Keith Hartley, The Political Economy of Aerospace Industries: A Key Driver of Growth and International Competitiveness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Reviewefence expenditures command a significant portion of discretionary funds in most nations.Since there are competing demands for scarce government funds, explaining or justifying defence spending is a daunting task especially in peacetime.Defence ministries know the pervasiveness of economics in decision making and the need to be better equipped and more sophisticated in their abilities to assess and present defence activities in an economic context.Defence activities are often presented within the context of macroeconomic and sectoral impacts and the sustainment of an industrial base both for economic development and strategic (national security and supply guarantee) reasons.The aerospace industry is one such sector that receives particular attention from politicians and lobbyists for its purported claims for generating high paying, high skill jobs and innovation.This authoritative book on the aerospace industry by one of the leading academic economists on the subject, cogently and critically assesses these claims using established economic theories and methods.This important work is relevant to academics and researchers in government, industry and think tanks.The book begins with an excellent introduction to scope and define the aerospace industry.Those familiar with national accounts and government statistics will note and appreciate the accessible language used to describe the input-out structure of the aerospace industry and the associated inter-relationship with the supply chain (indirect and induced impacts).The next chapter provides a historical and statistical overview of the aerospace sector.Specifically, it provides valuable context on industry consolidations after the World Wars particularly between the US and the rest of the world.In addition, the chapter highlights the importance of competitive air races in spurring innovation and how imports and collaborations within sectors and nations became the norm to combat rising unit costs.There are page-number binding errors in this chapter as pages jump from 10 to 14 and back.Hopefully future re-prints will correct this oversight.From Chapter 3 onwards economic models and theories are briefly introduced followed by case studies and assessment of past empirical work.In Chapter 3 the notion of market failure is introduced specifically by discussing how governments
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".