Literature Review

The Concept of the MIC

Dunne and Sköns (2014) defines the military-industrial complex (MIC) as a politico-
economic system that is self-sustaining and perpetuates earnings within the military provisions
industrial sectors, de facto in a number of nations but principally in the United States (Dunne &
Sköns 2014). According to Dunne and Sköns (2014), the MIC comprises of entities collaborating
and/or competing; the preservation of which is in general economically beneficial to involved
players such as professional soldiers et al., administrators as well as proprietors of companies
which supply military accessories, governing administration officials whose professions along
with interests are linked to military spending, and the congress whose districts gain from security
procurement. On the other hand, Aron (1979), contend that the concept of the MIC, as opposed
to being a revolutionary departure from traditional sociology, is, instead, a fairly rational
advancement within the mainstream of American legal, sociological principle. The progression
of the concept is delineated not only to C. Wright Mills' “power elite” but outside James
Burnham's “managerial revolution” along with Lasswell Harold's “garrison state.” In the end, the
idea associated with the military-industrial complex is viewed as derived from an anti-Marxian
point of view initially mirrored in neo-Machiavellian as well as Weberian assumption (Aron,
1979)
As pointed out by Wilson and Bernstein (2011), the MIC refers to an informal
confederation involving a country's military and the arms industrial sector that supplies it, seen
collectively as a vested interest that has an effect on opinion and policy of the public. A driving
aspect behind this association involving the governing administration and defense-minded
organizations is that both equally gain, one side from acquiring war weaponry, and the other
from getting remunerated for the supply services. The term is, as pointed out by Cooling (2010),
in most cases used with reference to the military's system of the USA, where it is most
predominant and became popular following its employment in President Dwight D. Eisenhower's
farewell speech (Cooling, 2010).
The intricate business goals sought by these along with other connected personnel are
nurtured to some extent by exalting technological prospects but additionally by spreading fear as
threats that are impending and can be forestalled exclusively by keeping the highest achievable
degree of military readiness (Bernstein & Wilson 2011). In the quest for these goals, budgetary
requests of MIC participants add up to punctiliously orchestrated sector marketing portrayed as
tactical force demands. With all this state of affairs, the significant business moral concerns
regarding the MIC entail ends along with means, i.e., not just death and devastation, but
systemically underlying waste.
One crucial element of literature involving the MIC that proliferated within the decades
following Eisenhower’s speech was an assessment of American business (Cooling, 2010). Huge
industrial organizations were thought of as the willing associates of the Pentagon (Lynn III,
2014). Collectively, critics of the MIC, such as (Cuff, 1978) outlined that the military agencies,
as well as the companies, developed a large industry within the American economic climate
dedicated to the manufacturing of dangerous weapons, whereby public funds were funneled to
preferred contractors with less rivalry. The MIC socialized threat privatized income and
presented organizations unnecessary influence over the American foreign and domestic policy
(Koistinen, 1980).
Generally, historians have, akin to scholars within different fields, demonstrated little
attention in the MIC since the 1970s. However, for economic and business historians particularly

1
(together with several segments involving the history group of the military), the topic has
presented more considerable attention. For example, Robert Cuff (1978) and Paul Koistinen
(1980), the two scholars of pioneering research of the mobilizations of the American economic
for World War I and World War II, have relished some interest within the field of economic
history. The studies, in addition to that of Cooling (2010) and Bernstein and Wilson (2010)
revealed that the military industrial complex featured a lengthy background, or perhaps
prehistory, that dated back into the 19th century. Throughout the last era, a number of more
recent literary works have continued to enhance the comprehension of the long-term progression
of United States military industrial associations (Bernstein & Wilson, 2011). Most of these have
been associated with new works within the discipline of U.S political advancement, which has
gradually stirred more of attention within the military area of the United States. There has
additionally been increasing interest in recording similar progressions beyond the United States,
and in relative points of view such as Dunne’s (1993) study.
For economic and business historians such as Cooling (2010), Van Creveld (2010) and
Dunne and Sköns (2014), their research on the MIC along with its ascendants have confirmed to
be particularly beneficial for their proposition regarding the consequences of war as well as the
military on local financial growth along with technological advancement. These studies show
that for a considerable proportion of American records, military expenses have offered to
enhance the income of specific regions and locales, often in means that have had considerable
demographic as well as political impacts, along with their economic effect.
However, these studies, such as Genoe (2011), don't highlight the fact that war, as well as
the military, have additionally influenced the developments of new technological innovations. Of
all the historians and scholars working on issues linked to the military industrial complex,
historiographers of technology such as Cooling (2010) have been particularly successful in
developing fruitful advanced research. At its best, these studies have been able to record the
approaches in which the military has without a doubt changed the course of the development of
technology, without disregarding the equally significant contributions of corporations and
individuals within the private segment.
Power and Conflation of the MIC
One broadly acknowledged definition of power is that it is the capacity to affect the
comportment of other people with or without opposition (Schein and Greiner, 1989). In contrast,
according to Max Webber (2009), the meaning of power is an individual within a social
association having the capacity to execute his or her own will irrespective of opposition, no
matter the foundation that this probability rests (Weber, 2009). As outlined by Greiner and
Schein, power refers to the ability to influence another group or individual to agree to one’s
personal plans or ideas (Schein and Greiner, 1989). Clearly, the meaning of power differs based
on perspective.
Conversely, a standard meaning of conflation details it as merging things: to combine or
consolidate several items into a one (Encarta, 2005). In relation to the MIC, the formulated state
of the conflation of power with regards to state legislative/administrative authority is more
comparable to the description of the ability to reconstitute actual conditions (Schein and Greiner,
1989). This is fundamentally a result of developments within social power, citizens' inclusion,
along with the advancement of rivalry for power by several elites in which Mills C. Wright
mentioned, and Eisenhower Dwight cautioned about. This is a concern of special significance
through the society's perspective.

2
 Muhammed Asadi outlined that the exchangeability of the highest positions between the
economic system, the government as well as the military brings about public of interest in this
complex industry as a result of business acculturation with the rising tradition referred to as
Military metaphysics (Van Creveld, 2010) or to the logical system of military resolution to
issues. The culture as it is predominant amongst the prominent organizations spreads as a
tradition to the rest of society causing the society to be militarized (Asadi, 2013). All this
generates the philosophical need for deciding on the lesser of two problems: one is the
government-managed domination on aggression, while the other is the openly authorized
military industrial sector. The associations between the civilian and military domains are of
attention at the start of the twenty-first century in which the pattern in security transformation
determines the prosperous procedure for one in stringent after the exemption of the other.
The MIC and privatized militarization does not comply with Max Weber’s
conceptualized understanding of a state domination of violence, as he highlights that in these
modern times, in contrast, people ought to acknowledge that the government is the type of
human community which (effectively) acclamation to the domination associated with legitimate
assault inside a specific territory. The MIC and privatized militarization additionally question the
significantly-kept understanding of realists, as well as Clausewitz’s comprehension of the
government's role within the domains of war and security (in the sphere of states along with their
national armies) (Petersohn, 2008).
In the 21st century, learned historical lectures are being reopened. The MIC and
privatized militarization, outsourcing, as well as the general trend of security modification makes
it possible for the MIC the power or ability to restructure actual conditions within the political
progression. For that reason, outsourcing as well as contracting of governing administration's
operations is not merely an unevaluated shift from public to private governance, but a risk to
liability that weakens the society's control and its underlying foundation (Van Creveld, 2010).
Predominant cultural socialization disseminates the security change and makes it possible for a
blend with tradition.
In case the above is true, then nothing has been learned from historical points of view, nor
the economic and political thinking of previous periods. The understanding of Martin Van
Creveld (2010) is very suitable together with the assertion that as new types of armed discord
increase, they are going to trigger a drift between private and public, citizens and the
government, civilians and the military to be as distorted as they were prior to 1648 (Van Creveld,
2010). Basically, people could subscribe a slogan: what is not banned is permitted, and society’s
status quo is the acknowledgment of the existing state of affairs. This ought to provide priority
for strategic thinking, driving them to the ancient Roman question, “Cui bono” of who profits
and the way power can be shifted.

3
 Theoretical Framework
Theories and Concepts Encircling the Military Industrial Complex
While establishing a potentially significant group of economic actors, there have been
minimal efforts by economic analysts to evaluate the MIC. As for conventional economists, the
MIC's existence is perceived as an anomaly. The theory of neoclassical economics is influenced
by the principle associated with a state with a distinct social welfare functionality, exhibiting a
certain level of consensus, discerning some clear national concerns, and threatened by some
prospective adversaries. Governing administrations set aside military finances to deal with
identified threats, and there exists a trade-off involving ‘butter’ and ‘guns’ (Dunne and Coulomb
2009). This indicates that state authorities make decisions pertaining to the need for offensive as
well as defensive capacities, determine the most effective way to accomplish these with regards
to force structures along with the procurement of weapons and then determine the form of
Defense Industrial Base (DIB) necessary. As a result, for input cost management and program or
output planning, the issue is perceived as selecting the most efficient technique of creating facets
associated with national security. Subsequently, the DIB ought to then be the most effective
means of supporting the generation of the highest degree of security (Moskos 1972).
One challenge linked to this theory is that it neglects the social and political dynamics
associated with the production and procurement systems of firearms. The scale and significance
of the DIB within several countries have undoubtedly resulted in it connecting into other societal
and economic regions (Bernstein & Wilson, 2011). Once we move past viewing the DIB as an
inert capacity to present weapon systems and acknowledge the reality that it may possess active
propensities (rent-seeking as well as initiatives to entrance the clients/regulators), these linkages
grow to be essential. More modern neoclassical literary works have tackled these problems and
tried to incorporate political aspects, such as negotiating as well as interest groupings, which
identify sources of weaponry along with degrees of security. However, this nevertheless signifies
an incomplete evaluation concentrating on specific aspects linked to the process. It does not
address the intricate dialectical connection between the supply side and the demand side,
whereby both are going to affect one another and establish the variables for making decisions,
which can be a sophisticated dynamic procedure that may be both conflictual and contradictory
(Dunne and Coulomb 2009).
More extensive studies identify the DIB firmly within the framework of the larger MIC
and connect it to the operation of the capitalist economic structure. The MIC symbolizes a
selection of interests that could shift from the capitalism interests, what Smith (1977) defines as
the institutional or liberal point of view. The perspective relies upon the dynamics associated
with a MIC as constructed from different interest groups as well as institutional linkages. The
military industrial complex becomes a self-generating shape (agency) that represents the interests
of different groupings within the society. The robustness associated with these vested interests,
along with their competitiveness for resources brings about internal constraints for armed forces
spending, with outside threats presenting the justification. The military industrial complex
imposes an encumbrance on the rest of society and features undesirable consequences on the
civilian segment. Furthermore, it crowds out the resources of the civilians, and the organizations
concerned create a culture that results in inefficiency as well as waste and escalating dependence
on security contracts as they grow to be less capable of competing within the civilian sector
(Hartley & Sandler, 2007).

4
 Furthermore, there is a significant amount of work carried out from a Marxist point of
view. Although this concept is often typified as centering on a ruling class principle regarding the
MIC (Moskos 1972), the concept is more diverse than this indicates. The function of military
expenses within the advancement of capitalism is viewed as broader and more predominant
compared to the institutional strategy, but with the military industrial complex limited by the
laws of motion involving the capitalist structure. Within the Marxist theory, there are numerous
strands that are inclined to vary within their remedy of crisis and in the magnitude that they
perceive military spending as essential for the accumulation of capital (Dunne & Coulomb,
2008).
The underconsumption theory formulated from the work of Sweezy (2004) views
military spending as crucial in averting recognition junctures (crises brought on by challenges in
selling goods as a result of insufficient demand, meaning that profits cannot be made). As
opposed to other styles of government expenditures, it makes it possible for the assimilation of
extra devoid of raising income, and for that reason, maintains profits. In this manner, the MIC
offers a useful service to preserving capitalism. A comparable perspective concentrates on the
propensity for capitalist economic climates to overproduce. In this hypothesis, military spending
is not economical, and the resource allocation into it inhibits overheating. Therefore, the
incompetency associated with the military industrial complex along with the DIB plays a
significant role in capitalist advancement generating the long-term arms financial system
(Hartley & Sandler, 2007). Scientific studies, starting with Smith (1977), have, nonetheless,
failed to find assistance for the underconsumption’s theory and its conjecture of a positive
financial impact of military expenditure.
Although this overview of the concepts and theories encircling the military industrial
complex shows minimal apparent theoretical conceptualization linked to the MIC, it has
formulated different hypotheses from various scholars to elucidate, forecast, as well as
understand the MIC phenomena and to challenge and expand present understanding within the
boundaries of critical bounding presumptions. The concept seems to be of most importance as
descriptive as opposed to an analytical principle. This has directed some experts to concentrate
on the dynamics associated with the military industrial complex at a scientific level. Smith
(1977) asserts that the MIC ought to be viewed as a conglutination of interests and that the
emphasis needs to be on the structural pairings which have advanced between distinct sections of
private industry as well as specific segments of the military that have inevitably resulted in
common interests. On the other hand, Bernstein and Wilson (2011) state that the MIC ought to be
perceived as an evolving system of corporations instead of concentrating on individual elements.
Although the military industrial complex is not a clear theoretical concept, it is clear that there
exists a MIC that can affect policy on military expenditures. There are a few commonalities with
other industrial complexes in sectors such as education and health, but there are significant
discrepancies in detail, particularly the fact that the firearms industrial sector creates the means
of violence.

5
 Methodology
This section provides a detailed evaluation of the methodology conducted within the
research. Significant subject areas disconcerting the philosophical position of the researcher,
including the techniques espoused pertaining to this study is assessed explicitly. Additionally, a
succinct discourse linked to the techniques utilized in the research strategy and the approach of
data presentation for the crucial assessment and analysis of the information gathered is going to
be reviewed.
Research Design
Gill and Johnson (2010) outlined that a research design appertains to the general
approach chosen to incorporate the various aspects of the study in a logical and coherent manner,
thus, making sure the research problem will be appropriately addressed.
The initial research design employed in this study is a case study design. A case study is a
comprehensive review and analysis of a specific research problem rather than extensive
statistical survey. The method is frequently utilized to narrow down an extensive area of research
into a single researchable example. The design is additionally helpful for evaluating whether a
particular concept and issue (such as the MIC) is applicable to phenomena in the real world.
Additionally, it is convenient when very little is understood about a phenomenon (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
Epistemological Foundation

The dissertation's research philosophy can be viewed as positivism as well as

interpretivism given that the absolute objective is not only to determine the power shift has taken
place between the US department of national defense and the private US military contractors, but
additionally to discover the way this shift has been related to the evolution of the Military
Industrial Complex (MIC). By doing this, it will present an advantage, specifically with regards
to addressing the concerns brought up in the research question.
Research Strategy
The research is going to primarily concentrate on secondary sources that have critically
evaluated MIC in the United States. For that reason, the dependability of the analysis intensely
relies on the research carried out by various scholars. The analysis of data will tend to determine
the way the MIC and privatized militarization has evolved and its effectiveness in managing
security. Furthermore, it will be helpful in understanding how power and conflation within the
MIC have shaped the U.S security industry.
Analytical Technique
The aim of this research is not to develop new speculations, but to examine the statement
of the problem in line with secondary data as well as scientific exploration. Furthermore, in this
paper, concepts are going to be generated from past works and consequently utilize secondary
data along with empirical evaluation to understand the concepts, and finally, logic will be used to
develop the conclusion.
Collection of Secondary Sources
The dissertation relies on secondary sources to understand the hypotheses, concept
meanings, along with practical results. The researcher used journals, numerous books, articles,
research literature and thesis as secondary material for the paper. Internet sources were
additionally utilized as part of the secondary content for the research. Most of the sources
employed are reliable and are consequently relevant. Moreover, there was additionally the use of

6
handbooks and reports of some of the MIC within the United States. Nonetheless, it is
challenging to identify the fundamental analytical components of the paper.
The researcher was subjected to various references linked to this issue to obtain the most
appropriate sources. Such materials were mainly collected from the college library while
benefiting from accessible search engines. Different databases were accessed and explored on the
website of the university library. Along with these, JSTOR, LIBRIS, and Google Scholar were
utilized to acquire suitable analytical content. The keywords utilized when searching for analytic
content and literature were; military industrial complex and the privatization of security.
Reliability and Viability of Secondary Sources
It is vital that the secondary materials utilized be relevant. As a result, the researcher
gathered a majority of the studies that are peer-reviewed and used by different scholars for their
evaluation. The standard of selection assured the validity of secondary material. Additionally, it
is vital to ensure that the content used in the dissertation were updated since the security, power,
and conflict are always in rapid change and development. Previews, concepts, publications,
content articles, and new studies, linked to security, appear regularly.
To ensure the reliability of the study in the present situation, the paper attempted to
include the recent reviews and articles or even reports accessible. While becoming acquainted
with the facts in connection with the material along with the operations and systems of MIC, the
research will link the current explorations with the previous ones. The strategy made it easier for
the provision of a realistic image regarding the points for the reason that these analyses had been
updated regularly to ascertain the availability of most of the facts.
The crucial concern that has to be pointed out is going to be the challenge associated
with the collection of secondary data. The various content articles, along with journals used as
references in the development of the theoretical framework are practically driven in contrast to
foundation on the pure speculation. Additionally, as a limiting factor to the research, there is no
particular and recognized forecasts in the military industrial concept. Previously scholars and
professionals have not determined any strong concept-centered presumptions that might make it
possible for the comprehension of the different facets associated with the MIC. Since the content
articles and journals are often more functional-driven, there may be no assumptive references
within this dissertation, and for this reason, the theoretical framework of this study presents
practical understanding.
Research Limitations
Among the primary limitations of this study or any analysis in relation to MIC is based
on the fact that confidentiality, as well as secrecy, are critical aspects within the privatized
military industry. Concurrently, any organization or business possesses legal foundation for the
implementation of legal guidelines for secrecy on the basis of trade secrets or proprietary
organizational information. Therefore, it is specifically essential to concentrate on limited data to
achieve a degree of full understanding.
Nevertheless, as a result of unavoidable limiting aspects, this thesis is not going to
incorporate any fieldwork. Due to this, it became essential to implement a pragmatic strategy,
making it possible for objective evaluation along with results interpretation, not including any
polarized preferences. An additional significant curtailment regarding the research appertains to
the emphasis on a section of the MIC, precisely due to the relationship between the private
militarization sector along with other actors within the domain of security.

7
 Discussion
Privatized Militaries in a Securitized Globe
The victory of liberalism as well as the end of the Cold War resulted in war privatization
and the introduction of the MIC. The way in which this occurred has been properly documented
by journalists and also political scientists. Although some argue that security privatization is part
of a broader globalization trend as well as the restructuring and decline of the power of states
(Bernstein & Wilson 2011), scholars analyzing the reasons why its rise has been mainly centered
on policy-related factors as well as mechanisms. Addressing the public sensitivities to fallen
soldiers (Petersohn, 2008), pressure from the defense industry which recognized possibilities of
profit (Singer, 2011), as well as a growing cultural belief that privatization can result in better
and even more efficient security (e.g., Koistinen, 1980), United States policy makers during the
nineties opened the door for privately owned companies to step in. Achievements of Contractors
within Bosnia in 1995, where they worked mainly as advisors, and later with the incredible
success of the South
African Executive Results in Sierra Leone in 1995 and the quick ending of the
Groundbreaking United Front rule of terror (Bernstein & Wilson 2011), indicated a new trend in
warfare privatization. Nevertheless, the new millennium wars, especially the Afghanistan as well
as Iraq war, were the contractors' principle display of force. Responsible for communication,
intelligence, logistics, maintenance, interpretation, static and patrol security tasks (Genoe, 2011),
all roles traditionally missioned by expert soldiers, the private military sector had not been a vital
part in the war effort, it was the war effort itself. This trend was copied and modified by other
nations as well, with the Israeli checkpoint missions' privatization in the West Bank (Schein and
Greiner, 1989), Russian dependence on contractors in the Ukrainian as well as Syrian conflicts
(Rogin, 2014), Indonesian border security (Alban, 2013), Nigerian war against Boko Haram
(Smith, 2015), and also China's growing security footprint within Africa (Collins & Erickson,
2012). Without realizing it, contractors grew to be the weapon of choice worldwide.
Since war has privatized, army affairs have become increasingly isolated from all other
areas of social life (Clemmensen-Rahbek et al., 2012). However, while the public's direct
encounters with military affairs and war have continually decreased in the last several decades,
the role of security in social life has surprisingly grown. Global relations scholars describe this
growth of security as “securitization,” defined as “the social processes through which groups of
individuals construct something as being a threat” (Dunne & Coulomb, 2008). In these terms, as
soon as concerns are placed firmly within the political arena (subject to discussion and in need of
normal public policy interventions) are relocated to the security arena (justifying urgent
measures).
The increase of securitization is extensively documented. In America, a securitization
rhetoric cascade followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, with the notion that threat
mirrored in everything from drastically increased airport security to anti‐Muslim violence and
waves of Islamophobia (Bernstein, 2011). For several decades, the securitization literature
continued to be resolutely at this macrosocial analysis level, theorizing a wide historical trend in
which the increase of PMSCs was a small, discordant note. Lately, nonetheless, another wave of
scholars has stressed the processual character of securitization, observing the securitization of
economic policies, of migrants, and of the HIV/AIDS pandemic (Smith, 2016). Viewing
securitization with regards to the processes whereby security is enacted on the ground, instead of

8
its circulation in the public sphere, requires much closer focus on the agencies which enact
security policies as well as points straight to the understudied PMSC sector.
From a securitization point of view, war privatization is part of a wider social procedure
which predicts not just the shift of traditional public sector work to private sector actors but also
a “mission creep” which will spread the reasoning of security (and especially privatized security)
ever deeper into the lives of states, not only at the political rhetoric level, but also at the level of
ground troops. Indeed, this is exactly what we have observed in America's latest wars.
The scope of the privatization of American army operations is clear in Figure 1. There,
we see that since 2008, contractors exceeded uniformed service members both in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Furthermore, it was the contractors in Iraq that maintained the United States
foothold after the American evacuation. This trend is also apparent in expenses. The Department
of Defense contract obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq during the period of 2007-2014 reached
$215 billion (Schwartz, Peters, & Kapp, 2015). In 2014 only, as shown in figure 1, American
taxpayers spent $12.5 billion on contractors in those two theaters, a bit more compared to what
they spent on the whole Department of Labor (Office of Management and Budget, 2014).

9
 Figure 1: American Forces and Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2001–2016.
Source: (Schwartz, Peters, & Kapp, 2015)

Privately owned companies not only provided privatized troops but also supplied
numerous war‐related services (Dunigan et al., 2013). Contrary to media representations as well
as common assumptions of the industry, particularly considering the image of contractors as
mercenaries, contractors are hardly ever used for battle missions. For instance, in Iraq, majority
of the contractor staff were used in base support (65.3%) with only 12.2% employed for security
(Schwartz, 2010). However, all services they offer, harmless as they may seem (cooking,
maintenance, as well as transportation), are tasks once carried out by military staff and include
substantial danger compared to parallel occupations within the civilian market.
There is also a wider context to take into account. The separation between “supporting
war” and “fighting war” unclear in the Crimea Annexation, Syrian Civil War, as well as the
Yemen Civil War with contractors taking an active role in (Rogin, 2014). With United Nations
debates on utilizing privately owned security companies for peacekeeping and recommendations
of leaders in the industry to battle ISIL in Iraq and Syria as substitute for sending the soldiers, the
function of MIC in foreign policy has never been as great as it is currently.
A RAND report about the Department of Defense's own non-uniformed support
personnel, the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW), compared its functions with private
security contractors (PSCs) and private military contractors (Dunigan, 2012). The report
demonstrates that while MIC’s functions are unique and give attention to forms of security,
PMCs offer more technical skills as well as specializations (Table 1). Additionally, it shows that
there are some similarities between the PMCs and CEWs when it comes to services offered.
Since military functions are privatized, it is possible for the increase in efficiency or at
least a decline in redundancy. In comparison, what the concept of securitization predicts and
what these data recommend is that war privatization might be unfolding together with the
securitization of what were once military‐centered workplaces. This leaves them outside the
normal mechanisms of oversight as well as political responsibility, while also eliminating them
from the expert purview of uniformed troops and thus, it is an unpleasant development.

10
 References
Alban, S. (2013). Monitoring the border: Indonesian port security and the role of private actors.
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 163-187.
Aron, R. (1979). Remarks on Lasswell's" The Garrison State". Armed Forces & Society,
5(3), 347-359.
Asadi, M. (2013). Qualitative Diagrams: The Grammar of the Sociological Imagination.
Bernstein, M. A., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). New perspectives on the history of the military–
industrial complex. Enterprise & Society, 12(1), 1-9.
Bernstein, M. A., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). New perspectives on the history of the military–
industrial complex. Enterprise & Society, 12(1), 1-9.
Clemmensen-Rahbek, J., Archer, E. M., Barr, J., Belkin, A., Guerrero, M., Hall, C., & Swain, K.
E. (2012). Conceptualizing the civil–military gap: A research note. Armed Forces &
Society, 38(4), 669-678.
Collins G. and Erickson A. (2012). Enter China's security firms. The Diplomat. February 21.
Reterived 11/24/2016.
Cooling, B. F. (2010). The military–industrial complex. A companion to American military
history, 966-89.
Cuff, R. D. (1978). An organizational perspective on the military-industrial complex.
Business History Review, 52(2), 250-267.
Dunigan, M. (2012). Considerations for the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Dunigan, M., C.M Farmer, R.M. Burns, A. Hawks, and C.M. Setodji. (2013). Out of the
shadows: The health and well‐being of private contractors working in conflict
environments: Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Dunne, J. P. (1993). The changing military industrial complex in the UK. Defence and Peace
Economics, 4(2), 91-111.
Dunne, J. P., & Sköns, E. (2014). The military industrial complex. In The Global Arms Trade
(pp. 281-292). Routledge.
Dunne, P., & Coulomb, F. (2008). Peace, war and international security: economic theories. In
War, Peace and Security (pp. 13-36). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Encarta (2005). Conflate. World English Dictionary. Microsoft Corporation.
Genoe McLaren, P. (2011). James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, and the
development of management theory in post-war America. Management &
Organizational History, 6(4), 411-423.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers. 4th Edition London: Sage
Hartley, K., & Sandler, T. (2007). Handbook of Defense Economics (Vol. 2). Elsevier.
Koistinen, P. A. (1980). The Military-Industrial Complex: A Historical Perspective. Praeger
Publishers.
Lynn III, W. J. (2014). The end of the military-industrial complex: How the Pentagon is
adapting to globalization. Foreign Aff., 93, 104.
Military Industrial Complex. No.5.
Moskos, C. C. (1972). The military-industrial complex: theoretical antecedents and conceptual
contradictions. The Military-Industrial Complex: A Reassessment, 3-23.
Petersohn, U. (2008). Outsourcing the big stick: the consequences of using private military
companies. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University,

11
 Cambridge [nd]. http://www. wcfia. harvard.
edu/sites/default/files/Petersohn_Outsourcing. pdf.
Rogin, J. (2014). ‘Exclusive: Russian “Blackwater” takes over Ukraine airport’. The Daily Beast,
28 February.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students. 5th
Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Schein, V., & Greiner, L. (1989). Power and organization development: Mobilizing power to
implement change.
Schwartz, M., Peters, H. M., & Kapp, L. (2017). Department of Defense Contractor and Troop
Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2017. Current Politics and Economics of the
Middle East, 8(4), 449-463.
Smith, R. (2016). Military economics: the interaction of power and money. Springer.
Smith, R. P. (1977). Military expenditure and capitalism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1(1),
61-76.
Sweezy, P. M. (2004). Monopoly capitalism. Monthly Review, 56(5), 78.
Van Creveld, M. (2010). Technology and war: From 2000 BC to the present. Simon and
Schuster.
Van Creveld, M. (2010). The culture of war. Tantor Audio.
Weber, M. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. Simon and Schuster.

12