The Army's Local Economic Effects

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1119Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. iii PrefaceAs a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration, the U.S. Army experienced an approximate $15.35 billion budget decrease in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and initiated a decrease of more than 106,000 soldiers and civilian employees from all components. Although full sequestration-level cuts were not imposed in FYs 2014 and 2015, their return could mean that the Army's cumulative total budget reductions would be more than $79 billion from its baseline for FYs 2016-2020. Even if automatic sequestration is legislatively altered or overturned, there could be pressure on the Army to further decrease its force size and expenditures as the United States continues to increase its ratio of debt to gross domestic product. Despite the near-term (and perhaps temporary) relief from sequestration, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review states that the Regular Army will decrease strength from its wartime high of 570,000 to 440,000-450,000 soldiers. 1 Although key decisions have not yet been made, and there are numerous factors involved, plausible consequences for a return to sequestration-level funding include further decreases in the Army's Regular, Reserve, and Guard forces-cutting Regular Army end strength to 420,000, Army National Guard to 315,000, and U.S. Army Reserve to 185,000. The government civilian workforce in each of these components would also be reduced.Decreasing Army spending, soldiers, and government civilian positions will produce broad economic effects in the states and communities that experience these reductions, including the loss of additional jobs and output linked to Army procurement and personal spending by soldiers and government civilians whose positions are eliminated. To help inform decisionmaking in th...

Pork, parties, and priorities: Partisan politics and overseas military deployments

“…In the districts RAND studied, fewer than 7% of districts had less than $100 million in Army-related economic output, whereas 20% of districts had more than $1 billion. While the modal Army-related economic output was around $400 million per district, this is still a huge contribution to each district's economy and a near-universal concern for MCs (Schnaubelt et al, 2015).…”

“…All data, replication materials, and instructions regarding analytical materials upon which published claims rely are available online through the SAGE CMPS website: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ suppl/10.1177/0738894221809702 Notes 1. Correlation of 0.9753 between personnel and economic impact (Schnaubelt et al, 2015). 2.…”