Expeditionary Economics is an emerging field of economic enquiry that focuses on the rebuilding and reconstructing of economies in post-conflict nations and providing support to disaster-struck nations. The term was first introduced in an essay by Carl Schramm, the former President and CEO of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.[1] It focuses on need for good Economic planning on the part of developed nations to help prevent the creation of failed states. It also emphasizes the need for the structuring on new firms to rebuild the national economies.[2]
Since then, the theory has been used effectively by the U.S. Government and the U.S Army to restructure the economies of countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and helping Haiti which suffered from a severe earthquake. Its aim is to provide economic stabilization and support the counterinsurgency tactics in such nations.[3]
History edit
Expeditionary Economics first appeared as a feature article by Carl Schramm in Foreign Affairs in the May/June edition in 2010.[4]
Theory edit
According to Schramm, governments and armies must focus on infusing entrepreneurship and "messy capitalism" which prevails is the U.S.[5] He describes the strategy adopted by economists to quickly establish a trajectory toward economic growth with the formation of firms that can generate rapid growth in revenue and employment. He also asks the U.S. Army to "treat economic reconstruction as part of any successful three-legged strategy of invasion, stabilization or pacification, and economic reconstruction."
The Pentagon has confirmed that it has applied the theory as a “weapon” to stabilize operations in countries with past-conflict such as Iraq and Afghanistan and has planned various measures which will come into effect just as the army leaves the countries. With special reference to Iran and Afghanistan, reports show that significant resources have been dedicated to such efforts over the past decade, with hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the two countries.
The theory rests to a huge extent on the dynamism of new firms, which constantly introduce innovations into the economy. The U.S Government's recent engagements have made it appreciate that post-conflict economic reconstruction must become a core competence of the U.S. military. However, their actions do not present any such appreciation.
Criticism edit
There has widespread criticism of the theory, particularly on the point that it should be carried out by the invading army. Many economists questioned the relative chances of its application by other post-conflict and military nations. There have also been questions on whether the U.S Army should be held liable or whether the objectives should be outsourced to private-sector enterprises or to other departments of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Army Stability Operations field manual (published in 2009)[6] offers no relevant guidance on what role economic development should play in the United States' post conflict strategy or how to help build dynamic, growth-oriented economies.
See Also edit
Footnotes edit
- Nanto, Dick K. and National Security: Issues and Implications for U. S. Policy. DAINE Publishing House. Pg 4
- Milonakis, Dimitris; Fine, Ben. From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory. Pg 306
References edit
- ^ "Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Website". Retrieved March 16, 2013.
- ^ "Expeditionary Economics: A New Model for Post-Conflict Countries". Milken Institute. Retrieved March 29, 2013.
- ^ "Role of Military in Reconstruction". Center for Conflict Studies. Retrieved March 29, 2013.
- ^ Schramm, Carl (2010). "Expeditionary Economics, Carl Schramm". Foreign Affairs.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Haiti 2010 Earthquake and Expeditionary Economics". Retrieved March 29, 2013.
- ^ U.S Army Stability Operations Field Manual, 2009. University of Michigan Press. 24 February 2009. ISBN 9780472033904.