– Executive Summary –
The relationship between homeland and economic security sounds so casual in the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. It states, “Homeland security supports economic security.”[1] So it is surprising that this connection is embraced with little qualitative or quantitative evidence. The initial focus of this research sought to explore the connection between economic security (ES) and homeland security (HS); however, national security (NS) continued to appear as a significant component of the discussion. Ultimately, it became a component of the research question. Figure 1 summarizes the research, initial findings, the impact of metamorphic forces on the security relationship and recommendations for moving to a security and prosperity based view of the security relationship.
Figure 1. Analytical Process Used to Explore the Relationship Between Economic, Homeland and National Security?
Figure 2 summarizes the different security elements and their connections that were explored in the research. Through this process, I found that journals primarily focus on investigating the ES-NS relationship, whereas federal doctrine attempts to discuss the ES-HS connection but often ends up describing the stronger NS connection. In total, the relationship that is described in the literature is not the one that actually exists. Metamorphic forces are at work on the security relationship, which leads to unintended consequences. In effort to align strategic priorities, the security relationship should focus on security and prosperity through the implementation of five recommendations.
Figure 2. Security Elements and Conceptual Connection
Scholarly journals describe a relationship between ES and HS but in a different way than the federal doctrine. ES is the source from which national strength emanates, for without economic security, the U.S. government is unable to project itself militarily and diplomatically across the globe.
Economic security, or some variation thereof, has been discussed for several decades but economic globalization has made it a more pressing issue. Some believe that ES is not only the protection of national interests but also the readiness and ability of government institutions to foster a national economy; others extend this view to include the absence of threats that could endanger economic stability and independence.[2] One author offered three conceptual definitions for economic security: 1) the investments that directly impact a country’s ability to defend itself, 2) the economic policy instruments that can be used for the purpose of aggression, and 3) a weak economy may undermine the ability for a country to project power.[3] Many authors believe that the ambiguity of the concept means that definition of economic security, like homeland security, is dependent on the values of the individual studying it. Homeland security was not part of the national discussion until the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the phrase appeared in documents prior to that but was used interchangeably with homeland defense.[4] It entered the common lexicon after 9/11, defined as the “implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure U.S. from terrorist threats/attacks”[5] The multiple definitions that are used by today’s homeland security enterprise (HSE) professionals are primarily dependent on the perspective (e.g., terrorism, all hazards, outcome driven, national security) of the person being asked. Some advocate a more holistic description that encompasses law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services.[6] ES and HS are concatenations of several different activities, and their definitions are driven primarily by the lens of the person being asked which leads to inconsistent interpretations. By clearly defining HS, resources could be better aligned to support the department mission and other items that do not align could be grouped under the broader heading of NS.
There has been a tremendous amount of research on NS, most of which fairly consistently defines it as the ability to maintain the nation’s physical boundaries, economic relations, and social institutions from outside threats. The first National Security Strategy in 1987 characterizes national security as the blueprint for freedom, peace, and prosperity.[7] NS has existed longer than HS and has been studied more extensively, leading to more consistency in function and definition.
The central area of exploration is the macro connection between ES, HS and NS (7 in Figure 3). There is no empirical nexus between ES and HS (4 in Figure 3) and little research connects the two elements together. This is likely because there is no common definition from which to make the comparison. One of the key components of national security is economic security (5 in Figure 3). According to Siminiuc, “…security and stability, both political and social, are multi-dimensional concepts, and that economics is one of the most important drivers. Moreover, there is a direct link between economy and security.”[8] The connection between HS and NS (6 in Figure 3) can be inferred from the definitions—one focusing inward and the other internationally. Bellavita states “Homeland security is an element of national security that works with the other instruments of national power to protect the U.S. against threats and aggression.”[9]
Figure 3. Areas of research within ES, HS, and NS
Definitions and connections may be unclear, but the security elements have economic, social, and political impacts on the surrounding world. There are social components to both economic and homeland security. If a country invests too much on one area (e.g., tech/finance), then other sectors may suffer a decrease (e.g., manufacturing), which can create income disparity and foster social unrest. Maintaining a social standard that supports U.S. citizens’ feeling of overall security is complicated when there is an increasing wealth gap. In addition, economic disparity and globalization are disrupting this social balance leading to violent activity in some areas. Globalization (a primary driver of ES) leads to social pressures that some Muslim fundamentalists view as a significant threat against which they must defend themselves and their traditional heritage.[10] While not justifying violent action, it provides one explanation of the possible genesis.
The increasing globalization of business operations has made local economies more susceptible to shocks and uncertainties triggered in other parts of the world. Initial economic models were designed to foster self-sufficiency, and economic globalization has brought the need to increase cooperation (and security) with partners.[11] Therefore, if countries want national economic security, they need to support policies that reinforce a stable international economy.[12]
Increased political stability comes with improvements in the local economy; however, countries that are not able to realize the benefits of integration will see stagnation and more political unrest, creating an environment for political, ethnic, and cultural extremism and associated violence.[13] Political economic power supports national power and helps define a state’s position on the international political-security continuum.[14]
Through the analysis, we find the security elements have some level of definitional clarity, often driven by a narrow focus; however, when viewed as a component in a complex system, the relationship of ES, HS, and NS becomes cloudy. This challenge is compounded by the separation of these concepts in the U.S. security discourse. This is unique because in many other countries they are considered part of one overall concept. Thus, the connections between security elements are misaligned and do not reflect the correct importance or existing relationships between the elements
Decision makers need to balance economic welfare with optimizing political power. Ultimately, their goal is to minimize the ability to be coerced by outsiders.[15] There are clear political implications driven by the relationship of ES to HS and NS. We begin to see more clearly that the connection between ES and NS are essential to having the political strength to remain a global leader and the ability of the U.S. to influence world events is becoming more dependent on the economic strength we posses.[16]
Through the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the body of knowledge, three key findings were made.
The definitions for ES, HS, and NS vary in terms of complexity and acceptability, and the connections between these elements are confusing because the descriptions are often dependent on the individual doing the viewing. For example, the author of military doctrine focuses on HS and choses to discuss those activities most relevant to the mission. Taken individually, the discussions would suggest a balanced relationship; however, when examined more broadly, the relationships are uneven. Most of the literature and doctrine explore the elements in this one-to-one relationship (e.g., ES to HS or HS to NS). This ignores the broader context (e.g., ES relationship to HS within the context of NS), and it is this context that truly defines the how the elements interact and impact one another
- The Security Relationship Is an Uneven Overlap of the Elements
The relationship between different security elements is a wild mash-up of activities and strategies; the push-pull between the elements does not benefit each equally. Economic security is concerned with the overall fiscal health of the nation, which includes personal financial health, business stability, economic growth, and protection from circumstances that would degrade any of the same. Homeland security is domestic protection from threats (intentional) and preparation for hazards (natural) and the response and recovery from these events. The large list of activities related to HS has given DHS (and the homeland security discipline) a large area of responsibility with competing priorities. National security is still seen as an overarching concept to which other elements are dependent but not in a balanced way.
Economic, homeland, and national security elements do not exist in a vacuum; rather, they exist within a broader system and are shaped themselves by metamorphic forces that provide subtle but substantial pressure. Globalization is the exchange of social and cultural ideals and the extension of economic ties between countries. It is also characterized by greater integration other countries and cultures into the primarily western (liberal) perspective.[17] To support U.S. economic strength, companies look to globalization for a way to expand into new markets. Securitization involves saying something (person, place, or thing) or some condition of the item poses a security risk.[18] An issue may become securitized because there is a real existential threat or because the issue is presented as a threat by an individual who would benefit from the elevated concern. This practice confuses the true importance of issues and is often politically motivated. A system is:
…a set of people, cells, molecules or whatever—interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time. They system may be buffeted, constricted, triggered or driven by outside forces, but the system’s response to these forces is characteristic of itself and is seldom simple in the real world.[19]
ES, HS, and NS are all systems; they each operate independently and with one another.
Manifestations of the metamorphic forces at work on the security relationship can be seen in two examples, both of which are initiated by the drive to maintain ES through globalization: 1) cultural pressure that metastasizes into terrorism and effects homeland security and 2) short-term thinking and misappropriation of resources contributes to national insecurity (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Pursuit of Economic Security thru Globalization Leads to Unintended Homeland and National Security Consequences
In the process of expanding markets, cultures and ideas are coming together at a speed and in a way with which individuals are not prepared to emotionally cope. This cultural thrust can create the feeling of lack of environmental control, which leads to anxiety and fear, causing radicalization, conflict, violence, and terrorism—in some cases.[20] According to Moghaddam, “For Muslim fundamentalists, the threat posed by globalization is terrifying and immediate, and they feel they must defend their traditional heritage against this gigantic global force.”[21]
To maintain a strong economy and support political and military strength abroad while ensuring prosperity domestically, businesses seek access to larger markets in which they can sell their products and services. Yet the increasing globalization of business operations has made the domestic economy more susceptible to shocks and uncertainty. There are unintended NS consequences of using globalization to bolster economic security. While the expansion does provide short-term economic benefits, it comes at the expense of lasting innovation. Thus, the economic foundation needed to project global strength is not solid, weakening national security.
Though individual definitions may be unclear, connections between the security elements are evident, but they are not the same as those described in the literature. My research set out to explore the question “What is the relationship between economic, homeland and national security?” I have come to understand that the concepts of globalization, securitization, and complex systems have a significant effect on the economic, homeland, and national security relationship. Furthermore, I believe that the blurry definitions and tight connections between these elements support the assertion that discussion on this topic should focused on two areas, illustrated in Figure 5.
| Activities related to the prevention, protection, preparation, response and recovery from threats and hazards and the preservation of the nation’s integrity and territory from domestic and foreign enemies. |  | An open, integrated economic system that supports individual health, free exchange, and the upward mobility of the nation through mutually beneficial partnerships while maintaining financial resiliency, long-term strength and national solvency. |
Figure 5. Reframing and Defining the Security Relationship
When the issues of ES, HS, and NS are discussed in the U.S., they are discussed with the assumption that they are individual entities, interacting and dependent on one another, but still unique elements. This is the not the same in other parts of world. In many other countries, they are considered one in the same, and discussions about one naturally involve the other—further supporting the tight connection.
Today, the nation needs a galvanizing vision that puts the prosperity and sustainment of our nation at the forefront. We need a unifying construct that brings the security elements together, is focused on larger, long-term issues, and orients resources to address national issues. Figure 6 shows the five recommendations as they relate security and prosperity and one another; Table 1 summarizes the recommendations.
Figure 6. Strategic and Tactical Recommendations to Focus on Security and Prosperity
Table 1. Description of Recommendations
| Recommendation | Description |
| 1. Develop a National Narrative | “We need a story…that will transcend our political divisions, orient us as a nation, and give us both a common direction and the confidence and commitment to get to our destination.”[22] To promote economic security that will benefit national security (and in turn homeland security) it is better to focus government policy at the national level and explore its impact on the nation’s overall state of security.
|
| 2. Integration of DHS and DOD | Complex systems (i.e., government agencies) are structured to perpetuate themselves so recommending the integration of two of the largest departments in the federal government would be an unrivaled challenge, but one that is not without merit. There are compelling signals that the security functions in both agencies would operate more efficiently if brought together in one department rather than maintaining the artificial separation. |
| 3. Create a Department of Prosperity | The Preamble to the Constitution defines our federal government’s basic purpose as “… to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The financial market driven focus on short-term returns is detrimental to the country’s long-term health and not yielding investments in education, health care and infrastructure—essential elements for sustained prosperity.
|
| 4. Continue Combating Violence and Extremism | The long-term solution to terrorism is prevention but prevention is not just stopping a radicalized individual from carrying out a planned attack; it should also contain activities that prevent an individual from becoming radicalized. While long-term solutions are being implemented to change the environment that creates the crucible for radicalization, existing initiatives that have been described in national security strategies should continue in order to blunt and dismantle terrorist cells and networks that intend on doing harm to the U.S. and its citizens.
|
| 5. Continue Promoting Prosperity Abroad | A consistent theme in multiple National Security Strategies (NSS) (see Table 5) is the importance of promoting prosperity abroad. Economic stagnation has set in where strife has continued (e.g., South Sudan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo).[23] These are some of same locations where Islamic radicalization is taking hold—not that these are directly correlated or have a causal relationship. The U.S. should increase efforts to support developing economies. |
- CONCLUSION
The relationship between ES, HS, and NS is a complex one and has tangible impacts on the social, economic, and political well-being of the nation. The actual security relationship differs from what is described in literature and doctrine leading to a misunderstanding of the security environment. Furthermore, metamorphic forces press down on the security elements and have unintended, sometimes violent consequences. By reimagining the relationship between security elements as the connection between security and prosperity and setting a national strategy, decisions can be made that will support the long-term health and success of the nation.
[1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014), 31.
[2] Vladimir Pankov, “Economic Security: Essence and Manifestations,” International Affairs [Moscow] 57, no. 1 (2011): 199; Sasa Mijalković, and Goran Milošević, “Correlation between Economic, Corporate and National Security,” Megatrend Review 8, no. 2 (2011): 441.
[3] Vincent Cable, “What is International Economic Security?,” International Affairs 71, no. 2 (April 1995): 306.
[4] Cynthia A. Watson, U.S. National Security (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2002), 14.
[5] Robert W. Smith, “What is Homeland Security? Developing a Definition Grounded in the Curricula,” Journal of Public Affairs Education 11, no. 3 (August 2005): 234.
[6] Christopher Bellavita, “Changing Homeland Security: What is Homeland Security?,” Homeland Security Affairs 4, no. 2 (June 2008): 2, https://www.hsaj.org/articles/118;
Ramesh Thakur, “A Political World View: What is Human Security?,” Security Dialogue 35, no.3 (2004): 348.
[7] White House, National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington DC: White House, 1987), http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-1987/, 1.
[8] Mona Siminiuc, “Security and Economic Dimensions of the Transatlantic Partnership” (master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, 2005), 18.
[9] Bellavita, “Changing Homeland Security,” 2.
[10] Fathali M. Moghaddam, How Globalization Spurs Terrorism: The Lopsided Benefits of ‘One World’ and Why That Fuels Violence (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2008), 6.
[11] Siminiuc, “Security and Economic Dimensions of the Transatlantic Partnership,” 16.
[12] Pankov, “Economic Security,” 198.
[13] National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Non-government Experts (Washington DC: National Intelligence Council, 2000), 10.
[14] Mijalković, and Milošević, “Correlation between Economic, Corporate and National Security,” 439.
[15] Theodore H. Moran, American Economic Policy and National Security (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1993), 3.
[16] Ibid., vii.
[17] Fathali M. Moghaddam, Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations: Psychological Implications for Democracy in a Global Context (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2008), 10.
[18] Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap De Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), 26.
[19] Donella H. Meadows, and Diana Wright, ed. Thinking in Systems (White Water Junction, VT: Taylor and Francis, 2012), 2.
[20] Moghaddam, How Globalization Spurs Terrorism, 46.
[21] Ibid., 6.
[22] Wayne Porter, and Mark Mykleby. A National Strategic Narrative (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2011), 2.
[23] Ivor Ichikowitz, “Security is Key to Africa’s Economic Rise,” African Business no. 391 (2012): 25, http://africanbusinessmagazine.com/tag/november-2012/ 24–25
