The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. === icant. US policy considers offsets to be economically inefficient and market distorting, restricts US government agency involvement in offsets, and places responsibility for such arrangements with businesses. Offset policy has been the subj...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Published: |
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School
2012
|
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10945/6167 |
id |
ndltd-nps.edu-oai-calhoun.nps.edu-10945-6167 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-nps.edu-oai-calhoun.nps.edu-10945-61672015-03-03T15:56:05Z The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade Milligan, Joseph E. Doyle, Richard Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.) Franck, Raymond Program Management Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. icant. US policy considers offsets to be economically inefficient and market distorting, restricts US government agency involvement in offsets, and places responsibility for such arrangements with businesses. Offset policy has been the subject of intense and frequently conflicting policy initiatives undertaken between 1973 and 2003, involving both the executive and legislative branches of government. This thesis details why and how US policy on offsets evolved, identifying key participants and policy decisions. This thesis concludes that initially the primary policy drivers were DOD desires to preserve prerogatives to domestically produce foreign designs and to avoid unnecessary friction with allies. DOD led policy development within the executive branch with the publication of offsets policy memoranda by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. While no single focus for congressional offsets policy was identified, a primary policy driver was the perceived loss of jobs resulting from offsets, as legislators from states and districts where organized labor was strong led efforts to mandate restrictions and reporting requirements. Important differences emerged between the legislative and executive branches, regardless of administration, regarding offsets. These included differences regarding the effect of offsets on domestic employment and technology transfer and the appropriate US response to demands for offsets. 2012-03-14T17:47:59Z 2012-03-14T17:47:59Z 2003-12 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10945/6167 This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. As such, it is in the public domain, and under the provisions of Title 17, United States Code, Section 105, it may not be copyrighted. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School |
collection |
NDLTD |
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. === icant. US policy considers offsets to be economically inefficient and market distorting, restricts US government agency involvement in offsets, and places responsibility for such arrangements with businesses. Offset policy has been the subject of intense and frequently conflicting policy initiatives undertaken between 1973 and 2003, involving both the executive and legislative branches of government. This thesis details why and how US policy on offsets evolved, identifying key participants and policy decisions. This thesis concludes that initially the primary policy drivers were DOD desires to preserve prerogatives to domestically produce foreign designs and to avoid unnecessary friction with allies. DOD led policy development within the executive branch with the publication of offsets policy memoranda by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. While no single focus for congressional offsets policy was identified, a primary policy driver was the perceived loss of jobs resulting from offsets, as legislators from states and districts where organized labor was strong led efforts to mandate restrictions and reporting requirements. Important differences emerged between the legislative and executive branches, regardless of administration, regarding offsets. These included differences regarding the effect of offsets on domestic employment and technology transfer and the appropriate US response to demands for offsets. |
author2 |
Doyle, Richard |
author_facet |
Doyle, Richard Milligan, Joseph E. |
author |
Milligan, Joseph E. |
spellingShingle |
Milligan, Joseph E. The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
author_sort |
Milligan, Joseph E. |
title |
The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
title_short |
The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
title_full |
The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
title_fullStr |
The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
title_full_unstemmed |
The determinants of United States government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
title_sort |
determinants of united states government policy and practice towards offsets in international trade |
publisher |
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School |
publishDate |
2012 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/6167 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT milliganjosephe thedeterminantsofunitedstatesgovernmentpolicyandpracticetowardsoffsetsininternationaltrade AT milliganjosephe determinantsofunitedstatesgovernmentpolicyandpracticetowardsoffsetsininternationaltrade |
_version_ |
1716731740374958080 |