Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Scholars of grand strategy debate the merits of U.S. forward military presence and alliances. The authors of this report explore one element of this debate: the potential economic benefits of these security policies. The authors draw on the existing literature to identify possible pathways through which U.S. forward military presence and alliances could lead to economic benefits. In theory, these pathways include preventing conflicts that disrupt U.S. trade and investment, reducing fears of war that could inhibit peacetime exchange, and increasing U.S. bargaining leverage over security partners in economic negotiations. In practice, the United States has higher levels of bilateral trade with and investment in allied countries. Importantly, however, the existing literature has not evaluated whether this increase in bilateral trade and investment benefits the U.S. economy as a whole. The authors develop a new model that provides evidence that U.S. alliances increase bilateral trade in manufactured goods and that this has a modest but positive effect on U.S. economic welfare. Decisions about U.S. alliances and forward military presence should be based on a range of factors beyond these possible economic benefits. This report does not examine other pathways through which economic benefits may accrue or costs may arise - or effects on allies' and adversaries' behaviors - and therefore does not make recommendations as to whether or how the United States should change its security policies. Instead, the report describes potential economic benefits associated with U.S. military engagement, which should inform a broader assessment of the U.S. approach to the world.

Alliances --- Economic aspects --- United States --- Military policy --- Economic aspects. --- Military relations

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

National Critical Functions (NCFs) are government and private-sector functions so vital that their disruption would debilitate security, the economy, public health, or safety. Researchers developed a risk management framework to assess and manage the risk that climate change poses to the NCFs and use the framework to assess 27 priority NCFs. This report details the risk assessment portions of the framework. The team assessed risk based on a scale that the National Risk Management Center uses that ranges from a rating of 1 (no disruption or normal operations) to 5 (critical disruption on a national scale). A rating of 3 (moderate disruption) on the national level, although it still allows normal functioning on a national scale, should be regarded as highly significant and includes the potential for major disruptions or failure of NCFs at a local or regional level and for significant economic loss, health and safety impacts, and other consequences. Using this risk rating scale and projected changes in eight climate drivers identified in the analysis (flooding, sea-level rise, tropical cyclones and hurricanes, severe storm systems, extreme cold, extreme heat, wildfire, and drought), the researchers examined how NCFs could be affected by and at risk from climate change in three future time periods (by 2030, by 2050, and by 2100) and two future greenhouse gas emission scenarios (current and high).

Infrastructure (Economics) --- Climatic changes --- Public works --- Forecasting. --- Economic aspects --- Evaluation. --- Protection.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Climate change will induce increasingly severe and frequent hazards, such as heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. In turn, these hazards lead to increased spending in such areas as disaster relief, health care, and insurance programs. Climate change will also likely lead to a net reduction in revenue by affecting productivity, labor hours, and total labor force. The combination of these factors results in a substantial net loss to the federal budget because of climate change. However, these losses are currently underrepresented by the methodology used to quantify the costs and benefits of climate policy. In this report, the authors examine the ways that climate change and climate change mitigation policy affect the federal budget. They recommend ways to improve the modeling of such effects and provide an overview of a budget model that can be used to score legislation. This report is intended for modelers seeking to capture important relationships between climate, federal policy, and the economy. The authors aim to inform the eventual development of such a model. In particular, the report's analysis might be useful for analysts involved in budget modeling at policy research organizations, such as the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and other policymakers involved with scoring legislation.