陆军对当地的经济影 响

1、PrefaceThis report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled Update on the Armys Local Economic Effects, sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, U.S. Army. The purpose of the project was to provide Army leaders and staff officers with an updated estim

2、ate of the economic effects that Army spending produces on U.S. communities and states.This research was conducted within RAND Arroyo Centers Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) spo

3、nsored by the United States Army.RAND operates under a “Federal-Wide Assurance” (FWA00003425) and complies with the Code of Federal Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects Under United States Law (45 CFR 46), also known as “the Common Rule,” as well as with the implementation guidance set f

4、orth in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 3216.02. As applicable, this compliance includes reviews and approvals by RANDs Institutional Review Board (the Human Subjects Protection Committee) and by the U.S. Army. The views of sources utilized in this study are solely their own and do not

5、represent the official policy or position of DoD or the U.S. Government. HYPERLINK l _TOC_250022 Preface iiiIntroduction 1 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250021 Alabama 5 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250020 Alaska 25 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250019 Arizona 35 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250018 Arkansas 57 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250017 California 71

6、HYPERLINK l _TOC_250016 Colorado 169 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250015 Connecticut 189 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250014 Delaware 203 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250013 Florida 213 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250012 Georgia 269 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250011 Hawaii 301 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250010 Idaho 313 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250009 Illinois 325 HYPERLIN

7、K l _TOC_250008 Indiana 365 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250007 Iowa 387 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250006 Kansas 401 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250005 Kentucky 415 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250004 Louisiana 435 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250003 Maine 455Maryland 467 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250002 Massachusetts 489 HYPERLINK l _TOC_250001 Michigan 511 HYPE

8、RLINK l _TOC_250000 Minnesota 543To help inform decisionmaking in the event that the Army experiences significant changes to its budget, the U.S. Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office asked the RAND Arroyo Center to provide an empirical understanding of how Army spending affects communities and sta

9、tes. ftis report presents findings from RAND Arroyo Center research on the economic activity supported by Army spending at the local level.ftis appendix is an ancillary volume to The Armys Local Economic Effects.1 In Chapters Two and ftree of the main report, we explain the methodology and terminolo

10、gy used in the analysis and describe the sources of data. We provide summaries of the economic effects of Army spending at the district and state level in Chapter Four.fte results use aggregate Army spending (spending in all relevant districts and states) to derive local economic effects (effects in

11、 one district or state), including demands from the rest of the nation for a congressional districts goods and services that are attributable to Army expendi- tures. ftere are two reasons that the ratio of economic output to direct spending, often termed the “output multiplier,” likely would be larg

12、er than the economic impact of changes in only local Army spending in a given region. First, the ratio factors in the effects of both in-region and out-of-region Army spending on the economic activity within each district or state, whereas the economic impact analysis would reflect only final demand

13、 within the region. Second, in our analysis, local Army spending in a region is not necessarily equal to the change in final demand in a region because of potential subcontracting. Our results are appropriate estimates of the effect of total, nationwide Army spending on each congressional district a

14、nd state.ftis regional interpretation is important because the effects are calculated assuming that demand met by suppliers in a region (in this case, congressional district or state) is determined outside of that region. In contrast, Army spending at the national level does not meet this assumption

15、 because the funding for such spending is derived entirely from taxation of indi- viduals and firms at that same national level. Although some proportion of national-level Army spending might be funded by a subnational region, this proportion is likely to be small relative to the overall level of de

16、mand. Nevertheless, at the regional level, the estimates of economic effects are an upper bound that assumes that the funds for Army expenditures do not come at the expense of decreases in local expenditures elsewhere. fterefore, the estimates are more likely to be accurate estimates of the effect o

17、f Army expenditure as the differences grow larger between (1) Army and other federal expenditures coming into a district and (2) the tax rev- enues leaving a district (i.e., for smaller regions). In this appendix, we provide detailed results1 Christopher M. Schnaubelt, Craig A. Bond, Frank Camm, Jos

18、hua Klimas, Beth E. Lachman, Laurie McDonald, Judith Mele, Paul Ng, Meagan Smith, Cole Sutera, and Christopher Skeels, The Armys Local Economic Effects, Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation, RR-1119-A, 2015a (available at HYPERLINK /t/RR1119 /t/RR1119)12 The Armys Local Economic Effects: 2nd Editio

19、nof our analysis, organized by state and congressional district. We start by describing the over- all economic effects for each state. Next, we delve into more detail by fiscal year, from 2014 through 2017. Finally, we parse the data by congressional district, providing maps and calcu- lations. ftis

20、 volume contains material for Alabama through Minnesota. Volume II contains material for Mississippi through Wyoming.2fte following terms are used in the tables.All Army direct spending is the primary input into the input-output models. It is the esti- mated amount of Army spending on procurement, p

21、ersonnel (Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve USAR, Army National Guard ARNG, and civilians) and retirees within a region. fte figure reported in the tables consists of all reported Army spending within a congressional district, adjusted for outgoing and ingoing subcontracts. ftis includes military and

22、government civilian payroll and retiree pay for active component, ARNG, and USAR personnel, plus acquisition and services contracts in the district.3 We do not include demand from Army spending from the rest of the country. As discussed in Chap- ter Two, however, it is possible that a positive level

23、 of spending for a particular North American Industry Classification System industry in a given district corresponds with an Impact Analysis for Planning model sector with zero output for that sector. In such cases, we assume that the contract is passed directly out of the district as a subcontract.

24、4 ftis creates a gap between all Army direct spending and the change in final demand within a district.Additional economic output is the estimated amount of economic activity that Army- generated demand supports in a region, as measured by the value of production in all sectors of the economy within

25、 a region that is supported as a result of all Army final demand (all Army direct spending minus assumed subcontracting for zero economic activity sectors). ftis encompasses (1) estimated indirect and induced effects of all Army direct spending within and outside the district and (2) changes in fina

26、l demand as a result of Army spending within the district and intermediate demand generated from outside the district.Army-driven economic output reflects all Army direct spending assumed to stay in the district, plus estimated additional economic output. It does not include spending passed out of t

27、he district.All Army direct employment is an estimate of the total number of persons employed by the Army in a region at any time during the fiscal yearRegular Army, USAR, ARNG, and civilians. It is measured as the number of unique individuals appearing in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reportin

28、g System files with valid U.S. home addresses in each fiscal year. It is not directly used as an input into the economic model. It includes military and government civilian personnel for active component, ARNG, and USAR, including soldiersChristopher M. Schnaubelt, Craig A. Bond, Cole Sutera, Anthon

29、y Lawrence, Judith D. Mele, Joshua Mendelsohn, Christina Panis, and Meagan L. Smith, The Armys Local Economic Effects, 2nd ed., Appendix B, Vol. II, Mississippi Through Wyoming, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1119/2-1-A, 2021b.For fiscal year (FY) 2017 data, in Prime awards data, the Tre

30、asury Account Codes, which are necessary to assign Compo and Budget Categories, are optional as of June 2016. In the Sub awards data, Treasury Account Codes are no longer used at all. To estimate component distribution, therefore, we determined the average proportional shares of each component for e

31、ach state from FY 2014 through FY 2016 and applied these proportions to Army procurement spending within the state in FY 2017.ftis spending will be captured by the national model estimates.Appendix B, Volume I: Alabama Through Minnesota 3not on active duty. Individuals who have claimed multiple addr

32、esses in multiple regions during a fiscal year are counted in each region; therefore, sums of personnel across regions might not be accurate reflections of the number of individuals employed in a given year. In addition, the counts are of individuals employed at any time during the fiscal year by th

33、e Army. As a result, these numbers cannot be aggregated to obtain overall force size.Additional employment is an estimate of the non-Army employment associated with addi- tional economic output, using region-specific ratios of output to employment by sector con- tained within IMPLAN. This estimate c

34、onsists of both estimated employment related to direct spending on contracting and procurement and estimated indirect employment gener- ated by the backward linkages in the district-level economy. The estimate also accounts for indirect and induced effects of all Army direct spending within and outs

35、ide the district.All Army personnel and additional employment is the total employment supported by Army direct spending nationwide, including all supplying activity. It measures the estimated direct, indirect, and induced jobs supported by all Army spending within a region and is equal to the sum of

36、 all Army direct employment and additional employment.In addition to these terms, the state-level tables list economic effects calculated on a component-specific basis. Where possible, we assign direct spending to components according to an aggregation of appropriation categories that results in the

37、 following groupings:Regular ArmyUSARARNGcivilians, retirees, and survivors.ARNG direct spending includes ARNG military personnel, operations and maintenance, and military construction. ftis accounted for about 9 percent of Army spending in fiscal year (FY) 2014. USAR direct spending includes USAR m

38、ilitary personnel, operations and main- tenance, and military construction. ftis accounted for about 5 percent of Army spending in FY 2014.Regular Army direct spending includes Regular Army military personnel; operations and maintenance; military construction; procurement; research, development, tes

39、ting, and evaluation; and spending not explicitly associated with a component other than government civilian pay and payment to retirees and survivors. In FY 2014, Army procurement accounted for about 11 percent of the Regular Army direct spending, although both the Reserve and Guard also benefit fr

40、om Army procurement. About 60 percent of Army procurement benefits the Regular Army, 10 percent benefits the Reserve, and 30 percent benefits the Guard based upon their proportionate shares of capital/materiel as calculated by the Army G-8, although the distributions vary from year to year. Army res

41、earch, development, testing, and evaluationwhich also benefits all components accounted for about 5 percent, while several nonoperational Army responsibilities accounted for about 8 percent. ftese responsibilities included civil works (Corps of Engineers), the Joint Impro- vised Explosive Device Def

42、eat Organization, support to foreign militaries, chemical weapons demilitarization, and maintenance of military cemeteries. ftese additional Army responsibilities are predominantly performed by Regular Army military and civilian personnel but can include small percentages of USAR and ARNG contributi

43、ons. Chapter ftree and Appendix A in theThe Armys Local Economic Effects: 2nd Editionsecond edition of The Armys Local Economic Effects provides additional details about the appro- priations subcategories that are used in the analysis.5All spending and output results are presented in 2016 dollars. R

44、esults within and among tables might not sum exactly because of rounding. State-level personnel are calculated by sum- ming congressional district counts. Because of this, individuals who have claimed multiple res- idences across congressional districts within a state given year will be counted mult

45、iple times.Schnaubelt, Bond, Camm, et al., 2021a. ftis assignment explicitly links the effects of the obligations represented by our data of Army spending to the type of appropriation that Congress uses to allow the spending. However, it is possible that additional dollars were appropriated to Army

46、components but used for spending not captured by our data or were not appropriated to the Army specifically but were used for spending that was managed by the Army. In other words, our results do not show the effect of all appropriated dollars to the Army; rather, they show the effect of all obligat

47、ed dollars that are associated with the Army and contained in the contracts database.AlabamaArmy Economic Effects 1Army Direct SpendingAdditional Economic OutputArmy-Driven Economic OutputArmy Direct EmploymentAdditional EmploymentArmy Personnel+AdditionalRegular Army$ 5,175,890,135$ 12,098,464,489$

48、 17,274,354,62414,445118,838133,283ARNG$ 219,949,024$ 505,052,153$ 725,001,17713,5485,06318,611USAR$ 79,598,750$ 171,224,253$ 250,823,0036,1731,6497,822Civ/Ret/Surv$ 1,502,773,949$ 3,302,659,343$ 4,805,433,29221,53731,56153,098Total$ 6,978,211,858$ 16,077,400,238$ 23,055,612,09655,703157,111212,814D

49、istrict NumberArmy-Driven EconomicOutput1$ 466,081,0872$ 5,644,167,8693$ 2,109,323,1734$ 457,342,9585$ 13,684,265,3746$ 329,491,3307$ 364,940,307NOTE: Army Direct Spending includes acquisition and services contracts plus payments to soldiers, government civilians, retirees, and survivors since these

50、 are all sources of spending that enters the economy. However, retirees and survivors are not employees and thus not counted under Army Direct Employment. The number below is our estimate of the number of Army retirees and survivors receiving payments within the state.FY 2015 State at a Glance: Alab

51、amaArmy Economic Effects 1Army Direct SpendingAdditional Economic OutputArmy-Driven Economic OutputArmy Direct EmploymentAdditional EmploymentArmy Personnel+AdditionalRegular Army$ 7,641,177,182$ 18,395,549,594$ 26,036,726,77613,891147,188161,079ARNG$ 206,607,038$ 516,575,370$ 723,182,40813,0144,320

52、17,334USAR$ 81,664,398$ 193,494,258$ 275,158,6566,1121,5627,674Civ/Ret/Surv$ 1,456,830,349$ 3,428,325,937$ 4,885,156,28621,40227,39848,800Total$ 9,386,278,967$ 22,533,945,159$ 31,920,224,12654,419180,468234,887District NumberArmy-Driven EconomicOutput1$ 597,395,4632$ 5,948,478,1673$ 1,941,968,0764$

53、381,676,3195$ 22,417,814,5886$ 269,948,5037$ 362,943,011NOTE: Army Direct Spending includes acquisition and services contracts plus payments to soldiers, government civilians, retirees, and survivors since these are all sources of spending that enters the economy. However, retirees and survivors are

54、 not employees and thus not counted under Army Direct Employment. The number below is our estimate of the number of Army retirees and survivors receiving payments within the state.Army Economic Effects 1Army Direct SpendingAdditional Economic OutputArmy-Driven Economic OutputArmy Direct EmploymentAd

55、ditional EmploymentArmy Personnel+AdditionalRegular Army$ 4,818,422,766$ 12,793,866,432$ 17,612,289,19813,117107,425120,542ARNG$ 194,489,119$ 473,379,633$ 667,868,75213,0353,85716,892USAR$ 76,906,069$ 179,243,921$ 256,149,9906,1241,4347,558Civ/Ret/Surv$ 1,448,770,261$ 3,588,206,137$ 5,036,976,39821,

56、28429,23450,518Total$ 6,538,588,215$ 17,034,696,123$ 23,573,284,33853,560141,950195,510District NumberArmy-Driven EconomicOutput1$ 596,641,3872$ 5,451,172,7193$ 1,358,346,2984$ 518,371,8185$ 15,115,005,6386$ 272,177,2437$ 261,569,233NOTE: Army Direct Spending includes acquisition and services contra

57、cts plus payments to soldiers, government civilians, retirees, and survivors since these are all sources of spending that enters the economy. However, retirees and survivors are not employees and thus not counted under Army Direct Employment. The number below is our estimate of the number of Army re

58、tirees and survivors receiving payments within the state.FY 2017 State at a Glance: AlabamaArmy Economic Effects 1Army Direct SpendingAdditional Economic OutputArmy-Driven Economic OutputArmy Direct EmploymentAdditional EmploymentArmy Personnel+AdditionalRegular Army$ 4,823,228,725$ 13,706,543,553$

59、18,529,772,27812,262117,463129,725ARNG$ 201,500,865$ 534,732,780$ 736,233,64512,2804,45516,735USAR$ 74,048,534$ 191,681,009$ 265,729,5435,4831,5377,020Civ/Ret/Surv$ 289,653,155$ 768,463,439$ 1,058,116,59421,1036,43327,536Total$ 5,388,431,279$ 15,201,420,781$ 20,589,852,06051,128129,888181,016Distric

60、t NumberArmy-Driven EconomicOutput1$ 385,980,0862$ 4,605,079,6203$ 929,463,2624$ 156,117,4625$ 14,025,541,9186$ 170,585,2227$ 317,084,489NOTE: Army Direct Spending includes acquisition and services contracts plus payments to soldiers, government civilians, retirees, and survivors since these are all