Raising Military Spending Increases Output | the Economist

Stimulus: Raising military spending increases output | The Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/stimulu...

World politics Print edition

Business & finance

Economics

Science & technology

Culture

Blogs

Debate & discuss

Multimedia

American politics

Stimulus

Oct 5th 2011, 15:48 by M.S.

A WHILE back I noted a post by a major tea-party figure (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica /2011/08/stimulus-thinking?fsrc=rss) eagerly supporting the bog-standard mainstream economic assumption that higher government spending creates higher economic output...provided it was military spending. Most people would acknowledge that there's no particular reason why military spending should be different than other kinds of government spending on this score. But it turns out that military spending is actually a singularly good proxy for measuring just how big the multiplier for government spending is. A new paper by Jón Steinsson and Emi Nakamura (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/7056) , assistant economics professors at Columbia, looks at boosts in military spending over the past half-century and separates their impacts in states with lots of military contractors and personnel, and those with relatively few—specifically, California and Illinois. The difference allows them to run a regression to see how much the extra military spending boosted the economy.

In recent work, our approach has been to exploit regional variation in military spending in the US (Nakamura and Steinsson 2011). We use the fact that when the US embarks upon a military buildup, there is a systematic tendency for spending to increase more in some states than others. For example, when aggregate military spending in the US rises by 1% of GDP, military spending in California on average rises by about 3% of California GDP, while military spending in Illinois rises by only about 0.5% of Illinois GDP. Under the assumption that the US doesn’t...