MPHIL PEACE AND DEVT STUDIES

University of Cape Coast-Ghana, IDS

akissifu@mail.com

Introduction

The Economics of War is written by William Hynes. The

paper is published as the chapter six of
Global
Challenges; Peace and War organised by Hwang, J. and
Cerna, L. (2013). The topic of the article allows for the
consideration of issues about war and how it manifests
resource constraint in the dimensions of economics. The
article, however, aims at the provision of a summarised
economics discourse analysis based on excerpts from
world war I and II. In such an attempt, the author deems it
significant by explaining the underlining concepts of
economics, benefits of war and resource constraints in a
relational form.

The findings of his analysis adds up to the existing

literature of how resource constraints affect countries
decisions in an attempt to embark on war. It is not
surprising to note that the author chose the topic and the
purpose of the study partly because he is an economist
and he is interested about issues that are of payoffs or
benefits emanating from wars in the face of resource
constraints; hence he makes contributions about putting
lights on issues that are of more economics of war.

Summary of the paper

The paper is outlined as follow; section 1 looks at the

rationality of war and examines if war can have economic
benefits, section 2 then considers the costs of war and
discusses how these can be difficult to estimate the costs
and benefits to go to war, section 3 analyses the short and
long term legacies of war in terms of history, institutional
change, economic ideas and social policies.

Hynes and other economics views wars as rational and

may improve the economy. He offered one perspective of
war as a causative agent. They proclaim whether war will
come about as wars are based on a calculation of the
costs and benefits, the incentives and the risks. Lindley
and Schildkraut (2006) test the rationality of decisions in
war. In large interstate wars the initiator won 55% of the
time based on seventy nine large interstate wars between
1815 and 1991.

Since 1945, only one third of initiators win, yet despite

declining win rates, states initiate wars at an increasing to
steady rate over time; states are not learning that war
increasingly does not pay (Lindley & schildkraut 2006: 1).
So why do they do it? It seems that just as individual
choice is fallible, states make decisions to go to war based
on miscalculation and misperception (Hynes, 2013).

Evaluation/Critique

Subjectively, the chapter gives enough evidences for the

claims and explanations to the concepts of discourse, the
economics of war. However, Hynes is subject to flaws.
According to him, from 18th to 19th centuries saw a huge
benefits of about 55% payoffs to war initiators. But since
1945, only one third of war initiators win, meaning that war
payoffs is reducing. Therefore Lindley & schildkraut (2006)
asked why some states still have desire for warfare in spite of
the sharp decline? Hynes answered that is because of
miscalculations and misperceptions on the part of recent war
initiators (Hynes, 2013).

I dont affirm to Hynes answer of miscalculation and

misperceptions because large countries such as the USA for
example, have never miscalculated in an attempt to wage war.
They have succeeded in almost all their warfare since 1945
including, Iraq 1991, Kuwait 1991, Iran 1998, Sudan 1998,
Afghanistan 2001, Libya 2011 etc. (Schildkraut 2006). The fallout
is as the result of every countrys aspiration to progress knowing
well the long run consequences of war. Again, viewing the cause
of war under a single perspective of economics, I dont agree
with him entirely because his approach puts less emphasis on
accident of history, or the actions of prominent actors. Hence,
economic factors do not declare war on their on (Offer, 1989).

Countries would want to increase their GDP, increasing

the social welfare of its citizenry, industrialisation, high
foreign investment therefore, they would forgo war. More
so, globalisation has contributed in eroding the supremacy
of nation states and constrained the ability of political
agents to wage war. Unfortunately, it is not the idea of
miscalculation and misperception that have slowed the
desired of nation states to wage war as Hynes want us to
believe.

Estimating the cost of war, Hynes provided an objective

argument that, most often war entrepreneurs do not
provide the true picture of war costs. He continues that
economics has been rather poorly employed in assessing
the merits of war in recent prominent conflicts. Nordhaus
(2002) though an economist also affirms that, the costs of
the Vietnam war were underestimated by 90% by the
pentagon. Most often, only the budgetary cost is
considered neglecting the indirect costs such as inflation,
economic instability and civil unrest and a weakening of
the authority and credibility of the US government at home
and abroad (Hynes, 2013).

In the economic legacies of war, Hynes displayed

significant intellectual discourse by establishing the fact
that, wars can also have important social consequences.
For example, he posits that some of the great societal
transformations heralding social progress have occurred
after wars. Women were given the opportunity to vote after
world war I, the United Kingdom established the national
health service after world war II, Rwandan women have
assumed top leadership positions and majority of them
are members of parliament following the 1994 genocide
(Enda, 2003).

War has had an impact on crime; outbreaks of war often

led to a fall in crime, while the end of war often caused a
large increase. But periods of violence do not necessarily
lead to crimes of violence. Wilson (1985) agrees with
Hynes argument and added that crime caused by social
tension diminished in times of upheaval and chaos such
as war

Conclusion

The whole piece of work is a good one that gives enough

evidences to prove points stated in the literature, Hynes as
an economist didnt show any bias in his paper, therefore
he appreciated the social benefits that comes out of war. I
am impressed because it has also broadened my
economics horizon. However, the author didnt demonstrate
a deeper understanding of emerging arguments and
debates on the drastic decline of warfare in contemporary
times.