Statistics Are Fun, If Not Misleading

Matt Yglesias looks at this CATO-developed chart comparing US defense funding in 1998 and 2008 against European defense funding in the same years. He says, "As this chart from Chris Preble makes clear, Europe isn’t disinvesting in military capabilities, the United States is just rushing ahead with massive defense spending for unclear reasons."

Well, Matt, for one thing, it might be an understatement to say that the United States is "just rushing ahead with massive defense spending for unclear reasons" when the period of performance you're talking about featured two long-term military contingency operations, defense acquisition programs with ever-upward spiraling costs and schedules, and one considers the inflationary aspects of the past decade. But more importantly, you might want to consider the CATO analyst's assumptions.

These charts aren’t perfect because there are some inconsistencies in the data. Different countries include different things under “defense” and this can lead to misunderstating what they spend relative to others, including the United States. For example, the figures for France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium and Portugal include military pensions, but other countries do not. The stats for other countries (Turkey, Albania, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia) count coast guards and/or gendarmerie (aka national police) under defense spending, but in the United States some of those costs are covered under the Department of Homeland Security (especially the Coast Guard; we obviously don’t have a federal police force).

And when one includes the annual funding from the Department of Homeland Security and the Veterans Affairs, yeah, that just might distort one's view of the comparison of these apples, oranges, and pineapples. I was just mildly suprised to see how Denmark's and the Netherlands' defense funds are greater than Italy, Germany, or Spain. That aside, I think the argument still fails because it doesn't consider whether the NATO countries were adequately funding their military forces in 1998, let alone today. All it says is that the United States spends alot on defense, and one might suggest we could do with less spending. To which all of us serious defense analysts would say, "well, duh!!"

Comments

[Sven Ortmann]

"we obviously don’t have a federal police force"
Hmm, what about FBI and anti-counterfeiting mission of the Secret Service?

The European nations seem to properly (or excessively) fund their military forces judged by their track record; Europe is militarily more powerful than all non-allied neighbours (North Africa, East Europe) combined and two European countries have nuclear arsenals of the same order of magnitude as the PR China.

Maybe some people disagree or question whether we spend enough on defence; let me say that I certainly don't share their understanding of "defence".

[NVH]

Defence: What J said Napolitano is doing to the SBINet program
Defense: Where the US Govt has to stick money it has no time to spend anywhere else and we've got the best contracts

[Alex]

I was just mildly suprised to see how Denmark's and the Netherlands' defense funds are greater than Italy, Germany, or Spain.

It's the Per capita bit that's doing the work here. Denmark and the Netherlands are small countries with significant navies and air forces. There are 80 million Germans and they have a large army based on national service.

[J.]

I missed the "per capita" in the title. Thanks Alex.