Abstract
In 1945 only Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa in the third-world possessed domestic arms industries which produced weapons systems other than small arms and ammunition.1 By the end of the 1960s, however, twenty-seven third-world countries were producing equipment for their armed forces. For the most part, production was still largely confined to small arms and ammunition. By the early 1980s, according to SIPRI,2 eleven third-world countries had established aircraft industries, while nine countries had developed indigenous shipbuilding industries, and six nations produced missiles and armoured vehicles. While the number of new third-world nations with domestic defence programmes seems to have slowed down somewhat since the mid-1980s, some of the advanced weapons systems in these countries had reached the point where they were competing with established arms suppliers.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, World Armaments and Disarmament, SIPRI Yearbook: 1981 (Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis, 1981). p. 76.
Herbert Wulf, ‘Arms Production in the Third World’, in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbook, 1985 (Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis, 1985), pp. 329–30.
Carol Evans, ‘Reappraising Third-World Arms Production’, Survival (March/April 1986), p. 99.
See, for example, Clive Gray, ‘Toward a Conceptual Framework for Macroeconomic Evaluation of Public Enterprise Performance in Mixed Economies’, in Robert Floyd, et al. (eds), Public Enterprise in Mixed Economies: Some Macroeconomic Aspects (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1984), pp. 35–108; Peter Tehral, ‘Foreign Exchange Costs of the Indian Military, 1950–1972’, Journal of Peace Research (1982), pp. 251–9; and Ron Ayres, ‘Arms Production as a Form of Import Substituting Industrialization: The Turkish Case’, World Development (September 1983), pp. 813–24.
Raimo Vayrynen, ‘The Arab Organization of Industrialization: A Case Study in the Multinational Production of Arms’, Current Research on Peace and Violence (1979), p. 66.
See, for example, the country studies of Argentina and Venezuela in Robert E. Looney, The Political Economy of Latin American Defence Expenditures (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1986). See also the country studies in James Katz (ed.), Arms Production in Developing Countries (Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1984); Maja Naur, ‘Industrialization and Transfer of Civilian and Military Technology to the Arab Countries’, Current Research on Peace and Violence (1980), pp. 153–76; J. Bayo Adekanye, ‘Domestic Production of Arms and the Defense Industries Corporation of Nigeria’, Current Research on Peace and Violence (1983), pp. 258–69; and Andrew L. Ross, Arms Production in Developing Countries: The Continuing Proliferation of Conventional Weapons (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1981).
Vayrynen, ‘Arab Organization of Industrialization’.
See for example, Michael Brzoska and Thomas Ohlson (eds), Arms Production in the Third World (Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis, 1986).
Ibid., p. 27.
Ibid., p. 28.
H. J. Bruton, ‘The Import Substitution Strategy of Economic Development: A Survey’, Pakistan Development Review (1970), pp. 123–46.
Ibid.
See, for example, Ulrich Albrecht, ‘West Germany and Italy: New Strategies’, Journal of International Affairs (Summer 1986), pp. 129–42; see also the pressures placed on Brazilian and Israeli producers in Clovis Brigagao, ‘The Brazilian Arms Industry’, Journal of International Affairs (Summer 1986), pp. 101–5; and Aaron Klieman, ‘Middle Range Arms Suppliers: The Israeli Case’, Journal of International Affairs (Summer 1986), pp. 115–29.
Ron Ayres, ‘The Turkish Case’, p. 813.
Ibid., pp. 813–14.
Obviously there is quite a high degree of correlation between these variables, making definitive statistical tests extremely difficult. See, for example, William Loehr, ‘A Statistical Preference’, in Craig Liske, William Loehr and John McCamant (eds), Comparative Public Policy: Issues, Theories, and Methods (New York: John Wiley, 1975), pp. 11–20; B. M. Russett, ‘Some Decisions in the Regression of Time Series Data’, in J. F. Henderson (ed.), Mathematical Application in Political Science (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1971), pp. 31–52; and Robert Looney, ‘Factors Underlying Venezuelan Defense Expenditures, 1950–83; A Research Note’, Arms Control (May 1986), pp. 74–101.
See, for example, Robert Looney and P. C. Frederiksen, ‘Defense Expenditures, External Public Debt, and Growth in Developing Countries’, Journal of Peace Research (December 1986), pp. 329–38; and P. C. Frederiksen and Robert Looney, ‘Another Look at the Defense Spending and Development Hypothesis’, Defense Analysis (1985), pp. 205–10.
For an excellent summary of this literature see Merilee S. Grindle, ‘Civil-Military Relations and the Budgetary Politics in Latin America’, Armed Forces & Society (Winter 1987), pp. 255–76. See also R. D. McKinley and A. S. Cohen, ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Political and Economic Performance of Military and Civilian Regimes’, Comparative Politics (October 1975), pp. 1–30; and Robert Looney, ‘Impact of Increased External Debt Servicing on Government Budgetary Priorities: The Case of Argentina’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences (1987), pp. 25–32.
Cf. Gordon Richards, ‘The Rise and Decline of Military Authoritarianism in Latin America: The Role of Stabilization Policy’, SAIS Review (Summer-Fall 1985), pp. 155–71.
The classification used for military and civilian regimes was that developed by Ruth Leger Sivard in her World Military and Social Expenditures: 1983 (Washington: World Priorities, 1983), p. 11.
United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1972–1982 (Washington: United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1984). In part this is because of the completeness of data for that year, and because this year preceded the disruption in world trade caused by the debt crisis.
Stephanie G. Neuman, Third World Military Industries’, International Organization (Winter 1984), pp. 67–198.
The regression coefficients are in standardized form to facilitate a direct comparison of the relative strength of each variable in impacting on arms imports.
Cf. Luis Landau, ‘Savings Functions for Latin America’, in Hollis Chenery (ed), Studies in Development Planning (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 299–321 for an operational procedure for identifying the constraints binding growth in developing countries.
Cf. Robert Looney and P. C. Frederiksen, The Future Demand for Military Expenditures in Argentina’, Arms Control (forthcoming, 1987) for a definition of this concept.
The variable used for this purpose is the World Bank’s ‘public external commitments’ and is published annually by the World Bank in their World Development Report.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1988 Robert E. Looney
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Looney, R.E. (1988). Has Indigenous Third-World Arms Production been Effective in Reducing Third-World Arms Imports?. In: Third-World Military Expenditure and Arms Production. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09658-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09658-9_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09660-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09658-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)