and Wildavsky, Aaron (1966b). “On the Process of Budgeting: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriations.” In Tullock, Gordon (ed.), Papers on Non-Market Decision Making. Charlottesville, Va.: Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy, University of Virginia, pp. 63–132.Google Scholar
Finney, John W. (1976). “White House Gaining on Defense Budget.” New York Times, 11 February 1976, p. 14.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton (1951). “Comment.” In National Bureau of Economic Research (ed.), Conference on Business Cycles. New York, pp. 107–14.Google Scholar
Gist, John R. (1974). Mandatory Expenditures and the Defense Sector. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Gray, Colin S. (1971). “The Arms Race Phenomenon.” World Politics. 24:39–79.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. (1974). “Problems of Statistical Estimation and Causal Inference in Time-Series-Regression Models.” In Costner, Herbert L. (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1973/1974. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 252–308.Google Scholar
Hoole, Francis W. (1976). Politics and Budgeting in the World Health Organization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. (1961). The Common Defense: Strategic Programs in National Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. (1972). Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kanter, Arnold (1972). “Congress and the Defense Budget: 1960–1970.” American Political Science Review 66:129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kmenta, Jan (1971). Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Korb, Lawrence J. (1973). “Congressional Impact on Defense Spending, 1962–1973.” Naval War College Review 26:49–62.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles (1959). “The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Public Administration Review 19:79–88.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, Herbert A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mueller, John E. (1973). War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Newell, Allan (1972). Human Problem-Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
NSC–68 (1975). “A Report to the National Security Council.” Naval War College Review 27:51–108.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. (1977). “Evaluating Alternative Foreign Policy Decision-Making Models: An Empirical Test Between an Arms Race Model and an Organizational Politics Model.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 21:235–66.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. (1976). “Davis, Dempster, and Wildavsky and the Defense Budget: Testing the Fiscal Hypothesis.” Unpublished Manuscript, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Richardson, Lewis F. (1960). Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War. Pittsburgh: Boxwood.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James (1971). “Toward the Study of National-International Linkages.” In Rosenau, James (ed.), The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press, pp. 305–38.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. (1972). “The Revolt of the Masses.” In Russett, Bruce M. (ed.), Peace, War and Numbers. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 299–319.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. (1970). What Price Vigilance? The Burdens of National Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schilling, Warner R. (1962). “The Politics of National Defense: Fiscal 1950.” In Schilling, Warner R., Hammond, Paul Y., and Snyder, Glenn H. (ed.), Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–266.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1945). Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Strauss, Robert P. (1972). “An Adaptive Expectations Model of the East-West Arms Race.” Papers, Peace Research Society (International) 19:29–34.Google Scholar
Stromberg, John L. (1970). The Internal Mechanisms of Defense Budget Process–Fiscal 1953–1968. United States Air Force Project Rand, RM–6243–PR. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.Google Scholar
Wanat, John (1974). “Bases of Budgetary Incrementalism.” American Political Science Review 68:1221–28.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.