2014军费开支前15名.jpg (216.22 KB, 下载次数: 5)
2015-2-12 13:10 上传
2015年2月11日
IISS国防和经济助理研究员Giri Rajendran，
与2013年相比，2014年世界国防预算排名前15的国家格局发生了重大变化。例如，2013年刚取代英国跃居第四的沙特阿拉伯，今年又窜到了第三位。去年一年里，沙特的国防开支持续增加，已经超过了俄罗斯。
同时，2014年，印度的国防预算排名超过了德国，升至第八位，这得益于莫迪执政后新德里做出的增加国防预算的决定；相比之下，受采购延误和旨在降低公共债务水平的联邦预算整合政策的影响，柏林选择了削减军费支出。
不过，今年的排行榜仍然保留了之前版本的特点，比如美国国防支出与其他国家存在的巨大差距:其国防支出几乎相当于其余14个国家的国防支出总和，约为中国（排名第二）官方预算的4.5倍。
然而，正如去年图表分析所指，在对各国国防开支水平做国际性比较时，很难得出有意义的结论。例如，以美元计算的话，俄罗斯的官方国防预算下降，甚至低于沙特阿拉伯。
部分原因是，国际油价下跌和经济制裁导致卢布在过去一年贬值:卢布贬值使得以美元计价的俄罗斯国防支出缩水，因为汇率转换时使用的是平均市场汇率。
同样，日本的国防支出水平—以美元计算-近年来也大幅下降，这是由于“安倍经济学”指导下的日本货币政策使得日元大幅贬值-尽管以日圆计算时，这个国家的国防预算实际上是在上涨。
另外，各国衡量军费支出的参照标准不尽相同。这种差异性的影响很显著: 沙特阿拉伯公布的国防预算数据只涵盖了国防和安全预算，其中包括内政部和国防部支出，而俄罗斯的官方国防预算则没有涵盖养老金、准军事组织以及其他军事福利（如住房和医疗保健）支出。
这些并不是唯一的例子，在对各国的军费开支水平进行比较时，理清各国对国防预算定义非常重要。最近几年，在与国防相关的其他预算项目中，美国至少投入了200亿美元，比如美国的强制性支出和通过财政部预算方面的支出(这两种基金都涵盖对一些军事退休和医疗成本的支出)。
至于中国，与沙特阿拉伯一样，是世界上国防预算最不透明的国家——人们普遍认为，中国公布的官方国防预算数据遗漏了很大一部分用于国防研究和发展项目的支出。通常情况下，各国均不会公布自己对国防预算的定义，所以想要对世界各国国防支出情况作出准确的分析非常困难。
此外，缺乏直接可比的的国防预算信息—加之汇率的变动-使得跨区域国防开支评估工作更加复杂。IISS 2015年《军力平衡报告》对其中固有的细微差别做了详细分析，其中包括世界国、各地区情况的大量数据分析。
注：表中数据涵盖了美国对有关国家的外交军事援助(FMA)。
源文：
https://www.iiss.org/en/military ... fence-spenders-bb5d
Giri Rajendran: The Military Balance - 2014's top defence spenders
11 February 2015
By Giri Rajendran, Research Associate for Defence and Economics
A regular feature in The Military Balance is the updated graphic of the top 15 official defence budgets around the world*. There are significant changes in this year’s chart. For instance, after displacing the United Kingdom at fourth position last year, Saudi Arabia has risen this year into third place, above Russia, after sustained increments to the official Saudi defence budget in 2014.
Also, 2014 saw India rise to eighth place – above Germany – after New Delhi opted to raise its defence budget following Narendra Modi’s election victory that year, while Berlin opted to cut spending due to procurement delays and federal budget consolidation aimed at reducing public debt levels.
That said, this year’s chart still reflects characteristics common to previous editions, such as the wide differential between US defence outlays relative to other states: the US spends almost as much as the next 14 largest spenders combined, and some 4.5 times more than the official budget of the world’s second largest spender, China.
However, as was pointed out during last year’s launch, arriving at meaningful international comparisons of defence-spending levels is problematic. For example, Russia’s official defence budget has fallen below that of Saudi Arabia, in US dollar terms.
This is partly because the rouble has depreciated over the past year due to declining oil prices and economic sanctions: a weaker rouble shrinks the value of Russian defence outlays in US dollars when exchange rate conversions are made using average annual market exchange rates.
Similarly, Japanese defence spending levels – in US dollar terms – have fallen substantially in recent years, due to the drastic currency depreciation caused by Japan’s monetary policies under ‘Abenomics’, despite the country’s defence budget actually rising in yen terms.
Additionally, the chart depicts official defence budgets*, but countries differ on the precise elements they include under this budget line. The impact of this can be significant: the only official figure on defence spending released by Saudi Arabia is the country’s ‘defence and security’ budget, which includes funding for the Ministry of the Interior as well as the Ministry of Defence; while Russia’s official ‘national defence’ budget excludes some outlays on military pensions, paramilitaries and other military benefits, such as housing and healthcare.
Nor are these the only examples of how budget definitions matter when comparing military expenditure across countries. In recent years, the US has included at least some US$20 billion in defence-related funding under other budget lines, such as disbursements on mandatory spending and through the Department of the Treasury’s budget (both of which fund some military retirement and healthcare costs).
And China – which along with Saudi Arabia has one of the least transparent defence budgets in the world – is widely believed to exclude from its official defence budget funding for a significant proportion of its defence-related research and development programmes. The fact that budgetary definitions are often not publicised adds to the difficulty in ascertaining precise disbursements.
Furthermore, the paucity of directly comparable information in the area of defence budgeting – along with movements in exchange rates – complicates assessments of cross-regional defence spending comparisons. The nuances inherent in defence-budgeting practices around the world are analysed in detail in the national, regional and extensive data sections contained in The Military Balance 2015.
* Figures also include US Foreign Military Assistance (FMA) funding for relevant countries.
作者: 重修 时间: 2015-2-12 13:35
| 欢迎光临 鼎盛网 (http://www.top81cn.cn/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.1 |