July 31, 2013

Defence Planning: Getting Transparency Right

On 31 July 2013, the International Centre for Defence Studies hosted an event to present an analysis written by two interns: Liz Arnanz and Indrek Kaik. The paper is entitled “Defence Planning: Getting Transparency Right” and it analyses the National Defence Development Plan 2013-2022 (NDDP) approved by the Estonian Government on 24 January 2013. Introduced by event moderator and ICDS deputy director Martin Hurt, the authors presented a theoretical background including academic literature on civil-military relations, military budgeting, and civil society. They concluded that the NDDP is partially inconsistent with these theories, and could be considerably improved by a greater awareness of them.

On 31 July 2013, the International Centre for Defence Studies hosted an event to present an analysis written by two interns: Liz Arnanz and Indrek Kaik. The paper is entitled “Defence Planning: Getting Transparency Right” and it analyses the National Defence Development Plan 2013-2022 (NDDP) approved by the Estonian Government on 24 January 2013. Introduced by event moderator and ICDS deputy director Martin Hurt, the authors presented a theoretical background including academic literature on civil-military relations, military budgeting, and civil society. They concluded that the NDDP is partially inconsistent with these theories, and could be considerably improved by a greater awareness of them.

31.07.2013
On 31 July 2013, the International Centre for Defence Studies hosted an event to present an analysis written by two interns: Liz Arnanz and Indrek Kaik. The paper is entitled “Defence Planning: Getting Transparency Right” and it analyses the National Defence Development Plan 2013-2022 (NDDP) approved by the Estonian Government on 24 January 2013. Introduced by event moderator and ICDS deputy director Martin Hurt, the authors presented a theoretical background including academic literature on civil-military relations, military budgeting, and civil society. They concluded that the NDDP is partially inconsistent with these theories, and could be considerably improved by a greater awareness of them.
The NDDP was also compared with a previous NDDP from 2009 and similar documents from nine other nations including Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The case study revealed that defence planning documents do not always reflect all the aspects that are desirable from a theoretic point of view. Thus, comparatively speaking the Estonian NDDP is an average effort, fulfilling at least the most basic principles of defence planning.
The authors recommended future NDDPs to better reflect priorities, describe projects in greater detail, provide more information about the cost of planned projects, feature a better design and use visual aids.
The presented analyses can be downloaded here

Filed under: EventsTagged with:

No comment yet, add your voice below!


Add a Comment