全球智库信息集成服务系统

Median Army Spending per Congressional District is $121 Million

• In FY 2014, the Army directly spent approximately $121 million in the median congressional district (in 2012 dollars) and $1.7 billion in the median state, with considerable variance across the local economies.
• This direct spending and the intermediate demands generated by out-of-district/out-of-state spending contributed a total of $375 million of economic output to the median congressional district and $5.5 billion to the median state.
• Measured in terms of employment, the economic effect translates into about 4,200 jobs for the median district and just over 62,000 for the median state, with a wide range across economies.
• The report provides results that are broken down by congressional district, as well as aggregated by state, and the economic activity associated with this spending is separated by Army component where applicable.

This report was superseded by a revised, updated edition in early 2021.

This report presents findings on the economic activity supported by total Army spending in each of the 435 congressional districts in fiscal years 2012–2014. To estimate this activity, researchers used district-level input-output (I/O) models and a national-level I/O model known as IMPLAN. Each district-level model is used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced effects of national-level Army spending that affects a particular district. In this context, direct effects are the total Army spending within a district; indirect and induced effects represent the local economic activity that supports both the direct spending and the in-district demand generated from Army spending outside the district. Indirect effects capture interindustry linkages, while induced effects capture the effects of household incomes.

For each congressional district, this report provides the following estimates:

Results are aggregated by state and the economic activity associated with Army spending is separated by component where applicable.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Methodology

• Chapter Three

  Data Sources

• Chapter Four

  Results

• Chapter Five

  Conclusion

• Appendix A

  Preprocessing of Direct Army Spending Data

• Appendix B–1

  Alabama—Minnesota (available separately)

• Appendix B–2

  Mississippi—Wyoming (available separately)