Can the U.S. military help economic growth in Iraq? Afghanistan? Africa? I've been pondering this question for some time. There seem to be a half dozen interesting articles and online debates all of a sudden. But let me start by confessing that I have looked at the historical data. Here's the abstract of a working paper I co-authored with Garett Jones:
The necessity of military force in providing security for nation-building is a common assumption among policymakers and international affairs experts, but there has never been an econometric analysis of the impact of troops on growth. We use a newly constructed disaggregated dataset on the deployment of U.S. troops over the years 1950-2000, and discover a positive relationship with host country economic growth, robust to multiple control variables.
My friend Dan Rice co-authored a WSJ oped today with John Nagl (both West Point grads and Iraq vets). Full disclosure: I am on the advisory board of Rice's Marshall Fund.
American counterinsurgency doctrine recommends that the majority of effort be spent on economic development and governance, not on direct combat operations. To date, however, we have not followed our own advice: The U.S. still spends more than 90% of its investment dollars in Iraq on troops, equipment, weapons and logistics.
True, as security has dramatically improved, U.S. commanders on the ground have expended more than $4 billion in emergency response funds to provide Iraqis with jobs such as street cleaning, repair and garbage collection, and on essential services such as medical care and water treatment. But this pot of money was never intended to create long-term jobs, and commanders are restricted from investing the funds in private-sector enterprises.
As we withdraw from Iraq's cities we must seek to replace our bases with businesses. An enterprise fund for Iraq is a good way to start the process of achieving victory through economic development.
I'm sure Bill Easterly would be skeptical of the Rice-Nagl proposal. He would probably claim that it makes the classic aid mistake of pushing investment. Indeed, Easterly very recently panned the Army Stability Operations Field Manual, touted among some as a Petraeus achievement in counterinsurgency strategy as opposed to conventional seek and destroy:
My usual MO is to ridicule such documents. But my wells of satire are starting to run dry after years of deployment against utopians like Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Collier. More in sorrow than in anger, I see the utopian social engineering craze might affect actions of people with guns. I am sad for Iraqis and Afghans that the U.S. Army is operating in their countries guided by such misguided ideas.
I tend to agree with Easterly that investment funds will flow into impoversihed regions - without an aid push - if the environment is right. And I have mixed feelings about the Field Manual. But I wonder if Easterly is painting with too broad a brush. Can we rule out effort to get the environment right? Some thoughts:
1. There are many different opinions in play in international development, so this is not a simple issue of two ends of a spectrum. Here is an online debate with articles by Collier, Easterly, and others at the Boston Review.Paul Collier diverges from others in the aid universe by calling for an expansive kind of intervention. Easterly, I believe, represents a camp that is skeptical of almost all development efforts. Others share his skepticism of internationalist (e.g. UN, IMF) efforts, but favor American/Western direct interventions. I assume President Obama is in this latter camp, along with many active duty soldiers and myself. Yet even within the military, there are many opinions about how to effectively defeat an insurgency.
2. Easterly is an Africa expert. But is he overapplying the failures of Africa and the futility of aid there to a broader lesson against any kind of intervention?
3. Isn't the real question whether the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq will help that country's economic institutions develop? It is discouraging that measures of institutions like the WSJ/Heritage Index of Economic Freedom are unable to score Iraq or Afghanistan.
4. What is up with Africa? Why is that region, in sharp contrast with the far East, stagnant despite the billions of dollars in aid and attention over the last 60 years? Take a look at the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo, an African woman.

regarding Africa... perhaps the region is stagnant BECAUSE of billions of dollars of aid rather than DESPITE the aid.
Posted by: Derek Ozkal | July 07, 2009 at 10:47 AM
@Derek,
It wouldn't be so sure. Moyo makes the case that it is actually the aid that has been responsible for the sluggish economic growth in that it corrodes public checks on government. In short, why bother electing your leaders when the real purveyors of public goods are aid agencies?
Posted by: Charles C. Johnson | July 07, 2009 at 12:52 PM
The only real way to keep our economy strong is not by raising taxes, but by keeping taxes low, fair and simple. I've been looking for a way to take action and contact our legislators and sign petitions and found some good policy the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs (here). I don't have a lot of money or time, but I figure this will help other people do good.
Posted by: janetbrown | July 07, 2009 at 01:52 PM
Oops... I messed up the link. http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=42
Posted by: janetbrown | July 07, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Charles, perhaps my view isn't translating well into type, but I agree with Moyo's point based on the limited knowledge I have of Moyo's view. I think that aid to Africa has created a multitude of incentives against economic growth.
Posted by: Derek Ozkal | July 07, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Oh forgive me Derek. I misread you entirely.
Posted by: Charles C. Johnson | July 08, 2009 at 01:19 PM
At the same time, the presence of American troops is usually (always?) accompanied by money and/or more favorable trade agreements.
Posted by: Jacob Mays | July 10, 2009 at 02:26 PM
I like this comment: "I've been looking for a way to take action and contact our legislators and sign petitions and found some good policy the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs (here)..."
Posted by: valtrex online | February 23, 2010 at 11:43 AM
The comments seem to be talking all around the question but not addressing the heart of the entreprenurial debate. The issue should be: How to get state capital around the financial logjam and into the hands of the entrepreneur.
Posted by: louis vuitton | April 08, 2010 at 09:27 PM
Something I cannot understand about the foundations of microeconomics: Why are goods rather than human activities treated as fundamental?
Posted by: replica watches | July 15, 2010 at 05:27 PM
I love your blog very much, more more info, I will concern it again!
Posted by: mbt shoes | September 09, 2010 at 03:22 AM
I love your blog very much, more more info, I will concern it again!
Posted by: mbt shoes | September 09, 2010 at 03:22 AM