Report
The Army's Local Economic Effects
Mar 8, 2021
This report presents findings on the economic activity supported by total Army spending in each of the 435 congressional districts for fiscal years 2012–2014. Using input/output models, researchers estimated that in FY 2014, the Army directly spent approximately $121 million in the median congressional district (in 2012 dollars), translating into about 4,200 jobs and contributing to $375 million of economic output.
Format | File Size | Notes |
---|---|---|
PDF file | 0.4 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Format | File Size | Notes |
---|---|---|
PDF file | 0.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Format | List Price | Price | |
---|---|---|---|
Add to Cart | Paperback64 pages | $20.00 | $16.00 20% Web Discount |
This report was superseded by a revised, updated edition in early 2021.
This report presents findings on the economic activity supported by total Army spending in each of the 435 congressional districts in fiscal years 2012–2014. To estimate this activity, researchers used district-level input-output (I/O) models and a national-level I/O model known as IMPLAN. Each district-level model is used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced effects of national-level Army spending that affects a particular district. In this context, direct effects are the total Army spending within a district; indirect and induced effects represent the local economic activity that supports both the direct spending and the in-district demand generated from Army spending outside the district. Indirect effects capture interindustry linkages, while induced effects capture the effects of household incomes.
For each congressional district, this report provides the following estimates:
Results are aggregated by state and the economic activity associated with Army spending is separated by component where applicable.
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
Methodology
Chapter Three
Data Sources
Chapter Four
Results
Chapter Five
Conclusion
Appendix A
Preprocessing of Direct Army Spending Data
Appendix B–1
Alabama—Minnesota (available separately)
Appendix B–2
Mississippi—Wyoming (available separately)
This research was sponsored by the U.S. Army, G-8, and conducted within the Strategy and Resources Program, a part of the RAND Arroyo Center.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
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.
The RAND Corporation 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.