Cover: Defense Procurement and Public Utility Regulation.

Defense Procurement and Public Utility Regulation.

Published 1967

by George R. Hall

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback21 pages $20.00

As a contribution to the development of a theory of defense procurement regulation, this paper examines the regulatory task faced by defense officials and contrasts this with the task faced by public utility regulators. The examination has two purposes. The first is to clarify the nature of defense procurement regulations. The second is to analyze a suggestion sometimes made for improving defense procurement: to apply the public utility concept to the manufacturer of major weapon systems. The analysis reveals that public utility regulation holds little promise for solving procurement problems. Instead of seeking procurement system improvements through increased regulation, it is preferable to seek more opportunities to obtain market-generated information and to avoid the complex procedure of attempting to design new methods of regulation. 21 pp.

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

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; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.