Profile image
By John Rolls (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

RAND: Savings from Cutting US Overseas Security Dwarfed by Lost US Trade

Friday, November 4, 2016 10:44
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Military special forces


By Jim Kouri  /

Reducing U.S. overseas security commitments, including U.S. troops stationed abroad as well as U.S. security treaties, could lead to greatly reduced U.S. trade with other countries, with the economic costs from lost trade estimated to be more than triple any associated savings in U.S.defense spending, according to a new report from the Homeland Security News Wire on Thursday.

Since the 1940s, U.S. leadership of the international security system has been justified, in part, by claims of a positive relationship between global stability and domestic prosperity. Advocates of this school of thought — the “engagement school” — have argued that the political and military stability provided by the United States also fosters international economic stability, benefiting the United States by fostering trade in goods and services and access to global capital, which lead to higher rates of economic growth at home.

RAND notes that proponents of the “retrenchment school,” however, have called for steep reductions in U.S. overseas security commitments. Advocates of this school contend that the U.S. commitments are too costly to sustain, allow partner governments to free-ride off the U.S. defense budget, and fail to deliver the promised security and stability.

“Given the challenges that the United States is facing in ensuring economic opportunity and prosperity to all Americans, it’s not surprising that the extent of U.S. security commitments overseas is a topic of vigorous debate,” said Daniel Egel, lead author of the study and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

“Estimating the economic returns the United States receives from these overseas commitments is a necessary precursor to an informed debate,” Egel said. “Until now, it has been extraordinarily difficult to measure these economic returns empirically.”

Egel and his RAND colleagues used advanced econometric techniques and new data on overseas security commitments to explore whether and to what extent the United States derives economic benefits from its overseas security commitments.

The full gamut of U.S. security commitments includes the total number of U.S. troops stationed overseas, along with security treaties.

Fighting ISIS is one national security issue that entails long-range plans.Fighting ISIS is one national security issue that entails long-range plans.

Afghan American troopsThe RAND analysis finds evidence that U.S. security commitments have significant positive effects on U.S. bilateral trade. The analysis also finds evidence that countries with U.S. security commitments trade more with one another than they would without those commitments. At the same time, the study finds no significant evidence that U.S. security commitments influence either the likelihood or intensity of civil conflict, either for better or for worse.

Proponents from the retrenchment school of thought, specifically those in academia, have suggested that the reduced defense spending that would result from an 80-percent retrenchment in U.S. overseas security commitments could boost U.S. gross domestic product by as much as $139 billion per year.

However, RAND researchers estimate that a 50 percent retrenchment inU.S. overseas security commitments could reduce U.S. bilateral trade in goods and services annually by as much as $577 billion, excluding trade with Canada and Mexico. This would amount to about 18 percent of the nation’s total trade. Based on conservative assumptions, the resulting annual decline in the nation’s GDP would be $490 billion (in 2015 U.S. dollars).

Thus, the losses are conservatively estimated to be three and a half times greater than the gains that result from a large drop in defense spending.

“This suggests that U.S. policymakers should carefully weigh the potential losses against the potential gains when considering the desirability of large-scale retrenchments of U.S. overseas security commitments,” Egel said.

The RAND analysts explored a range of plausible scenarios premised on a range of different assumptions. In the vast majority of scenarios, the losses outweighed the gains.

RAND says that the study is unique in that it provides a comprehensive analysis of a disparate range of outcomes, instead of a single economic outcome. New data also allowed the researchers to examine the economic effects of security-treaty relationships and explore whether troops from different military services influence trade differently.

More great articles here:

We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.