Soviet Military Strength Based on Economic Weakness; D. R. Lee

There is no doubt that the Soviet economy is weak, especially the civilian sector. Economic decisions in the Soviet Union are controlled predominantly by central planners, and will re main so into the foreseeable future, Gorba chev's policy of perestroika notwithstanding. Central planners are incapable of either ac quiring or acting upon the information needed to keep production decisions responsive to the changing preferences of millions of consumers. This explains why the Soviet civilian economy is characterized by unimaginative managers, poorly motivated workers, inferior products, and chronic shortages. Dwight Lee is professor of economics at the University of Georgia and holds the Ramsey Chair in Private Enterprise. Contrary to the prevailing understanding, however, poor economic performance en courages military spending in the Soviet Union. It does so in two important ways. Economic in efficiency in the Soviet's civilian sector 1) in creases the importance Soviet leaders attach to military strength and 2) reduces the costs of producing that strength.

In contrast with the United States, the Soviet Union is a superpower for one reason only: its military strength. Without its military power, the Soviet Union would be a large but poor country, and its leaders would have little standing or influence in the world community. Within the Soviet power structure, the impo tence of the economy accentuates the impor tance of the military. Poor economic performance also reduces the real cost of Soviet military spending. The cost of producing anything, whether bombs or band-aids, is the value of output that must be forgone. The Soviet Union may be less effi cient absolutely at producing military hardware than the U.S., but the production of military equipment costs less in the Soviet Union be cause, with its inefficient civilian economy, this production crowds out less civilian output than it does in the United States. The Soviet Union has what economists refer to as a com parative advantage in producing military power.

297 Soviet missiles in Red Square during festivities marking the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Soviet leaders have responded predictably to this comparative advantage. They know that if the Soviet Union were to distribute its re sources among the military and civilian sectors in the same proportion as does the U.S., then it would cease to be a superpower. But a large sacrifice in military strength would produce little improvement in what would remain a weak civilian economy. Thus, Soviet leaders have lavished resources on the military sector, and created the military machine we confront today. The INF treaty raises the costs of the military competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union because it increases the emphasis on conventional weapons. Despite the over whelming economic advantage the U.S. and its NATO allies have over the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, any arms agreement that increases the costs of military competition plays to Soviet strength. The Western democra cies can compete dollar for dollar with the So viet bloc militarily, but there is little evidence that they will.

In economically efficient democracies, strong political pressures exist to subordinate military spending to civilian consumption. The convenient belief is that the same pressures exist within the Soviet Union, and are intensi fied by the weakness of the Soviet economy. This is a delusion. The ever-present danger in a democracy is that delusions will control our de cisions. This danger is at no time more threat ening than when it leads to attempts to increase our security by trusting in arms control agree ments such as the INF. 0 298 School Censorship: Compulsion Creates Conflict by John Semmens " SChOOl Censorship Upheld" read the headline in my city's daily newspaper. The January 13th ruling by the Su preme Court that school officials have the right to control the content of the student newspaper is stirring controversy. Unfortunately, little at tention is being directed to the root of the problem: public schools.