How to improve the efficiency of military economy

People have long recognized that military economy can stimulate social and economic growth. "Multiplication of military consumption" is an important principle to explain this phenomenon earlier. According to this theory, if there is no army stationed in a closed area and the army's living and equipment needs are purchased from this area, then the expenditure of each unit of the army can stimulate the economic growth of this area. This stimulating effect on social economy should be called "multiplier effect". From 65438 to 0929, the United States fell into a deep economic crisis. It was not until we participated in the Second World War that we relied on the "election effect" to "solve the problem". During this period, the United States made a profit of11500 million dollars-1500 million dollars, which laid a solid foundation for its hegemonic position in the world after the war. Relying on the "multiplier effect" of the military economy, Japan is still hungry. During the Korean War, Japan accepted special orders of about 800 million dollars from the United States every year.

1952, the United States allowed Japan to "make weapons conditionally" and gradually returned 850 military factories to Japan as war compensation. In this way, during the three-year Korean War, Japan's economic base was able to breathe and gained new vitality.

However, relying solely on the "multiplier effect" to promote economic development obviously has the nature of "short-term effect" and "quenching thirst by drinking poison"-a large number of resources are used for military purposes, which will inevitably lead to the abnormal development of the national economy and the most severe social crisis. In the past, the Soviet Union invested 30-40% of its fiscal revenue in the military field all the year round, forming an economic pattern with extremely heavy military economy and extremely light civilian economy, which led to the danger of social development. Therefore, starting from the "institutional change", looking for a military economic system and building a safe and economical military economic operation mode have become the deliberate goals pursued by countries in the late 20th century.

First, introduce more market rules and commercial competition mechanisms into the military economy to reduce the "drag" of the military economy on the national economy from the system. In the 1980s, the largest 100 enterprises in the United States took about 75% of the whole national defense industry and controlled most of the military industry and production. This situation of excessive concentration makes the military economy lack vitality due to the loss or lack of competition: some enterprises rely too much on military orders to realize, change production and carry out diversified operations; However, enterprises with production privileges seriously ignore the cost, which leads to the high price of weapon systems, which greatly increases the management cost of such military enterprises and leads to low efficiency. In view of this, many countries propose to introduce more market rules and commercial competition mechanisms into the military industry economy, and gradually change the situation of excessive concentration and low efficiency of the military industry. For example, according to the "suboptimal principle", we will create an effective competitive environment for some special military industries-if only one industry operates two tank factories, the government will set up two different industries, each operating a factory. On the contrary, if there are too many enterprises in the military aircraft industry sector to maintain effective competition, the government will take various measures to encourage some of them to leave this sector. Another example is to introduce the price mechanism into military production and attract enterprises by improving the profits of the defense industry. In addition, the repair and maintenance of military equipment will be entrusted to commercial enterprises to the maximum extent.

Second, big countries develop dual-use technologies. From 65438 to 0990, the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Commerce recruited a list of the most important emerging technologies for comparison, trying to find out which technologies are the key to stimulating economic growth and which technologies are most needed to develop military potential. The result: except for a few technologies, the two lists are strikingly similar! Because of this, after the 1990s, when developing military economy, countries all over the world can always adopt various policies to give priority to those dual-use technologies with high compatibility, so as to achieve the effect of "having your cake and eat it".

1990 among the world's 100 largest military enterprises, there are 37 central European manufacturers, accounting for 57% of their total sales, and 6 Japanese manufacturers, accounting for 79%. 48 American manufacturers account for 53% of the sales burden of civilian products, and the civilian product rate of McDonnell Douglas, the world's number one arms dealer, has also increased to 1/3.

The third is to promote the integration of defense and civilian technologies process through institutional innovation. In 1980s and 1990s, many countries encountered many institutional obstacles in the process of integration of defense and civilian technologies. For example, in the years of military and economic activities, some laws and regulations have been formed, and many products that could have been produced by civilian production lines have been used for production. In particular, some inappropriate military norms and standards pose obstacles to integration of defense and civilian technologies. Many countries put forward: greatly increase the procurement scale of military and civilian products and reform the complicated legal system; Further expand the scope of defining military materials as "civilian projects"; Analyze the various departments of the military industry to make the possible military needs of each department adapt to the capabilities of existing state-owned and non-state-owned enterprises; In the design and manufacturing activities of military materials, civil norms and standards are given priority; Remove the restrictions on special military laws and regulations for low-level contractors, and gradually reduce the unique military requirements for major contractors; Vigorously promote the practice of contracting departments to undertake military logistics support, and so on.

The fourth is to establish a highly flexible mobilization system. It is an important guarantee to improve the efficiency of military economy to establish a military economic system of "small military industry and large mobilization" and build a new mobilization system. After the 1980s, as the military economy gradually returned to the society, the military economic mobilization system in many countries gradually became compatible with the military and the people, and macro organizations that could manage the military economy and social and economic activities in a unified way began to appear and were further strengthened. Secondly, with the support of information technology, the multi-level and pyramid-shaped mobilization organizational structure is gradually replaced by the flat mobilization organizational structure, and the mobilization management level is greatly reduced. The advantages of this structure are: less layers and less information loss; Mobilization units can communicate horizontally, which is conducive to mobilization and cooperation; Network communication forms more nodes, which makes the system safer and can effectively prevent the blocking of mobile systems. Third, the contract has changed the organizational structure of economic mobilization. In the information war, the division of labor between services and arms has changed, and the social industrial structure has also undergone major changes. The internal composition of the industrial sector has been greatly improved, and the contracting trend of various services and arms operations is increasing day by day, which inevitably requires the economic mobilization organization structure to develop in the contracting direction.