Lying as standard operating procedure: Deception in the weapons testing process

Abstract

The Supreme Court, in Boyle vs. United Technology (1988), limited the ability of citizens to sue private defense contractors. The core reasoning assumed a high degree of honesty in the procurement process, and in particular in the weapons testing program. The extent to which we should expect such candor is examined, from the perspective of neoclassical economics and from the broader views derived from social-science and philosophical literature. The neoclassical view that honesty should be treated within the narrow context of profit-maximizing behavior seems most suited to an analysis of the joint contractor-DOD relationship. That such an approach is warranted is born out by the long history of distorted testing procedures and the repeated recognition of such dissembling. Data supporting this conclusion is analyzed.