Congress and Competition
ResearchPublished 1977
ResearchPublished 1977
Examines greater competition in the acquisition of major weapons systems from perspective of Congress. The primary direct benefits of competition are lower prices and greater technological achievement. An additional perceived benefit is that competition insures fairness. Factors against greater competition include interest in interservice commonality, antipathy toward significant near-term expenditures, evolution of defense spending into a tool of social and economic policy, and relationships of Congress to the defense industry and military. The paper concludes Congress would not favor rigid price competition that would close off distributional (nonprice and nonperformance) considerations. A hard-sell of the cost benefits of any advanced competitive acquisition strategy will miss its mark if (1) the strategy clearly reduces congressional flexibility, or (2) it is not supplemented by appeals to considerations other than cost savings.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series 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 www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
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.