|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||
| by
Björn
Hagelin
and Elisabeth Sköns About the authors |
||||||||||||
|
* Chapter
summary from the SIPRI Yearbook 2003: A critical
discussion is now required about the provision and use of quantitative
indicators for security analysis, such as military expenditure,
military production and arms transfers. A fundamental question
for all producers and users of quantitative indicators is: how
useful are the data? The purpose of the SIPRI databases on the
military sector is to produce the most reliable and consistent
global data that it is possible to collect, based on official
and other open information. However, there are serious limitations
to the use of all of these data sets. The challenge is to adapt
the indicators and/or supplement them in the light of changes
in the security environment. The limitations
to the use of data on national military expenditure relate not
only to reliability and international comparability but also
to contemporary changes in the security environment. Three major
changes give rise to this challenge: the global pattern of armed
conflict; the increased focus on the threat of transnational
terrorism; and the trend for a stronger link to be made between
military security and economic development—reflected in
the new concept of ‘human security’. While it will
continue to be important to provide data on military expenditure,
there is also a need to develop alternative measures of the cost
of security provision—in particular for non-military activities
associated with a broader concept of security. There are also
various options for improving quantitative approaches to the
study of security-related issues. The objectives
of a broader security agenda illustrate the shortcomings of data
on arms production and international arms transfers. New forms
of international defence industry cooperation, both horizontal
and vertical; new political (national security) as well as commercial
demands for arms exports; and less clear borders between certain
military and civilian technologies all complicate the production,
as well as use of, arms transfers data. There is a need to incorporate
‘internationalization’ and changing circumstances into
the methodology of the study of arms transfers. There is no publicly
available indicator that takes all these changes into account.
Until one is developed, it will be impossible to describe market
changes reliably and to devise and evaluate control measures.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
