Reviewer: KatherineCampbell, PhD

The Obama administration is working with the Pentagon to rationalize procurement decisions. Congress, however, holds the purse strings, so why does equipment the Pentagon deems unneeded continue to be purchased? Political rather than practical considerations may provide the explanation.  Production of military equipment involves large numbers of employees in multiple states. Boeing's C-17 cargo plane, for example, involves 30,000 workers in 43 states. This makes Boeing a constituent for legislators from 43 states. With powerful lobbying efforts, equipment programs like the C-17 can be sustained even without the Pentagon's support. Given this procurement process, it is interesting to consider whose interests are ultimately being served.

1. Why does Congress authorize the purchase of military equipment that the Pentagon says is unneeded?
   
   
2. Is it ethical for corporations such as Boeing to pressure members of Congress to support weapons programs that the Pentagon does not want? Why?
   
   
3. Who benefits from the current military equipment procurement process? Who loses?
   
   
4. What reforms could be made to the procurement process to increase the social benefits derived from government spending for military equipment?

In order to access quiz questions in our weekly Instructor’s Guides, archived Instructor’s Guides or to post comments and messages on our professor blogs, you will need to register using your subscriber ID. If you are not a current BusinessWeek subscriber and do not have a subscriber ID, you can still register and post your ideas and comments on our professor blogs.

Click here to register.