Illustrative Examples of Simulation Findings of the MARS (Mutual Arms Reduction Scenarios)

U U S T R A T N E EXAMPLES OF SJMUMTION

FINDINGS

OF

THE

MARS

(Mutual

Arms Reduction Scenarios)

U a d i m i r Iakimets

Working P a p e r s are interim r e p o r t s on work of t h e International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis and have r e c e i v e d only limited review. Views or opinions e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n d o not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h o s e of t h e Institute or of i t s National Member Organizations.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

F o r s e v e r a l y e a r s t h e Food and Agriculture Program (FAP) h a s worked closely with collaborating institutions in o v e r 20 c o u n t r i e s t o develop a global system of linked national a g r i c u l t u r a l policy models. This system i s now used f o r implementing ap- plied studies. One of t h e s e studies i s devoted t o t h e liberalization of a g r i c u l t u r a l t r a d e , and t h e o t h e r t o hunger and development issues. Evaluation of a l t e r n a t i v e national and international policies t h a t c a n help r e d u c e t h e number of hungry and malnourished people in t h e world h a s been a major topic of t h e second study.

In t h i s p a p e r , Vladimir Iakimets d e s c r i b e s t h e illustrative r e s u l t s of t h e s c e n a r i o MARS (Mutual Arms Reduction Scenario) developed by him f o r exploring conse- quences of r e d i r e c t i n g government expenditures from military t o civil p u r p o s e s on countries' economic development and reduction in hunger. These r e s u l t s show t h a t r e d i r e c t i o n of even small amounts of funds now s p e n t f o r military purposes, h a s a n impact on t h e solution of problems of civil economy at both global and national lev- els.

Vitali Kaf tanov Deputy D i r e c t o r

ABSTRACT

In this paper the preliminary simulation results of the implementations of the Mutu- al Arms Reduction Scenarios (MARS), with the Basic Linked System (BLS) of nation- a l agricultural policy models, a r e described.

I am very grateful t o Kirit Parikh, Ferenc Rabar, and Janos Hrabovszky f o r fruit- ful discussions, t o Gunther Fischer and Gerhard Kromer for assistance with the programmed implementation of the MARS runs, and t o Jan Morovic and Laszlo Zeold f o r plotting the results of simulation.

-

vii

-

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Preliminary Explanations

3 . The Description of the MARS Results

3.1. Some notes about comparison of results for r e f e r e n c e and scenario runs

3.2. Categorization of the MARS results 3.3. Expected trivial results

3 . 4 . Expected interesting results

3.5. Counter-intuitive acceptable results 4. Conclusion

References Figures Appendix 1

Illustrative Examples of Simulation Findings of the MAFts (Mutual Arms Reduction Scenarios)

K Iakimets

1. Introduction

In t h r e e previous published p a p e r s written by t h e a u t h o r (Iakimets 1985a, Iakimets 1985b, Iakimets 1985c), t h e main ideas f o r t h e development of t h e MARS (Mutual Arms Reduction S c e n a r i o s ) f o r t h e Food and Agriculture Program's (FAP) study "Hunger, Growth a n d Equity" were d e s c r i b e d . In t h e f i r s t p a p e r objectives of t h e MARS, i t s importance, assumptions f o r i t s construction, problems t o b e solved, as well as t h e description of i t s s t r u c t u r e w e r e given. The second p a p e r contains t h e formal description of t h e hypotheses r e l a t i n g t o d e s i r e d dynamics of annual reduction in a c o u n t r y ' s military expenditure.

The t h i r d p a p e r w a s devoted t o a detailed consideration of two versions of t h e s c e n a r i o ' s implementation with t h e BLS (MARS 1 and MARS 2) including methodolog- ical and formalized d e s c r i p t i o n s of v a r i a n t s f o r t h e solution of problems of t h e MARS implementation s t a t e d in t h e f i r s t p a p e r (Iakimets, 1985a).

2. Preliminary Explanations

To begin t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e MARS 1 and MARS 2 r e s u l t s w e need t o c l a r i f y t h e following items.

1. These r e s u l t s are based on simulation r u n s of t h e BLS under a set of hypotheses a n d assumptions of behavior of national models, a n d c a n b e con- s i d e r e d as completely illustrative ones.

2. Results d e s c r i b e d in t h e p a p e r are r e l a t e d t o t h e c a s e when t h e values of t h e coefficients f o r annual reduction of military expenditures a ( t ) were a c c e p t e d conditionally as fixed ones f o r t

=

T f o r t h r e e e a t e g o r i e s of c o u n t r i e s a c c o r d - ing t o Table 1 in Iakimets ( 1 9 8 5 ~ ) .

3. F o r t h e MARS 2 t h e a l t e r n a t i v e version (different t o Iakimets ( 1 9 8 5 ~ ) ) f o r cal- culation of a country's s h a r e in t h e Additional International Donation (AID) fund w a s used, namely

with

where

I

According to t h i s v a r i a n t a c o u n t r y ' s s h a r e in t h e AID fund will b e p r o p o r t i o n a l to i t ' s population, weighted by w j where

popj(t) i s population of j-th c o u n t r y , GDPf(t) i s GDP p e r c a p u t of j-th c o u n t r y ,

AIDj(t) i s s h a r e of j-th c o u n t r y in t o t a l AID fund.

4. When comparing plots given in t h i s p a p e r w e need to b e a r in mind t h a t t h e only r e l a t i v e changes of corresponding indicators are used. In o n e case t h e s e are changes of indicator values u n d e r MARS 1 ( o r MARS 2) r e l a t i v e t o such values f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e s c e n a r i o , a n d in a n o t h e r case t h e s e are c h a n g e s of t h e a b o v e mentioned values u n d e r MARS 2 r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e for MARS 1.

5. The following notations for distinction of r e s u l t s on t h e plots were a c c e p t e d : A 1 means MARS 1

A4 means MARS 2

RO means r e f e r e n c e s c e n a r i o

Finally, when comparing c h a n g e s of indicators given on t h e plots, t h e differ- e n c e s in s c a l e s used should b e t a k e n i n t o account.

6 . The models of t h e regional c o u n t r y g r o u p s have number c o d e s from 9 0 1 t o 913. These were c o n s t r u c t e d using r e s u l t s of t h e FA0 study, (FAO, 1981).

7. All d e t a i l s a b o u t t h e methodology f o r t h e construction and running of t h e BLS, developed by t h e FAP team, c a n b e found in F i s c h e r , et al. (forthcoming).

3. The Description of the

MARS

Results

3.1. Some notes about comparison of results for the reference and scenario runs

According to t h e FAP a p p r o a c h , t w o t y p e s of r u n s are discerned: t h e r e f e r - e n c e and s c e n a r i o r u n s . By definition t h e r e f e r e n c e r u n i s when all national models simulate t h e b e h a v i o r of c o u n t r i e s ' economies on t h e b a s i s of relationships r e v e a l e d f o r t h e h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d of 15

-

20 y e a r s . Within t h e r e f e r e n c e r u n e a c h model which i s interlinked with o t h e r models of t h e BLS, h a s to r e p r o d u c e as closely as possible o b s e r v e d values of a number of g e n e r a l a n d commodity-wise indicators f o r a c o u n t r y f o r t h i s h i s t o r i c a l period and i t h a s to p r o d u c e s u c h values f o r t h e p e r i o d of simulation of t h e next 15-20 y e a r s u n d e r a n assumption t h a t no s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s in i t s economy o c c u r . Within t h e s c e n a r i o r u n , e a c h model interlinked with o t h e r models of t h e BLS h a s to g e n e r a t e "new" values of t h e same i n d i c a t o r s r e f l e c t i n g corresponding changes of national a n d international policies according to t h e developed s c e n a r i o .

When comparing t h e r e s u l t s of t h e r e f e r e n c e and s c e n a r i o r u n s o n e c a n see t h e impact of various policies o n world and national economy. Such a comparison of r e s u l t s of simulation c a n b e made in principle, both in quantitative and qualita- t i v e ways. However, t h e a p p r o p r i a t e comparison of r e s u l t s of two r u n s i s a quali- t a t i v e one. I t means t h a t r e s u l t s of r u n s should b e i n t e r p r e t e d from t h e point of view of tendencies in changing of r e l a t i v e values of b a s i c a n d commodity-wise indi- cators f o r a c o u n t r y a n d f o r t h e world as a whole. An a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o a c h to such a qualitative cross c o u n t r i e s ( o r cross commodities) comparison seems to b e t h e application of t h e o r d e r i n g relation. In o t h e r words comparing r e s u l t s of r u n s o n e c a n use s u c h t y p e s of o r d e r i n g r e l a t i o n s as "more-less", "better-worse",

"faster-slower" and so on.

When describing t h e r e s u l t s of t h e MARS t h e above mentioned a r e kept in mind.

3.2. Categorization of the

MARS

results

It seems reasonable t o classify t h e r e s u l t s of both MARS 1 and MARS 2 into 2 c a t e g o r i e s , namely, e x p e c t e d and counter-intuitive ones.

Ezpected r e s u l t s are those which can b e predicted with a high level of cer- tainty on t h e basis of traditional logical analysis of t h e possible behavior of national models under t h e impact of changes in policies given by t h e scenario. In a determined s e n s e t h e s e r e s u l t s have little o r no dependence upon t h e interaction of s e p a r a t e models.

C o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e r e s u l t s are t h o s e which strongly depend upon t h e interac- tion of national models f o r t h e simulation period and which cannot b e predicted on t h e basis of traditional logical analysis o r predictions of which are highly uncer- tain.

With t h e f i r s t c a t e g o r y t r i v i a l and i n t e r e s t i n g expected r e s u l t s are dis- c e r n e d .

3.3. Expected trivial r d t s

It i s c l e a r and self-evident, on t h e basis of traditional logical considerations, t h a t redirecting r e s o u r c e s used now f o r military expenditures into development- oriented investment would lead to improvement of basic economic and welfare indi- c a t o r s f o r s e p a r a t e countries and f o r t h e world economy a s a whole. Moreover, t h e r e are a number of o t h e r studies which have a l r e a d y showed such results.

According t o t h e s c e n a r i o description w e expected t h a t values of such indica- t o r s as

-

total g r o s s world production as well as g r o s s world production of agricultural and nonagricultural goods;

-

world production of various a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities;

-

g r o s s domestic p r o d u c t of s e p a r a t e countries;

-

c a l o r i e and protein supply p e r c a p u t in countries

,

would b e higher under various versions of t h e MARS t h a n under t h e r e f e r e n c e scenario.

All t h e s e t r i v i a l e x p e c t e d r e s u l t s are obtained as c a n b e s e e n from Figures 1- 15 where r e l a t i v e changes of some of t h e above mentioned basic indicators a r e given.

Thus t h e world production of e a c h commodity f o r both versions of t h e MARS i s higher t h a n f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e r u n (see Figures 2-5 and 9-12 f o r wheat, r i c e , and d a i r y commodities and f o r non-agriculture) and i t i s h i g h e r f o r t h e MARS 2 if com- p a r e d to t h e MARS 1.

Absolutely t h e same tendencies of changes are obtained f o r such basic indica- tors as G D P and c a l o r i e s supply, p e r c a p u t f o r s e p a r a t e countries (see Figures 6-8 and 13-15).

W e expected a l s o t h a t a number of additional welfare indicators which are d e r i v a t e s from basic indicators (such a s number of people in hunger, life expec- tancy a t b i r t h in y e a r s , infant mortality) will show positive changes f o r e a c h coun- t r y under t h e MARS in comparison with r e f e r e n c e run. These expectations were a l s o fulfilled (see Figures 16-19 f o r 4 selected countries).

3.4. Expected interesting results

Expecting t h e i n c r e a s e of world production of d i f f e r e n t commodities u n d e r t h e MARS r e l a t i v e to t h e r e f e r e n c e s c e n a r i o w e could only g u e s s f o r which commo- dity such a n i n c r e a s e would b e h i g h e r as well as what d i f f e r e n c e s in world produc- tion of s e p a r a t e commodities would o c c u r u n d e r d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s of t h e MARS.

When comparing t h e r e s u l t s w e found, f o r example, t h a t r e l a t i v e i n c r e a s e in world production of r i c e i s high f o r both MARS 1 and MARS 2 in comparison with o t h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities ( s e e Figures 20-22 f o r wheat, r i c e a n d dairy). This i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t could b e explained as follows: most of t h e c o u n t r i e s which r e c e i v e d some s h a r e of t h e AID funds within t h e MARS are major rice-producing and rice-consuming countries. That i s why i t i s n a t u r a l t h a t t h i s a i d r e c e i v e d pro- vides t h e i n c r e a s e of r i c e production in t h e s e c o u n t r i e s (India, Indonesia, Pakis- t a n , etc.), a n d in t h e world as a whole.

The o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t i s t h a t t h e world production of non-agricultural goods remains u n d e r t h e MARS 2 approximately t h e same as u n d e r t h e MARS 1 ( s e e Figure 23). The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t i s t h e following. The increment of production of non-agricultural goods in c o u n t r i e s which are t h e AID r e c i p i e n t s u n d e r t h e MARS 2 i s compatible with slight d e c r e a s i n g of s u c h production f o r coun- t r i e s which are major d o n o r s to t h e AID u n d e r t h e MARS 2 in comparison with t h e MARS 1.

In some s e n s e t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s also confirmed if we compare r e l a t i v e c h a n g e s in GDP f o r s e p a r a t e c o u n t r i e s (see Figure 24). According to t h i s f i g u r e s u c h c o u n t r i e s as New Zealand, Canada, Argentina a n d Australia, which are d o n o r s to t h e AID, will h a v e u n d e r t h e MARS 2 approximately t h e same r e l a t i v e increment in GDP as u n d e r t h e MARS 1 ( s e e also Figures 6 and 13). However, g r o u p B coun- t r i e s , which are major r e c i p i e n t s from t h e AID (India a n d Indonesia) will h a v e t h e highest r e l a t i v e increment in GDP u n d e r t h e MARS 2 in comparison with t h e MARS 1 ( s e e Figure 24). The same d a t a f o r o t h e r s e l e c t e d c o u n t r i e s i s given in Figure 25.

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t approximately t h e same o r d e r i n g of c o u n t r i e s from t h e point of view of r e l a t i v e increment of s u c h i n d i c a t o r s as c a l o r i e s supply p e r c a p u t remains when r e s u l t s of t h e MARS 2 are compared with t h o s e f o r t h e MARS 1 (see Figure 26).

Of c o u r s e we a l s o e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e LDC's u n d e r t h e MARS will h a v e t h e highest r e l a t i v e increment in GDP, c a l o r i e a n d p r o t e i n supply p e r c a p u t e t c . , t h a n DC's within t h e g r o u p of c o u n t r i e s with t h e same value of annual r e d u c t i o n of mili- t a r y expenditures. This i s obvious, f o r example, b e c a u s e t h e initial absolute values of GDP of t h o s e c a t e g o r i e s of c o u n t r i e s are essentially different. However, it i s interesting to see t h a t o r d e r i n g of s e l e c t e d c o u n t r i e s by r e l a t i v e increment of t h e above mentioned indicators will b e d i f f e r e n t in t h e case of t h e MARS 2 com- p a r e d to t h e MARS 1 (compare corresponding Figures 6-8, 13-15). The i n t e r p r e t a - tion i s t h e following: economies of c o u n t r i e s which c h a n g e t h e i r p l a c e s in o r d e r i n g u n d e r t h e MARS 2 in comparison with t h e MARS 1 , are sensitive to international aid. This e x p e c t e d i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t a b o u t sensitivity of d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s to international a i d i s also confirmed if w e compare tendencies in r e l a t i v e changes of so-called d e r i v a t i v e i n d i c a t o r as "number of people in hunger" f o r s e l e c t e d coun- t r i e s u n d e r both v e r s i o n s of t h e MARS ( s e e Figures 27-30).

Such c o u n t r i e s as Indonesia a n d low income c o u n t r y grouping (Nepal, Burma, S r i Lanka, Bangladesh) are more sensitive t h a n f o r example, Thailand, a n d high income food importing Latin American c o u n t r i e s (Jamaica, Trinidad a n d Tobago, Chile, P e r u , and Venezuela).

To give some idea a b o u t t h e distribution of AID fund among "poor" LDC's, see Figures 31, 3 2 and 33 which r e p r o d u c e such d a t a for 1990 and 2000.

3.5. Counter-intuitive acceptable results

Apparently t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s f o r t h i s s c e n a r i o are t h o s e w e called counter-intuitive a c c e p t a b l e r e s u l t s . As a n example of s u c h kind of r e s u l t s w e con- s i d e r in t h i s p a p e r , t h o s e concerning r e l a t i v e changes of world m a r k e t p r i c e s a n d world n e t e x p o r t of s e p a r a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l commodities and self-sufficiency r a t i o of c o u n t r i e s in t h e s e commodities.

Thus when comparing r e s u l t s of both t h e MARS r u n s w e found t h a t world m a r k e t p r i c e s of wheat a n d world n e t e x p o r t of wheat are p r a c t i c a l l y n o t d i f f e r e n t f o r both versions of t h e s c e n a r i o from t h o s e f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e s c e n a r i o ( s e e Fig- u r e s 34-39). Values of t h o s e commodity-wise i n d i c a t o r s f o r d a i r y commodities became slightly h i g h e r f o r both s c e n a r i o s r u n s in comparison to t h e r e f e r e n c e r u n ( s e e Figures 40-43), a n d correspondingly h i g h e r f o r t h e MARS 2 in comparison to t h e MARS 1 ( s e e Figures 44, 45). I t is, however. s t r a n g e t h a t i n c r e a s e s in t h e p r i c e of d a i r y coincides with t h e growth of n e t world e x p o r t . However, t h e most e s s e n t i a l c h a n g e s of t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s o c c u r f o r r i c e ( s e e corresponding Figures 46-51). The most i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t f o r MARS 1 we obtain t h e d e c r e a s - ing r e l a t i v e p r i c e s of r i c e (Figure 46) with p r a c t i c a l l y unchanged world n e t e x p o r t of t h i s commodity. This means t h a t utilization of t h e i r own r e l e a s e d fund f o r i n t e r - nal p u r p o s e s mainly a f f e c t s t h e growth of domestic production of r i c e within major rice-producing c o u n t r i e s , a n d l e a d s to growth of volumes of r i c e on t h e world m a r k e t keeping t h e value of n e t world e x p o r t as i t i s in t h e r e f e r e n c e r u n b e c a u s e t h e world m a r k e t p r i c e s w e r e d e c r e a s e d .

In t h e case of t h e MARS 2, when "poor" LDC's r e c e i v e d t h e i r s h a r e of t h e AID, t h e world m a r k e t p r i c e s went down f u r t h e r ( s e e Figure 47)' a n d n e t world e x p o r t of t h i s commodity i n c r e a s e d (Figure 49). Corresponding p l o t s f o r comparison of rela- tive values of world m a r k e t p r i c e , a n d n e t world e x p o r t s f o r r i c e f o r MARS 2 rela- t i v e to MARS 1 show more evidently t h a t tendency (Figures 5 0 a n d 51).

This r e s u l t c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d as follows. The l a r g e s t s h a r e of t h e AID i s dis- t r i b u t e d among LDC's, which are t h e major rice-producing a n d rice-consuming c o u n t r i e s ( s e e Figures 3 2 and 33). These c o u n t r i e s improve t h e i r own production of r i c e . P r o b a b l y mainly d u e to t h i s r e a s o n , t h e c a l o r i e s a n d p r o t e i n supply p e r c a p u t i s a l s o i n c r e a s e d ( s e e Figures 8 , 1 5 , 26). The world m a r k e t p r i c e of r i c e i s going down a n d n e t world e x p o r t i s going up.

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e t h a t s u c h a tendency h a s a s t r o n g impact on r e l a t i v e values of t h e country-specific self-sufficiency r a t i o f o r r i c e ( s e e Figures 52-53).

Because t h e world m a r k e t p r i c e s of r i c e g o down, some major rice-consuming coun- t r i e s , a p a r t from t h e i r own r i c e production, t h e n also i n c r e a s e t h e i r imports a n d e x p o r t s of r i c e . This l e a d s to d e c r e a s i n g self-sufficiency r a t i o of t h i s commodity f o r many such c o u n t r i e s . I t should b e noted t h a t f o r t h e MARS 2 ( s e e Figure 53) s u c h a tendency becomes more distinct ( s e e also Figure 5 4 f o r comparison of r e s u l t s f o r MARS 2 r e l a t i v e to MARS 1 ) .

I t i s a completely d i f f e r e n t case f o r wheat. F o r m o s t c o u n t r i e s self- sufficiency of wheat i s h i g h e r f o r both versions of t h e MARS ( s e e Figures 55-56).

a n d t h e r e i s p r a c t i c a l l y no c h a n g e s in values of t h i s indicator between MARS 1 and MARS 2 (Figure 57). If w e c o m p a r e changes in t h i s indicator f o r d a i r y , o n e c a n see t h a t when many c o u n t r i e s k e e p t h e i r self-sufficiency r a t i o f o r t h i s commodity p r a c t i c a l l y unchanged, t h e r e are c o u n t r i e s where t h i s indicator becomes b e t t e r (Indonesia, Thailand, Kenya), a n d c o u n t r i e s where t h i s i n d i c a t o r is d e c r e a s e d (Nigeria, Egypt). (See corresponding plots on Figures 58-60.)

It i s v e r y interesting t o compare also t h e behavior of c o u n t r i e s from t h e point of view of t h e i r self-sufficiency r a t i o in non-agricultural production (see Figures 61-63). Two countries (India and Kenya) have opposite tendencies: f o r India o n e s e e s a n i n c r e a s e of r e l a t i v e values f o r t h i s indicator, and f o r Kenya vice v e r s a . I t should b e mentioned t h a t such tendencies remain f o r both versions of t h e MARS.

A t t h e same time all o t h e r countries have practically unchanged values f o r t h e indicator. One possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r additional investment in India i s t h a t i t does not matter which s o u r c e (own r e l e a s e d fund o r from AID) helps f i r s t of all f o r growth of non-agricultural production.

4. Conclusions

The main advantage of t h e BLS i s probably t h a t t h e r e s u l t s of i t s simulation allow t o t r a c e t h e dynamic changes of both g e n e r a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l commodity- wise indicators on national and international levels under various assumed national policies and transformations of t h e world market mechanism.

Experience of t h e MARS implementation with t h e BLS shows t h a t this system i s quite a n a p p r o p r i a t e tool f o r t h e study of corresponding complex applied economic issues like t h e world hunger problem.

Thus, t h e r e s u l t s called in t h i s p a p e r as expected t r i v i a l ones, i l l u s t r a t e t h e reasonable (from t h e point of view of traditional analysis) behavior of t h e interacting system of national a g r i c u l t u r a l policy models.

The so-called e x p e c t e d interesting r e s u l t s of t h e MARS show t h a t models of individual countries r e a c t in different ways t o t h e same r u l e in t h e c r e a t i o n and distribution of t h e Additional International Donation fund reflecting t h e differ- e n c e s in " c u r r e n t states" of i t s economies.

Results we called as counter-intuitive a c c e p t a b l e ones i l l u s t r a t e in some s e n s e t h e "power" of t h e BLS as a tool f o r studying t h e complex economic issues because t h e s e r e s u l t s are mainly based on interactions of models and t h o s e could hardly b e produced only on t h e basis of traditional analysis. Finally, w e would like t o point o u t once more t h a t all t h e r e s u l t s of t h e BLS r u n s are illustrative ones which only show possible directions and tendencies in countries' r e a c t i o n s t o reducing t h e i r military expenditures, because conditional and low s h a r e s of t h e GDP r e d i r e c t i n g t o civil purposes w e r e a c c e p t e d . F o r instance, if o n e t a k e s d a t a from SIPRI (1986). then t h e a b o v e tendencies are r e v e a l e d more sharply. Hence t h e r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d h e r e should b e considered as some theoretically induced simulation find- ings which c a n help in t h e b e t t e r understanding of problems of real life and a l s o f o r developing a more detailed version of t h e MARS.

REFERENCES

Iakimets V. (1985a), Mutual Arms Reduction S c e n a r i o (MARS) f o r t h e FAP's Study

"Hunger, Growth and Equity". Working P a p e r WP-85-82 (International Insti- t u t e f o r Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria).

Iakimets V. (1985b), MARS: Describing Dynamics of Military Expenditures Reduc- tion. Working P a p e r WP-85-61 (International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria).

Iakimets V. ( 1 9 8 5 ~ ) . MARS 1 a n d MARS 2 f o r t h e FAP's Study "Hunger, Growth and Equity". Working P a p e r WP-85-83 (International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria).

SIPRI (1986). World Armaments.and D i s a r m a m e n t s . SPRI Yearbook -86. Taylor and F r a n c i s Ltd, London a n d Philadelphia.

Food and Agriculture Organization of t h e United Nations (FAO), (1981). Agricul- t u r e : Towards 2000. FAO, Rome.

Fischer, G., F r o h b e r g , K., Keyzer, M.A., and P a r i k h , K.S. (forthcoming), Linked National Models: A Tool for I n t e r n a t i o n a l Food Policy A n a l y s i s , (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, D o r d r e c h t , The Netherlands).

/ ^{FIGURE 1} G D P / C R F U T

(MARS1 t o RO)

Y E R R

FIGURE 2 W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

WHEF;T

W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

/

I

^{FIGURE 4} W O R L D F R O W C T I O N

A O R L D F R O D U C T I O N

N O N - H G R I C U L T U F E

I ^{FIGURE 5}

: QR:,fp:T ; N

;

a - ? T ' c _ j

,

^:?b;gc

d 1P";;e

5 I N C S N E S ] 5 N E i - z E S L 7 F D L . 9 B i B R D U . 9 0 2

9 fii)U.9@5

:2 9 o u . w ~

/ ^{FIEUPE 7} G D p - 7 8

(MARS1 to RO)

1 ^{FIGURE 8}

b

I."'"

1 R R S E N T ! N

2 B R A Z I L 3 C d I N R A E G Y P T 5 I N D I R

6 I N O G N E S I 7 K E N Y ~ 8 W E X I C O 9 k I G E R I F i 0 PFiK!STRN I T H P I L A N D I

W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

W H E R T

FIGURE 10 W O R L D P R O D L J C T I O N

R I C E

Y E R R

W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N N O N - H G R I C U L T U R E

Y E R R

1 ^{FIGUOE 13}

(MARS2 to RO)

I .

eea

+

^I A R G E N T I N

2 R U S T R P L I

Y E R R

3 C A h R D P

+

4 I N D ! R -f 5 I N D U N E S 1

+

⁶ N E W - Z E A L

+

^{7 RDU. g e l}

+

6 R O u . 9D2

-5- 9 RDU. 9D6

HA I V l l l 1

+

^{1 D} R 0 3 . 4 6 8 -

1

^{I . 1.02D}

^eee

' D P - 7 ' 8

L'

MARS^

to RO)

1 FIGijRE 15 C Q L O 3 T F S

^A

- ^{P C ?}

^{L I}

C c ? u T

(MARS:! to RO)

I . 06@

1 .

'J5e

1 . D A B

1 . 2 3 Z

1 . e 2 e

1 . ~ 1 ~

I .

eee

I P R C \ E b d ? i t 4

Z S

² ? R ~ : : L

-

3 C c r l ~ 4

d E S Y ? T 5 i N f i I Y E : N 3 3 N E S I

-

⁷ K E N Y A

+

² E E X i C ? ?

+

⁹ N l G E f i i -

-+-

: B P R K I S T S N

+

^{1 !} T H P I L F I N D

0

.o

-0.5

- 1

.o

X change -1.5

-2

.o

-2.5

FIGURE 16

Infant M o r t a l i t y

^{1 to R O )}

Years

0 .%

0.7 0.6 0.5 X change 0.4

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

L i f e Expectancy a t B i r t h in years

^{(I- 1 to}

India

/ O

80 85 90 95

Year

F I G R E 1 3

Equivalent lncome Indicator (:a=

1 to RO)

X

change

90 Year

FIGURE 19

Number of Pe3pie in Hunger

( r ~ m - s 1 to RO)

95 100

-4

--

G

lndie

a ..

X

chsnge

-8

-.

-10

-.

-12

..

_Indonesia

-14

-

W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

Y E R R

FISURE 21 W O R L D P R O D U C T I O N R I C E

1.700

-

1.600

1

4

1 . 5 0 0

1.4DP

I. 300

-

1.2ee

4

-

1.1e0--

Y

+ 1.00la

-

e .

^{9 0 0 --}

0.800 _--

0.700 1980

MARS 2 MARS 1 --

--

--

--

4

I I

1

198s 199e 1995 2 ~ 2 ~ ^I

Y E H R

^I

I

+

^I R . l B B 5 R l (

v 2 2 1

+

^{2 R.} 1 0 @ 5 A 4

N O R L D P R O D U C T I O N

N O N - R G R I C U L T U R E

Y E R R

(

via2 1

Y E H R

Y E R R

I FIG1IP.E 26

i

C R L O R I E S P E R C H P U T

-5- s ~ N E I R 6 I N D O N E S l 7 K E N Y A

+

⁸ n E X ! C O

4 9 N i L E R I R

18 P F I K I S T R N -B- 1 I T H d l L F l N D

Y E R R

Nurr~ber o f People in Hunger

4

I

M A R S 1

X

change

FEA LOW

Y e w

Number o f People in Hunger

2000

-10

. +

^{- 1}

-20

--

X

c h ~ n g e

-30 ^{a -}

-40 ^{* -}

MARS 2

I ~ d o n e s i a

Year

FIGURE 29

Number o f People in Hunger

Thailand

Ysar

FIrJURE 33

Number of People in Hunger

- 3 4 -

Dlstrlbutlon of the AID fund

wll. us

^$

-1

Chin Egyp lndi lndo Kwry N i p Paki Thai Turk h t r i e s

Distribution o f the AID fund

6% 1% 5%

6% 5%

'"

FIGURE 33

I

Distrlbutlon of the AID fund

Hill. US $

901 902 903 904 905 906 908 909 910 911 913 Countries

1 ^{FIGURE 34} W O ~ L

^{" I}

^G P R I C E S /

1 ^{FIGUPE 35} W O R L D P R I C E S /

I WOPLD N O N H G R . P R I C E W H E H T

Y E R R

a . see

W O R L D E X P O R T S W H E H T

Y E R R

W O R L D E X P O E T S

MARS 2 RO

-4

-

@ . w e

0 . 8 0 n --

I I I 1 I

I

1 9 8 0 1 9 8 5 199e 1 9 9 5 Z O D O

Y E R R

I

1 R . 1 8 0 5 f i B (

v @ 3

^J

T 2 R.i0@SRd

W O R L D P R I C E S /

W O R L D N O N R O R . P F i I C E

W H E H T

W O R L D E X P O R T S WHEFlT

1.700 -- MARS 2

MARS 1

1.600 -r

1.500

--

1 . A00

--

I. 300

--

1.280

--

1.100--

I .

nee

-

1 ^{FIGURE ;13}

I ^{FIGURE 111} W O ! ? L D P N C E S /

W O R L D N O N H G R , F R I L L ^T

^(-

^F

D R I R Y

I FISURE 42 W O R L D ⁱ

D Q I R Y

I ^{FIGURE 43} W O R L D E X P O R T S

D R I R Y

W O R L D P R I C E S /

i W O R L D N O N H G R . F R I C E

D R I R Y

W O R L D E X P O R T S

MARS 2 MARS 1

W O R L D F R I C E S / R I C E

RO MARS 1

I FIGCRE 47 W O R L D P R I C E S /

W O R L D h O N H G R . F R I C E

R I C E

N D F i L D E X P O R T S

R I C E

Y E R R

FIGURE 49

I

W O R L D E X P O R T S

R I C E

WORLD P R I C E S /

WORLD N O N H O R . P R I C E R I C E

MARS 1

MARS 2

W O R L D E X P O R T S R I C E

2 . 300

--

MARS 2

1 . 9 5 0

--

MARS 1

1 . E 0 @ --

1 . 6 5 0

--

-

1 . 5 0 8

--

4

-

1 . 3 5 0 --

1 . 2 0 0

-

1 . @ 5 @

B. 9 0 0

0 . 7 5 0 - --

--

I

I 1 I I 1

1 9 8 0 1 9 ~ 5 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 5 2 e e 2

Y E F l R

r V D 3 1 +

I R . 1 0 0 5 R 1

+

^{2 R.lOD5A4}

FIGURE 52 S S R R I C E

1

^{(MARS1 t o RO)}

I . e l 0

I .

eea

0 . 9 9 0

0 . 9 8 0

@.

9 7 0

0 . 9 6 0

0 . 9 5 @

Y E H R

FIGURE 53 S S R R I C E

(MARS2 t o R O )

Y E F R

8 4

1 ^{FIGURE 54 S S R R I C E}

(MARS2 to MARS1)

1 . 0 1 0

I

I

1 . 0 0 e I

I

I I

e.99e

0.980

0 . 9 7 0

0.960

I

^0.950 0 . 9 4 e 0.930

0.920

1982 1915 1 9 S D 1 9 9 5

+

^I A R G E N T l N

+

² E R R 2 1 L

Y E P R

6 I N D U N E S 1

7 KENYF!

8 R E X I C O

+

9 N J L E R 1 R

R 4 [1'121

+

^{1 0} P H K I S T R N ^I

+

I I , T H G I L F I N D

S S R W H E R T

(MARS1 to RO)

~ R R R Z I L --3-- 3 C H l N R

+

^A E G Y P T

T N ~ T ~

I

+

8 f l E X I C C l

+

9 N ~ G E R I R

A 1 [ V l Z R I

+

^{1 y} P R K I S T F I N -@- 1 . T H Q I L A N D

S S R WHERT

1

^{(MARS2 t o RO)}

I RRC-EN? I N

2 B R A Z I L 3 C H I N l ' l

A EGYPT

5 I N @ I Q

$ $;mtEsl

+ ^B

^iExicn

4- 9 N I C E R I G

+

18 P F I K I S T H N -B- 1 1 T H A I L F I N D

1 ^{FIGURE 57} S S R WHERT

(MARS2 t o MARS1)

S S R D R I R Y

(MARS1 t o RO)

1 F l R G E N T l N 2 B R f i Z l i 3 C H I N R A E G Y P T 5 INDIFi 6 INDGNESI 7 K E N Y A B f l E X ! C O 9 N l G E R I F l 10 P R K I S T R N 1 1 THQTI Q N n

Y E R R

S S R D R I R Y

1

^{(MARS2 t o RO)}

S S R D R I R Y

I A R G E N T I N

t

² B R C l Z l L

+

3 C r i v Y

Y E Q R

--t 4 E;YFT

+--

⁵ 1""R 6 i N 3 L i N E S I 7 K E h l Y F i

+

⁸ n E X i C L ?

+

⁹ N ! G E i i l f i

p 4

[

'~'12 1

+

^{10 PFIK} I S T Q N

+-

^{1 I} T H f i l L F l N D . - -

S S R N 0 N F I G ,

I

^{(MARS2 to RO)}

1 A R G E N T I N 2 B R R Z I L 3 C H I N ?

A E G Y P T 5 I N o ! a 6 I t j D O N E S I 7 K r N Y f i 8 M E X I i D 9 N I L E i ( l F I i2 P R K I 5 : R N 1 1 T H A I L A N C

I ^{FIGURE 62 S S R N O N R G ,}

I

^{(MARS1 to RO)}

I .

eae

k

^{1 .}

^eea

1 R R ~ > E N T I N

Y E R R

6 I N E C N E S l 7 K E N Y ' 3

+

⁸ t I E X ! C @

-3-- 9 N l C . [ & i R

l7 1

[

V ! 2 R

+

1 0 P ' ; I K I S T ! ~ N

+-

1 1 T H F I I L A N D

S S R N U N F I G .

R R G E NT I N

B S R Z ! L i n 1 N R E G Y P T I N 0 1 2 I NOCINE S I

K F N Y Q

Appendix 1 - Simplified Country Grouping Models (901-913) AFR Oil Exp

AFR M CAL Ex AFR M CAL Im AFR L CAL Ex AFR L CAL Im LAM H CAL Ex L A M H CAL Im L A M LM

FEA MH C A L Ex FEA MH CAI, Im FEA LOW N E A OiI Exp N E A LM

africa, oil exporters

africa, medium income/caLorie exporters africa, medium income/calorie importers africa, low income/caLorie exporters af rica, low income/calorie importers

latin america, high income/caLorie exporters latin america, high income/calorie importers latin america, Iow-medium income

f a r east asia, medium-high income calorie exporters f a r east asia, medium-high income calorie importers f a r east asia, low income

near east asia, oil exporters, high income near east asia, low-medium income