A new paradigm of military-economic science.

In December 2005, the Military Financial/Economic University hosted a scientific practical conference that discussed the results of a research program called Formation of a New Paradigm of the Military Economic Science. The conference proceedings were published in Vestnik Voyennogo finansovo-ekonomicheskogo universiteta. (1) The main results of the research program are the following.

A Paradigm within the System of Scientific Knowledge

In order to better understand the role and place of paradigms in the system of scientific knowledge and their changing patterns, the historical evolution of methods of ensuring military security and its reflection in the system of military economic knowledge was analyzed from this perspective. Analysis of source literature on the subject (2) shows that three levels can be singled out within the structure of scientific knowledge (science).

* Level 1 -- fundamental -- is constituted by "eternal truths" accumulated since the moment science was born. They are simple and universal, comprising the general foundation of sciences.

* Level 2 -- paradigmatic -- comprises basic categories and laws of a particular science at a particular historical stage of its development that are recognized by the entire scientific community. In the context of military economic theories, they reflect specific methods of economic support for the war effort, conditional on the state of the economy and the military. E.g., the method of economic support in world wars was reflected in such categories as war economy as a specific military economic system, advance mobilization of the economy, economic mobilization, etc. They were accepted both in capitalist and in socialist countries.

* Level 3 -- specific -- comprised of the numerous derivative propositions, principles, and methods of fulfilling current tasks used in formulating military economic policies and organizing practical activities. There is no consensus here but a mass of conflicting concepts and views reflecting the interests of various social classes and groups and different states pursuing their own specific military economic policies.

There are basic differences in the processes of the formation, accumulation and evolution of knowledge on different levels. For example, Level 3 propositions reflect the depth to which a historically specific method of economic support of the war effort has been studied. They accumulate and change constantly as new economic, political and military phenomena arise and as changes occur in forms of technical and logistic support for troops, while these propositions can be open to interpretation; sometimes different interpretations can be in conflict with each other. Priority is in effect shifted to the art of using knowledge and manipulating it; information warfare, and military stratagem.

Unlike specific truths, paradigmatic truths are stable; their changes point to a revolution, a new stage in the development of science in which an old method of economic support for the war effort is replaced by a new one, arising from basic shifts in the economic and military spheres.

This means that a new paradigm cannot be devised on the purely theoretical level. It can only be created when a new objective phenomenon has emerged in reality--a new method of economic support for the war effort, science being designed to provide an authentic reflection of this method in theory. It is quite understandable that objective patterns of the evolution and changes of paradigms can be identified by studying military economic history from a certain angle, which was in fact what the present author did. Retrospection makes it possible to see the resultant force of the sum total of propulsive forces and to understand the logic of the evolution of a new method of economic support for the war effort.

In Russian military economic thought that has evolved over centuries, the idea of an aggregate of knowledge evolving into a science is a key note in the works of researchers of the first half of the 19th century (E.F. Kankrin, V.M. Anichkov, A.I. Astafyev). (3) Three stages in the evolution of the military economic theory have been identified since then.

* Stage 1 continued until the start of the 20th century. The military economic theory was dominated by a utilitarian approach that was contingent on the method of economic support for the war effort prevalent at the time: The war economy sponged off the sources of supplies and provisions for the troops wherever and whenever it could--be it at home or abroad (enemy territory), using different methods of procurement--from buying the necessary military goods and products to organized requisitions to downright robbery. Meanwhile, there was a growing understanding of some military economic patterns and regularities: the dependence of the war economy on the economic system and the military sphere, the reverse impact of wars on the economy, and so on and so forth.

* Stage 2 started with World War I in the course of which the phases of the military economic process were unified and consolidated into a common system of the military economy comprising the production of weapons and other military products, their distribution, provision to end users, and ensuring their effective operational employment in combat. It took a fairly long time to analyze the new method of economic support for the military, study objective laws, and form the apparatus of the military-economic science. Priority was given to the study of economic mobilization as a historically specific method of realizing the military economic potential, but it was not until the 1970s that the concept of military economy was generally accepted as a specific military economic system functioning both in wartime and in peacetime. (4) These basically new scientific propositions predetermined the military economic paradigm.

* Stage 3 in the evolution of the military-economic theory started in the late 20th century and is related to further transformations in the system of economic support for military security, which were especially pronounced in such new phenomena as the achievement of critical military capability and intensification of non-military threats to security (economic, political, environmental, informational, etc.). This puts them on a global level, necessitating the creation of appropriate economic security systems. As a result, a diversified, large-scale national security economy is formed in which the military economy is but one of the elements in its complex structure, alongside others. (5)

Analysis of the evolution of economic methods of ensuring military security and the related development of the military economic theory leads to the following conclusions.

* First, the need for a new military economic paradigm is predicated on internal processes of the development of the military economy; its formation proceeds as the self-advancement of science toward a more adequate and complete perception of the object of study, as a reflection in theory of the process of transition of its object from the old to a basically new level of development.

* Second, formation and change of economic methods of ensuring military security is to a very large degree predicated on the impact of supra-systemic factors; therefore they reflect the evolution of the economic and military spheres and with it the formation of new paradigms in the economic and military sciences. Furthermore, these sciences, for their part, reflect the changing perception about the development of human civilization at different stages of history. This calls for a new universal paradigm. It is already being widely discussed, but its essence is not clear yet; it does not even have a substantive description; the prevailing term is postindustrial.

* Third, since the development of theory follows changes in objective reality, there is a certain measure of lag on the theoretical level. The natural striving by science to narrow this gap becomes crucial amid accelerating development processes at the current stage of development. The power of foresight is a distinguishing feature of science. It has become highly relevant today, since it makes it possible to take timely and coordinated measures to avert imminent catastrophes on a global scale.

All of this has a most profound effect on the formation of the military economic paradigm: On the one hand, it limits the scope of the military economic science in developing its new paradigm; on the other, it prevents wishful thinking. A new paradigm cannot be formed by a certain deadline, no matter how many resources might be provided for this goal, but it can and should be created as a new method of economic support for military security is formed by making available the necessary resources for this purpose and closing the gap between theory and practice to the maximum degree possible.

The Status and Evolution of the New Paradigm

Taking into account the requirements of the systemic approach, the content of the emerging military economic paradigm could be conveniently presented in the following form. First of all, it is important to describe those of its distinguishing features that are predicated on changes in supra- systemic scientific paradigms, especially the economic and military paradigms. To this end, it is necessary to identify these changes and assess their implications for the military economic paradigm. Yet theory has rather a limited capability due to an insufficient study of the paradigmatic problems of these sciences. Plenty has been written and said about the qualitative transformations in the military sphere and the sciences that are concerned with studying this sphere. For example, Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander Europe, writes about a new era of warfare. (6) The mistakes that he refers to are caused not by the failure of the military science to respond to the dictates of the time. The White Book outlining the current views of Russia's military leadership says that the Armed Forces, as well as the country as a whole, were at the heart of the processes of the evolution of a new national security paradigm (7) but it does not offer a clear definition of this paradigm. The situation in the economic science is no better; it is especially dramatic in Russia. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing debate about the "Russian idea" and the vision of future society as perceived by our reformers. Let us consider two scenarios of economic strategy until 2050: One is an inertial market scenario, while the other is innovation driven. (8)

Implementation of the first scenario can result in the loss of economic, political, military and national security as a whole; the second scenario is designed to revive the former great power of the Motherland. Clearly, supra-systemic factors have a substantial impact on the formation of the new military economic paradigm and its specific features. Their timely analysis in the economic and military sciences is a key prerequisite to the development of the military economic theory. Some of these features have already materialized. Witness the results of our study as reflected in the following propositions.

* First, based on the development of the military and economic spheres in their close interconnection, new realities have emerged in international relations and a new method of achieving economic and other types of national security has evolved. It has a number of essential characteristics. First, a number of states have achieved a critical level of military capability; second, non-military threats have emerged that are equivalent to the military threat in their impact on the realization of vital interests and the sheer existence of mankind; third, the world balance of world has substantially changed, as has Russia's geopolitical and internal situation. Meanwhile, the following fundamental cause-and-effect connections are continuing to change substantially: a) economy-politics-war; b) economic capability-military-economic-capability--military capability, as well as other natural interconnections predetermining, together with all of the aforementioned, the paradigm of the military economic theory. Thus, when it has achieved a critical level, military capability is divided into two functionally distinct parts, one of which performs the same role--as a means of advancing economic and political interests, while the other performs the role of deterring a possible aggressor from starting a war with the credible threat of inflicting unacceptable damage on it in a retaliatory strike--that is to say, it is designed to avert a global catastrophe. In-depth analysis of the transformation of this military economic pattern alone necessitates a revision of traditional perceptions about the economic component of military security. With other drastic changes taken into account, this need becomes a categorical imperative: It is necessary to form a new economic paradigm.

* Second, analysis of the interconnected processes involved in the formation of a new method of economic support for force development and its reflection in the military economic theory suggests a new interpretation of some specific features of the emerging new paradigm in the form of a number of concepts, categories, patterns, and scientific approaches. In the view of the present author, they are as follows:

The national security economy. This category reflects objective reality--a specific part of the economy that serves the purpose of ensuring the protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state against internal and external threats. More specifically, it is represented as an aggregate of special (function specific) economies ensuring economic, political, military, environmental, and other types of security. At the same time, this term refers to a new scientific trend as part of the economic science--the theory of national security economics that includes general theory and specific economic disciplines studying various spheres of economic support for national security. They are manifested in the related categories: economic support for political security ([ES.sub.ps]), economic support for economic security ([ES.sub.es]), and military security economy (MSE), etc. New military economic phenomena and relations are also represented by the categories of critical military capability ([MC.sub.cr]), sufficient military economic capability ([MEC.sub.suff]), military economic security (MES), military effectiveness (MEf), and others. A diversified system of military economic security indicators and criteria is formed. (9)

It is important to note the following specific feature in the formation of the conceptual apparatus of the new paradigm: Around each key category reflecting a new phenomenon (critical military capability, national security economy, etc.) a cluster is formed comprising an aggregate of interconnected new terms expressing new military economic relations, as well as concentric circles of adjustments in the interpretation of long established concepts. For example, the emergence of the category [MC.sub.cr] is connected with the new formulas MEP, division of MC and new functions of its components and elements, and new strategic concepts. These are processes of the transformation of paradigmatic and actual levels of science.

* Third, military economic categories, concepts, indicators, and criteria that are genetically and logically interconnected with economic and military categories, are derived from them, and so require their synchronized development and elaboration in the relevant scientific areas. Inter-systemic connections of military economic categories can be schematically represented in the form the following triads (Table 1).

The table illustrates the character of the formation of military economic categories as derivatives of categories of economic and military sciences.

* Fourth, analysis of military economic processes in the functional spheres of the military economy--the defense industry complex, the economy of the Armed Forces, financial and economic support for military force development, military economic analysis, etc.--shows that qualitative changes are occurring here that are of scientific interest in studying the emerging military economic paradigm. (10) We will consider only some aspects thereof.

Analysis of transformations in the military economic control system on the macroeconomic level and formation and implementation of the state's military economic policy highlights the need to review the established conceptions and perceptions also in these spheres. Substantial changes are occurring in the military economic mechanism, as well as in the entire command and control system based on a wide use of market mechanisms and the optimal combination of methods of direct and indirect financial and economic regulation. Perceptions are changing about the optimal scale and the scientific and technical level of the defense industry complex, the character of its interconnections with other sectors of the economy, and its dual role in the system of economic relations--both national and global. Integration is developing between military and civilian production sectors, and dual use technologies

are being created. The trends of innovative and investment based development with the appropriate structural changes in the economic sphere are affecting economic and military economic concepts, enhancing (contrary to liberal views) the role of centralized (state) regulation not only of military economic sphere but also of the entire economic activity, especially the role of science, education, innovation, and investment.

Analysis shows that it is wrong to view the transition to a free market economy in Russia as the mechanical process of the dismantling of socialist forms that are being replaced by capitalist forms that could purportedly be borrowed from the United States or other states, choosing the best that there is. In reality, the transformation process is far more complex than it might appear to be at first glance. It consists in developing a combination of spontaneous market and planned regulatory mechanisms within the system of economic relations, optimal for Russia at the current stage of its socioeconomic development. Comparative analysis of the U.S. and Russian systems points to a trend toward their rapprochement based on the introduction of modern information technologies and the creation of optimal control and regulation systems. Furthermore, while the U.S. system is moving toward greater regulation, the Russian system is increasingly relying on market mechanisms. This problem requires in-depth scientific study which will free Russia's economic policy from market fetishism by providing a truly scientific understanding of the correlation of chaotic market and planned regulatory methods and forms of effective control and management.

Summing up the aforementioned aspects of the process of the formation of a new military economic paradigm, the current status of military economic theory can be described as transitional: It comprises many essentially new elements, corresponding to the changing objective military economic reality but being in conflict with some of its paradigmatic postulates which, however, adequately reflect many realities of the existing method of economic support for the war effort. It is important to consider whether the ongoing process should be seen as formation of a new military economic paradigm or a new stage in the evolution of the existing paradigm. This condition of science is predicated on the objective laws of its development, specifically the fact that it reflects the changing objective reality, and so it is obvious that the transitional status will continue for as long as there is a transitional military economic reality.

A condensed comparative description of the intra-systemic parameters of the existing and emerging military economic paradigms is shown in Table 2.

Tasks and Lines of Further Research into the Subject

The evolving system of military economic relations, the new method of military security support and the trends of their further development have yet to be studied in depth on the theoretical level; there are still untapped reserves for their analysis both in the realm of military economic theory and in the economic and military sciences. First of all, it is necessary to develop this field thoroughly, which will require considerable efforts and time. It should also be borne in mind that the rapidly intensifying threats, as well as the emergence of new threats to national and global security makes this research especially topical and relevant, expanding the scope of priority studies. The most important areas in studying the process of the formation of the new military economic paradigm are the following.

First, in-depth analysis of inter-systemic military economic problems. Systemic interconnections between the military economy and the entire economy and the military sphere, and the analogous connections between the military economic theory and military sciences require thorough scientific analysis of the changes that are now occurring within the interacting systems and the relevant sciences.

The global innovative technological breakthrough and its economic, military, and military economic effects. The innovative technological breakthrough is a major engine of basic changes in the economic and military sphere and through them also in the military economy. Its structure includes the following: basic areas--nano technologies and optical electronics, genetic engineering, IT networks; reforming the production and non-production spheres; technological breakthrough in the sphere of military equipment and security support. (11)

These processes are being thoroughly studied right now. There is a pressing need to analyze their impact on the transformation of the methods of economic support for military security and war prevention. For example, economic studies provide substantial research into problems of the scientific technological breakthrough, economic development trends, forecasting the development of the world and Russian economy, investment and innovation strategy, and other problems underlying the state's military economic capabilities. Equally important are studies in the area of the military science related to new generations of precision guided weapons, means of fighting international terrorism, arms control, formation of new national and global security concepts, development of new military doctrines, and so on.

Substantial changes in the "economy-politics-war" interconnections and their reflection in the economic, military and military economic sciences, strategy and politics. Let us consider them in some detail now. As for the "economy-politics-war" interconnections, the most important aspect here involves the changing of attitudes toward war. Priority should be given to matters of economic support for new generations of war. Analysis of problems of preventing wars and armed conflicts, conditions and means of deterrence (economic, political, legal, and military), averting aggression (unacceptable damage, economic inexpediency, international economic sanctions, moral and legal constraints, etc.) has acquired special relevance and practical importance. This especially applies to the study of problems of global security, enhancing the UN's role in solving these problems, and optimizing the correlation of the reproduction economy and the security economy on the national and global levels.

Second, the study of intra-systemic military economic problems. Intra-systemic military economic studies can be conveniently divided into analysis of categories and laws of the military security economy and applied studies of its specific spheres. The first group includes the development of the general military security economic theory, its conceptual apparatus, and monographs and textbooks. This is especially important for the development of modern military economic thinking.

It is also essential to conduct diversified, comprehensive military economic studies, including the following:

-- creation of modern apparatus for military economic analysis in the interest of enhancing the effectiveness of military economic activity. It is especially important to find a solution to the problem of gauging the military economic effect and correlating it with the economic and military results of activity;

-- the study of structural elements, functional spheres and lines of ensuring military economic security. There is a pressing need for analysis of the production sphere as represented by the defense sector of industry with its diversified structure. There are many new processes and phenomena in the military economic infrastructure of the military system that require in-depth study. It is also necessary to analyze the structure of the military economic sphere, search for the optimal correlation of its elements, study integration processes, and regional military economic relations;

-- new phenomena in the sphere of international military economic relations: the processes of military industrial trans-nationalism, military financial aspects of fighting international terrorism, problems of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, etc.

Each problem and each area of study includes a large number of specific tasks that are directly connected with practical military economic activity.

Third, forecasting and formulation of military economic policy. Mankind has entered a new era where alongside the threats to the vital interests of the individual, society, and the state, threats have emerged to its sheer survival the neutralization of which is crucial to our ability in a timely manner to move from blissful ignorance about our future to global development averting a global catastrophe. The unrelenting course of time with every passing year leaves fewer opportunities for this. This enhances the heuristic role of modern science, scientific forecasting, and organization of activity in accordance with the dictates of the objective laws of development. The military economic science is called upon to make its contribution to ensuring military security. It is from this perspective that its development problems should be viewed. The importance of effective and early resolution of current problems of economic support for military security has predetermined the priority of the problem of the formation of the new military economic paradigm. Without solving it--even if huge financial resources are provided for implementation of costly military economic measures--we will risk ending up defenseless in the face of unpredictable tests and trials in the future. Hopes for belated impromptu measures in developing new weapon systems may not be justified.

The role of scientific substantiation for state policies in ensuring national security on the economic level has today increased greatly. The serious consequences of the failure to use it to the full in formulating and implementing the military economic policy manifested themselves in the course of conversion of military production and reforms in the defense sectors of industry. Under estimation in the past of the importance of the military economic and professional qualifications of personnel involved in ensuring the state's military security hinders its preparation on the basis of the latest scientific achievements.

Following the discussion, the scientific practical conference brief recommendations that are presented below in full.

* First, while giving a positive assessment of the research that has been conducted, the scientific practical conference recommends the following: to continue the analysis of the processes of the formation of the new paradigm of the military economic science and to expand the scope of research, including the military aspects of the relevant sciences connected with ensuring national security on the economic level.

* Second, in the interest of expanding the scope of research into new phenomena in the sphere of ensuring military security on the economic level and enhancing its effectiveness, it is expedient to create relevant units at higher educational establishments and scientific research centers, as well as to form the main scientific research center to coordinate their activities, organize the relevant research, provide essential scientific information, sum up and verify the results obtained, and work out and provide recommendations on matters related to the development of science, education, and ensuring Russia's national security.

* Third, taking into account the experience accumulated by the Military Financial and Economic University in the scientific and training sphere, it is expedient to consider the question of providing at higher educational establishments a special training course, National Security Economics. The materials of this research should be published and made available in the public domain. The team of authors will be advised to prepare a textbook on the National Security Economics course in accordance with the program that has been developed.

NOTES:

1. Vestnik Voennogo finansovo-ekonomicheskogo universiteta (spetsialnyi vypusk), No. 3 (4), 2005.

2. A.I. Pozharov, Voennaya ekonomika Rossii: istoriya i teoriya, VFEU, Moscow, 2005, p. 420; Voennaya finansovo-ekonomicheskaya sluzhba Rossii: istoriya i sovremennost, heads of the authors' team Col. Gen. V.V. Vorobyev (Doctor of Economics) and Prof. B.N. Kuzyk (Doctor of Economics, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences), INES, Moscow, 2003. For more information see: Vestnik Voennogo finansovo-ekonomicheskogo universiteta (spetsialnyy vypusk), No. 3 (4), 2005, pp. 12-13.

3. bber die Militerokonomie im Frieden und Krieg und Ihr Wechselverhaltniss zu den Operationen, Part III, St. Petersburg, 1820-1823; V.M. Anichkov, Voennoye khozyaystvo. Sravnitelnoye issledovaniye polozhitelnykh zakonodatelstv Rossii, Frantsii, Prussii, Avstrii, Sardinii, Belgii, i Bavarii, St. Petersburg, 1860; A.I. Astafyev, Istochniki politicheskoy ekonomii i gosudarstvennogo khozyaystva, St. Petersburg, 1862.

4. N. Voznesenskiy, Voennaya ekonomika v period Velikoy Otechestvennoy voyny, Politizdat Publishers, Moscow, 1948; M.V. Frunze, Izbrannye proizvedeniya, Voenizdat Publishers, Moscow, 1977; Kh. Lyumer, Voennaya ekonomika i krizis, Transl. from the English, Inostr. lit., Moscow, 1955; A.A. Kornienko, "O voennoy ekonomike kak nauke," Voennaia mysl', No. 7, 1969; G.S. Kravchenko, Ekonomika SSSR v gody Velikoy Otechestvennoy voyny (1941-1945 gg.), Second revised edition, Ekonomika Publishers, Moscow, 1970; "K itogam diskussii ob ekonomike Vooruzhennykh Sil," Voennaia mysl', No. 2, 1972; Voennaya ekonomika, Kratkiy kurs, ed. by P.V. Sokolov, Voenizdat Publishers, Moscow, 1983; Sovetskaya voennaya moshch ot Stalina do Gorhacheva, Izd. Voennyy parad, Moscow, 1999.

5. Voennaia ekonomika: Aktualnye problemy, ed. by P.V. Sokolov, V.M. Naumov, Voennyy universitet, Moscow, 1997; Voennaya ekonomika. Teoriya i aktualnyeproblemy, ed. by. A.I. Pozharov, Voenizdat Publishers, Moscow, 1999; Voenno-ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost, VFEU, Moscow, 2002; Voyennaya ekonomika: upravleniy, planirovaniye, voenno-ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost, ed. by A.S. Sumin, Yu.M. Arepin, Moscow, 1995.

6. C. Wesley, Kak pobedit v sovremennoy voyne, Transl. from the English, Moscow, 2004, pp. 9, 12.

7. "Aktualnye zadachi razvitiya Vooruzhennykh Sil Rossiyskoy Federatsii," Krasnaya zvezda, Oct. 11, 2003; Rossiyskaya gazeta, Nov. 1, 2005.

8. B.N. Kuzyk, Yu.V Yakovets, Rossiya-2050; strategiya innovatsionnogo proryva, ZAO Izd. Ekonomika, Moscow, 2004, pp. 129-130.

9. Voenno-ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost, ed. by A.I. Pozharov, VFEU, Moscow, 2004.

10. S.F. Vikulov, V.I. Dovgiy, Perspektivnye napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya formirovaniya i ispolneniya gosudarstvennogo oboronnogo zakaza v Rossiyskoy Federatsii, RAN, IMEPI, Moscow, 2003; N.Ya. Golovetskiy, Gosudarstvennoe regulirovaniye voennoy ekonomiki, VFEU, Moscow, 2004; R.A. Faramazyan, V.V. Borisov, Transformatsiya voennoy ekonomiki v XX i v nachale XXI veka, IMEMO RAN, Moscow, 2004; V.V. Vorobyev, A.I. Pozharov, "Aktualnye voprosy voenno-finansovoy politiki Rossii," Voennaia mysl', No. 8, 2005; M.K. Smimov, "Voenno-finansovaya nauka i sovershenstvovaniye obrazovatelnogo protsessa," Vestnik Vyennogo finansovo-ekonomicheskogo universiteta, No. 1, 2004.

11. I.I. Ivanter, B.N. Kuzyk, Budushcheye Rossii: inertsionnoye razvitiye ili innovatsionny proryv? Institut ekonomicheskikh strategiy, Moscow, 2005, p. 115.

12. A.I. Pozharov, Voennaya ekonomika Rossii: istoriya i teoriya, VFEU, Moscow, 2005, p. 385.

Capt. 1st Rank A.I. POZHAROV (Ret.)

Doctor of Economic Sciences, professor

Table 1 Inter-systemic Connections of Military Economic Categories

Economy                 Military economy        Military system

Economic capability     Military economic       Military capability (MC)
  (EC)                    capability (MEC)
Critical EC             Critical MEC            Critical MC
  ([EC.sub.cr])           ([MEC.sub.cr])          ([MC.sub.cr])
Sufficient EC           Sufficient MEC          Sufficient MC
  ([EC.sub.suff])         ([MEC.sub.suff])        ([MC.sub.suff])
Economic security (ES)  Military economic       Military security (MS)
                          security (MES)
Economic                Military economic       Military effectiveness
  effectiveness (EEf)     effectiveness (MEEf)    (MEf)

Table 2 Intra-systemic Features of Military Economic Paradigms (12)

Parameters              Existing paradigm        Emerging paradigm

Correlation of EC and   MC's directly            As [MC.sub.cr] is
  MC                    proportional dependence  achieved, the directly
                        on EC                    proportional dependence
                                                 is modified
The method of economic  The military economy,    Military economy is
  support for defense   mobilization readiness,  part of the national
  capability            economic mobilization,   economic security
                        and diversified          system (ESS); multiple
                        military economic        forms of economic
                        infrastructure           mobilization; military-
                                                 civilian integration
Inter-systemic          The military economy is  The military security
  connections of the    part of the national     economy is an element
  military economy      economy and the Armed    of the structure of the
                        Forces (military         national security
                        economic organism)       economy
The functional          Military production-     Military production-
  structure of          military distribution-   military distribution-
  military economic     military circulation-    military circulation-
  progress              military consumption     military consumption-
                                                 disposal of arms and
                                                 military equipment
The limits of military  From zero to full        The area of MEC is
  economic capability   utilization of military  reduced by the size of
  (MEC)                 economic potential       non-military elements
                        (MEP)                    in ESS capability
Military economic       MEP--part of EC          MEP is a part of the
  potential (MEP)       MEP = MEC +              ESS potential, its
                        [GEC.sub.mob] or         limit, predicated on
                        MEP = EC -               [GEC.sub.mob], is
                        [GEC.sub.min]            reduced by the size of
                                                 non-military ESS
                                                 elements
Economic mobilization   The method of            Multivariant build-up
                        realization of MEP and   of MEC with regard to
                        military economic        the needs of averting
                        restructuring            (waging) wars
Military equipment      Industrial production    Precision guided, smart
                                                 weapons, weapons based
                                                 on new physical
                                                 principles
Personnel               Qualified personnel of   Highly qualified
                        various specialties in   professional personnel
                        the regular army         of various specialties
                        relying on draft for     in the regular army
                        manpower acquisition     meeting its manpower
                                                 acquisition targets on
                                                 contractual basis