|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
107553
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although life cycle costing (LCC) is internationally considered the best instrument for evaluating investments in military equipment, its practical application remains insufficiently studied. This paper presents an international panorama of systems used for evaluating military investments, identifying the procedures and instruments most commonly employed, and identifying their strengths and weaknesses. The LCC methodology is then systematically applied, revealing opportunities for improvements. The research methodology is based on a questionnaire sent to 64 countries, inquiring into their standard practice regarding decision taking, cost estimation, risk management and performance indicators. The results obtained show that the main limitations facing these countries in employing LCC methodology concern weaknesses in their organizational structures and in their technical regulations, with particular respect to cost breakdown structures. Also significant are the scant number of cost estimation models available, the absence of up-to-date, reliable databases and the limited use made of appropriate techniques for risk and uncertainty estimation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134026
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Budgetary restrictions resulting from the present international economic crisis have tightened the need to improve efficiency in defense spending, leading to the armed forces having to undertake their duties with fewer resources. Previous reports on the subject have looked into the determining factors and effects of military spending but very few studies have analyzed the determinants for the modernization of the methodology for assessing efficiency. Thus, using a multiple regression statistical model, we have analyzed the appraisal systems in place in 28 countries to identify factors that influence the development of economic assessment of military expenditure. Our findings have revealed three factors that may favor the improvement of appraisal systems with regard to military expenditure: the quality of governance, size of the armed forces, and unemployment levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
130472
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States is in the early stages of a substantial national project: reorienting its foreign policy to commit greater attention and resources to the Asia-Pacific region. This reformulation of U.S. priorities has emerged during a period of much-needed strategic reassessment, after more than a decade of intense engagement with South Asia and the Middle East. It is premised on the idea that the history of the twenty-first century will be written largely in the Asia-Pacific, a region that welcomes U.S. leadership and rewards U.S. engagement with a positive return on political, economic, and military investments.
As a result, the Obama administration is orchestrating a comprehensive set of diplomatic, economic, and security initiatives now known as the "pivot," or "rebalancing," to Asia. The policy builds on more than a century of U.S. involvement in the region, including important steps taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations; as President Barack Obama has rightly noted, the United States is in reality and rhetoric already a "Pacific power." But the rebalancing does represent a significant elevation of Asia's place in U.S. foreign policy.
Questions about the purpose and scope of the new approach emerged as soon as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered what remains the clearest articulation of the strategy, and first used the term "pivot" to describe it, in a 2011 article in Foreign Policy. Almost three years later, the Obama administration still confronts the persistent challenge of explaining the concept and delivering on its promise. But despite the intense scrutiny and short-term setbacks faced by the policy, there is little doubt that a major shift is well under way. And whether Washington wants it to or not, Asia will command more attention and resources from the United States, thanks to the region's growing prosperity and influence -- and the enormous challenges the region poses. The question, then, is not whether the United States will focus more on Asia but whether it can do so with the necessary resolve, resources, and wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|