text: same purchasing power over all of military expenditures as the United States dollar in 1982. g/ The entries in table 13 can be added down the columns and across the rows, and represent quantity comparisons of each of the aggregates presented. In addition to providing comparability among the countries, the volume measures of table 13 can be presented so as to shed light on the relative prices of the different types of military spending as follows. In table 14, each country's components of military expenditure as shown in table 13 have been divided by the total for the country in order to form a percentage distribution which is given in the columns headed "international dollars". The same percentage distribution has been calculated using expenditures in national currencies. A comparison of the two percentages gives an idea of how much national price relationships differ from the average price structure of the group. The fact that there are large differences in these percentages suggests why use of a single conversion factor for all military expenditure (like the exchange rate) may be misleading when it is desired to compare any of the subaggregates, 124. The relationship between military expenditures of the United States and other participating States as obtained from table 13 are compared in table 15 with corresponding figures from other internationally known sources of information on military expenditures. This table shows that the ratios of the military expenditures of participating States according to the findings of this Group are different and, in some cases, even very different from the ratios derived from other sources. This is another illustration of the value of constructing military PPPs for international comparisons of military expenditures. /:.. Table 13. Military expenditures of participating States at international prices of 1982 (Millions of international dollars) United United 
analysis: The text discusses the conversion of military expenditures of different countries to a common standard, using the purchasing power parity (PPP) method. This allows for comparisons between countries and reveals differences in the prices of military spending. The text does not mention any specific economic sectors, natural resources, or environmental issues. It also does not discuss humanitarian aid, culture, or science and technology.