Military bases provide weaker economic benefits than commonly assumed

Evidence

However, research about the economic effects of bases in Germany, the United States, and elsewhere consistently shows that the economic benefits of bases are less significant than one might expect. The benefits are enjoyed disproportionately by relatively few individuals and industries, and people tend to ignore a variety of costs associated with bases that significantly decrease their net economic impact. Moreover, bases are an inefficient form of economic investment; often, they actually inhibit more productive and profitable forms of economic activity. Okinawa, for example, remains Japan’s poorest prefecture. The causes of that poverty are complex, but the period of formal U.S. occupation of Okinawa that lasted until 1972 clearly inhibited economic growth. In recent years, as the base presence has declined, Okinawa’s economy has expanded and diversified around tourism, IT, call centers, and logistics. — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 915

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly supports and quantifies the base-as-economic-burden thread for the infrastructure/economic-argument article.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 915
• XREF: connects to: Military spending creates fewer jobs per billion than social investments — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 653; Bases occupying land represent an economic loss rather than gain; Repurposed bases in Okinawa produce far more economic value than the bases did (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Repurposed bases in Okinawa produce far more economic value than the bases did #corroborates (0.85)
• Bases occupying land represent an economic loss rather than gain #corroborates (0.70)