Defense Industry Offsets: The President's Hands on Policy

dc.contributor.authorHobbs, Brian Scotten
dc.contributor.committeechairLevinson, Chaden
dc.contributor.committeememberAhram, Ariel I.en
dc.contributor.committeememberLinehan, Paulen
dc.contributor.committeememberDatz, Giselleen
dc.contributor.departmentPublic Administration/Public Affairsen
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-31T08:02:07Zen
dc.date.available2025-05-31T08:02:07Zen
dc.date.issued2025-05-30en
dc.description.abstractDefense industry offsets are negotiated benefits that exporters add to arms deals to satisfy importer desires for something beyond a basic exchange. They are estimated at 30%-40% of the total value of the worldwide arms trade, and while not commonly understood, offsets are so prevalent that most defense firms cannot compete internationally without them. The U.S. Government relies on the arms trade as a critical foreign policy tool, but rare U.S. Government support for offsets is handled inconspicuously. Rather than acknowledge government practice, government agencies, offset specialists, and scholarly publications tend to exaggerate the U.S. Government perspective by calling it the 'hands off' policy. This reinforces a misunderstanding that the U.S. Government completely abstains from promoting U.S. industry interests in offset projects. Although the president retains the discretion to authorize encouragement for offsets, the 'hands off' assumption is so strong that stakeholders and analysts do not anticipate or assume U.S. Government encouragement in practice. This study addresses the question, "Why and in what circumstances does the president decide to go 'hands on' for offsets as a foreign policy tool?" This study argues that relative gains concerns in U.S. foreign policy and national security that are significant enough to overcome domestic political constraints can sometimes, but not always, influence the president to authorize encouragement for U.S. industry in offset projects. These concerns are more salient with offsets where defense companies from other countries are competing against U.S. industry to obtain major arms trade contracts. When choosing to promote offsets as a foreign policy tool, the president demonstrates a desire to build security partner capacity and improve U.S. bilateral relations with allies and partners. Simultaneously however, competing domestic U.S. stakeholders in Congress and their constituents among large defense contractors, labor unions, suppliers, and subcontractors may support or oppose offset policy based on their own primary interests and benefits. The president contends with these domestic constituent interests, where a few large defense contractors sometimes prefer more active government support for offsets, while opposing groups advocate for restrictions beyond the status quo to curtail competition and prevent job and technology losses. This paper is among the first to explore U.S. Government offsets encouragement since policy implementation in 1992, at the end of the Cold War, highlighting a topic that continues to generate controversy between supporters and detractors. Research results will add to the body of knowledge and limited literature on U.S. offset policy. Understanding the causes and constraints for this unique and little-known U.S. Government practice builds understanding of national interests, the defense industrial base, the arms trade, domestic political constituent issues, and foreign policy interests shared with international security partners. Creating awareness beyond prohibitive assumptions will enable foreign policy leaders to expand their knowledge and perceptions of diplomatic alternatives, creating opportunities for success that most practitioners do not consider or acknowledge.en
dc.description.abstractgeneralFederal policy on government support for offsets in arms exports sounds so prohibitive that it is frequently mislabeled the 'hands off' policy. This misses the clause, stated within the same policy, where the president can authorize government involvement. Offsets are defined as direct or indirect, when importers extract extra items and services tied to purchasing defense equipment or services to obtain something from exporters that the importers typically cannot accomplish on their own. An example of a direct offset is an exporter building an in-country factory for the importer to assemble tank parts into a final product, rather than simply providing a finished product. The offset is direct because the factory is directly related to the tank. Indirect offsets appear unrelated to the primary contract, where an exporter might train the importer's astronauts in connection with a fighter aircraft package, or build a shrimp farm as part of a ground-based radar deal. Most exporters would prefer to do business without offsets. However, intense competition among exporters creates a 'buyer's market,' giving importers the upper hand in judging weapon systems not only on their own merits, but also based on what offsets are included with the total package deal. Although widely perceived as universally hands off, U.S. policy contains some flexibility for intervention. The "Declaration of Offset Policy" states: "… no agency of the United States Government shall encourage, enter directly into, or commit United States firms to any offset arrangement in connection with the sale of defense goods or services to foreign governments" (U.S. Congress 1992, §123 4207). Government publications frequently repeat or paraphrase this prohibitive text. Yet the same federal statute also states, "the President may approve an exception to the policy." Federal agency publications typically exclude the clause, with most practitioners and academics unaware of this path to government encouragement for offsets. Based on the chief executive's legislated policy role, this study looks into the exception, where the U.S. Government provides encouragement for offsets. American arms exporters deliver equipment and services as a tool of foreign policy intended for America's allies and partners. This means that foreign arms competition in the market and in the battle space can undermine these goals and hurt U.S. national interests abroad. When problematic offsets undermine foreign policy, they can produce national security concerns at the president's level that motivate and enable support and encouragement for U.S. exporters. Reviewing cases with the United Arab Emirates, Poland, and India shows that prohibitions against government support for offsets are neither universal nor ironclad. Evidence is stronger in some cases than others when the federal government occasionally provides encouragement for offsets. Understanding how policy and practice interact and how to improve support for national security enables opportunities for success through offsets that most arms trade specialists and policy leaders do not consider or acknowledge.en
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophyen
dc.format.mediumETDen
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:42983en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10919/134949en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectDefense offsetsen
dc.subjectburden sharingen
dc.subjecttwo-level gameen
dc.subjectrelative gainsen
dc.titleDefense Industry Offsets: The President's Hands on Policyen
dc.typeDissertationen
thesis.degree.disciplinePlanning, Governance, and Globalizationen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Hobbs_BS_D_2025.pdf
Size:
1.79 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format