essay on military spending

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

How much does the US spend on the military?

Since 1980, defense spending has risen by 62%, climbing from $506 billion to $820 billion by 2023, after adjusting for inflation.

Published Thu, April 11, 2024 by the USAFacts Team

In 2023, the US military spent approximately $820.3 billion, or roughly 13.3% of the entire federal budget for that fiscal year. In March 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) requested $842.0 billion for 2024 — a 2.6% increase.

With the world’s third-largest military , at nearly 1.3 million active-duty troops , the US estimates it spends more than any other nation on its national defense. Between 2014 and 2022, the US spent more than twice as much on defense as did all other NATO members , 30 nations in total.

According to the 2022 National Defense Strategy , US military priorities include countering China’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific; deterring strategic attacks against the US and allies; defending against evolving threats like cyberattacks and addressing aggression from Russia , Iran, and North Korea.

Where does military spending go?

The annual defense budget is a comprehensive financial plan that underpins the US military’s strategic objectives. When the government renews the military budget, it allocates funds across several key areas to support national defense and the operation of the Armed Forces.

The 2024 defense budget clarifies how much funding each military department will receive. Out of the five major Armed Forces managed by the DoD, the Air Force gets the most direct funding at $216.1 billion, followed by the Navy ($202.6 billion), Army ($165.6 billion), Marine Corps ($53.2 billion), and Space Force ($30.1 billion).

The remaining DoD funds are allocated to the National Guard ($32.9 billion), along with focused programs like the Special Operations Command (US SOCOM), the Missile Defense Agency, and the Defense Health Program .

The DoD’s 2024 defense budget was signed into law on December 22, 2023 at $841.4 billion, slightly less than was initially requested.

Has military spending increased over time?

After adjusting for inflation, defense spending has risen 62% since 1980, climbing from $506 billion to $820 billion by 2023. Despite the sizeable increase, defense spending growth lags behind overall federal expenditures, which rose 175% over the same period (also adjusted for inflation).

Get facts first

Unbiased, data-driven insights in your inbox each week

You are signed up for the facts!

Defense spending responds to external pressures — wars and international conflicts — and internal pressures like reductions in government spending. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the ensuing end of the Cold War resulted in a substantial drop in defense spending throughout the 1990s; the Global War on Terror and overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning in the 2000s saw spending rise again.

Inflation-adjusted defense spending peaked in 2010 at $964.4 billion, partially due to evolving military situations in the Middle East like operations against the Islamic State, or ISIS.

The defense budget dropped in 2012 after the Budget Control Act of 2011 , which aimed, among other things, to limit military spending to help stabilize the increasing national deficit. As of 2021, these annual caps on defense spending are gone.

What percentage of the US budget goes toward the military?

In 2023, defense spending made up 13.3% of the federal budget. Since 1980, the percentage of federal spending for the military has fluctuated between a height of 27.9% in 1987 and lows of 11% in 2020 and 2021.

Is military spending expected to increase?

According to the Congressional Budget Office , military spending is projected to increase by 10% by 2038, after adjusting for inflation. This estimate comes from the rise in costs to compensate military personnel, the operation and maintenance budget, and a slight uptick in the cost of new weapon systems.

How does US military spending compare to other countries?

State Department data on military expenditures from 2009 to 2019 shows that the US has spent as much on its defense as the next 11 top-spending countries combined. China had the next-highest expenditure, investing, on average, less than 30% of what the US allocates. India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom trail further behind.

Although the US significantly outpaces all other countries in total military spending, military expenditures relative to population size present a different yet crucial perspective. Analyzing defense spending per person highlights how nations with smaller populations commit a larger share of their resources to military efforts.

Looking at per-capita military spending from 2009 to 2019, Middle Eastern countries occupy six of the top 10 positions (the US is fifth). The United Arab Emirates spends an average of $3,198 per person on the military each year, compared to $2,798 in the US.

Another way to gauge how much countries spend on their military is by measuring the proportion of military spending to GDP. This helps illustrate how much the state values national defense compared to other key economic sectors.

How much foreign aid does the US send to other countries?

Measuring this way — again, from 2009 to 2019 — North Korea ranks at the top, with 23.5% of the country’s GDP coming from military expenses on average. This far outranks every other nation; the second-highest, Oman, comes in at 11.8%.

The US comes in 21st on this list, at an average of 4% of its GDP. 

What factors contribute to the US' military spending?

The US allocates resources to its military to prevent strategic threats against its territory, ensure the safety of its citizens, support global security by protecting its allies, and contribute to economic stability.

In the 2024 Defense Budget proposal, the DoD outlines four key military priorities based on the 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) :

• Defending the homeland, with a specific focus on addressing the complex threats posed by China.
• Deterring strategic attacks against the United States, its allies, and partners, emphasizing the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific region to counter China and in Europe against Russia.
• Deterring aggression and being prepared to prevail in conflict when necessary, ensuring readiness for a range of military engagements.
• Building a resilient joint force strategy that enhances the defense ecosystem and maintains and extends the technological and operational advantage of the US military.

The NDS highlights China as the United States' foremost competitor, stressing the importance of addressing China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region and its efforts to alter the international order. Additionally, the strategy acknowledges the necessity of a robust military to counter threats from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and violent extremist groups. This approach aims "to protect the security of the American people; expand economic prosperity and opportunity; and realize and defend the values at the heart of the American way of life.

The NDS also identifies our main military challenges: the rise of authoritarian powers, technological advancements like artificial intelligence, global economic inequality, and climate change.

Where does this data come from?

Data on DoD spending comes from the 2024 Defense Budget Overview . Additional materials, including budget documents specific to each branch of the Armed Forces and specific defense initiatives, come from the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and DoD press releases .

Additional data on national defense spending in previous years comes from a USAFacts custom aggregation of data from the Office of Management and Budget, the Census, and Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Data comparing US military expenditures to other countries comes from the 2021 World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report, published by the State Department. This survey offers insights into each country's military expenditure, armed forces size, GDP, population, labor force, and other key metrics from 2009 to 2019.

Learn more about why young Americans don’t want to join the military and the demographics of the Armed Forces , and get the data directly in your inbox by signing up for our email newsletter .

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles, are us earthquakes becoming more costly.

Who is overdosing on fentanyl?

Which states have the highest murder rates?

Tracking 2024 election contributions and spending

Data delivered to your inbox

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Government & Policy

How Military Spending Affects the Economy

Ariel Courage is an experienced editor, researcher, and former fact-checker. She has performed editing and fact-checking work for several leading finance publications, including The Motley Fool and Passport to Wall Street.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has excellent data on military spending by nation. According to its research, the five biggest spenders in 2019 were the United States, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Together, these countries made up around 60% of global military spending.  

In 2019, U.S. military expenditure increased by almost 5.3% to $732 billion. China increased its military spending by 5.1%, India increased its spending by 6.8%, Russia increased it by 4.5%, and Saudi Arabia decreased it by 16%.  

As with any government spending, these investments have an impact on the economies of the nations that make them.

The Why of Military Spending

Military spending is one area where there is no private solution. No single corporation or group of citizens is motivated and trustworthy enough to take financial responsibility for maintaining a nation's military.

Key Takeaways

• Every dollar spent on defense is a dollar not spent on other public services.
• On the other hand, dollars spent on the military wind up in the private sector as payment for goods and services the military requires.
• Military spending may skew civilian technology development, but talent and applications flow both ways.

Adam Smith , a father of free-market economics, identified the defense of society as one of the primary functions of government and a justification for reasonable taxation.     The government is acting on behalf of the public to ensure that the military is capable of defending the nation.

In practice, defending the nation expands to defending a nation’s strategic interests. And, the whole concept of “sufficient” is up for debate in any democracy.

The Hole That Debt Built

Capital is finite, and capital going into one spending category means less money for something else.

This fact becomes more urgent when we consider that any government spending that exceeds revenues results in a deficit, adding to the national debt . A ballooning national debt has an economic impact on everyone. As the debt grows, the interest expense of the debt grows and the cost of borrowing increases due to the risk that increased debt represents. In theory, the increased debt will eventually drag on economic growth and drive taxes higher.

The Cost of Borrowing

The U.S. has historically enjoyed generous debt terms from domestic and international lenders. That tends to reduce political pressure to cut military spending in order to reduce the deficit.    

Some advocates for decreased military spending might tie it to a real or potential increase in the mortgage rates people pay, given the relationship between Treasury yields and commercial lending.   This reasoning holds and military spending does sit as a large percentage of discretionary spending.     

In other nations, particularly ones that are still developing economically, a focus on military spending often means foregoing other important priorities. Many nations have a standing military but an unreliable public infrastructure, from hospitals to roads to schools. North Korea is an extreme example of what an unrelenting focus on military spending can do to the standard of living for the general population.

The generous debt terms that the U.S. enjoys are far from universal, so the trade-off between military spending and public infrastructure is more painful for many nations.

Employment and Military Spending

Jobs are a big part of the economic impact of military spending. In addition to supporting the troops, military spending creates a considerable infrastructure to support the active-duty personnel.

Then there are the private businesses that spring up as a result of the military spending, including everything from weapons manufacturers to the restaurants that pop up near military bases.

Public vs. Private

A free-market economist would point out that the public dollars supporting those may be sucking the equivalent number of jobs—or more—out of the private economy due to the taxation required to create them.

It really comes down to whether or not you believe a standing military is a necessity. If it is, then some jobs will need to be sacrificed in the private sector to make that happen.

Technological Developments

One argument for the negative economic impact of military spending is that it diverts critical talent and technical skills towards military research and development.

Guns and Butter

This famous model illustrates the balance between military and civilian spending priorities.

On the other hand, technology and talent flow back and forth between military and civilian roles. Military research has been vital to the creation of the microwave, the internet, and global positioning systems (GPS), among other applications. We now have drones taking wedding photos and, at least in tests, delivering packages for Amazon.com. Much of the expense of creating the basic technology was covered through military spending.

The guns and butter curve is a classic illustration of how there is an opportunity cost to every expenditure. If you believe a standing military is a necessity for a nation, the size of that military can be disputed but its existence cannot.

The economic cost of defense spending shows up in the national debt and in a dislocation of potential jobs from the private sector to the public. There is an economic distortion of any industry that the military relies on as resources are diverted to produce better fighter planes and weapons.

All of these costs are necessary for a nation to bear if they are to defend themselves. We give up some butter to have guns.

The Big Question

The real question is what an “adequate” amount of military spending is, given that every extra dollar spent above the necessary level is a loss to public spending on any other purpose.

In a democracy, that issue is debated by publicly elected officials and changes from year to year. In recent years, military spending in the U.S. as a percentage of the overall budget has been declining as military engagements abroad wind down.  

In non-democratic nations, however, the level of adequate spending is decided by a select few and may come at an even greater cost to the country’s citizens.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. " Military Expenditure ."

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. " Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2019 ," Pages 2-3.

The Library of Economics and Liberty. " An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations–Book V, Chapter l ."

The Library of Economics and Liberty. " An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations–Book IV, Chapter 5 ."

TreasuryDirect. " Summary Schedules of Federal Debt – Daily, Unaudited ."

U.S. Government Accountability Office. " Action Is Needed to Address the Federal Government's Fiscal Future–Highlights ."

U.S. Department of the Treasury. " Interest Rates - Frequently Asked Questions ."

Congressional Budget Office. " Discretionary Spending in 2019 ."

Government Publishing Office. " Budget 2019: Contents of the Historical Tables ," Pages 58-59.

The World Bank. " Military Expenditure (% of General Government Expenditure) - United States ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

The United States Military Spending Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

GDP and military spending

Comparison with other countries, reason for the increasing and reducing budget, works cited.

In recent years, the expenditure of the US military has been rising and now accounts for more than 19 percent of the total federal budget. In 2010, expenditures including costs outside the Department of defense stood at about 35 percent of budget expenditures (Wall par. 2-6). Since the year 2000, the expenditure by the department of defense has been increasing annually by about 9 percent.

In 2009, the budget of the US military amounted to about 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. In 2010, the amount given to the United States Department of defense was approximately US$660 billion (Macias par. 1-7). This amount was the highest in American history, but still 1.5 percent lower than the GDP.

Source: (Macias par. 4-7).

The budget of the US military is actually the highest in the world. In 2012, China spent about US$100 billion on military activities, but still this amount was almost seven times lower compared with what the US military spent. The main reason behind the spending is that the United States had the largest number of barracks and military bases located in different parts of the world (Wall par. 2-4). In 2005, the United States spent about 5 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on military activities. This was more than what the top four countries combined used on military activities. In 1944, the US military budget was the highest as it was about 40 percent of the GDP. The lowest point was recorded in 1999 where military spending amounted to about three percent of the GDP (Macias par. 3-7). During the Vietnam War, in the late 1960s, the spending on military activities was the highest and equaled to about 10 percent of the GDP.

Source: (Korb, Hoffman and Blakeley par. 2-8).

Source: (Cassata par. 2-4).

When an emergency arises, the US military is usually funded through supplementary budgets. However, in 2011, the federal government classified oversees operations of the US army as being contingent. This meant that such military operations would no longer be funded under an emergency plan but under the federal budget (Korb, Hoffman and Blakeley par. 4-7). The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, by the end of 2009, had cost the United States more than US$1 trillion in direct costs (Korb, Hoffman and Blakeley 2-4). On top of this, the federal government incurred indirect expenses, which comprised interests on extra debt and incremental expenses, specifically on caring for more than 30,000 injured soldiers. At the end of 2011, the Afghanistan and Iraq war had cost the United States US$3.7 trillion in general. The United States military spending started reducing in 2011. For instance, in 2011 and 2012, the U.S defense spending declined by about US$40 billion (Korb, Hoffman and Blakeley par. 3-5). Despite this, the United States was still the highest spender compared to China and other top spenders.

The increase in US military spending was attributed to the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the decrease in spending is attributed to two major reasons. The first is the reduction as a result of the termination of Iraq war in 2011 as well as reduced military operations in Afghanistan. Second, there is a huge budget deficit crisis in the United States, and it has been the only remedy to reduce military spending (Korb, Hoffman and Blakeley par. 4-9). In fact, if there will be no other international conflict, the US defense budget is likely to continue falling as the federal government has already ordered that the military personnel must be reduced (Cassata par. 2-5). The explanation is that short-term changes in the US military spending usually depend on economic growth. In fact, spending amongst nearly all the top five military spenders declined in 2012 apart from China (Cassata par. 2-5). In the case of China, the military spending in 2011 and 2012 increased by about 7.9 percent, and by over 45 percent since the recent financial crisis started. Mainly, this is attributed to geopolitical reasons as well as the booming of the Chinese economy. With enough money and resources, the Chinese government can afford to sustain an oversized military.

Cassata, Donna. Pentagon Pleas for Flexibility go Unheeded as House Panel Spares Older Weapons, Benefits. 2014. Web.

Korb, Lawrence, Max Hoffman and Kate Blakeley. A User’s Guide to the Fiscal Year 2015 Defense Budget. 2014. Web.

Macias, Amanda. This Chart Shows How The Rest Of The World Doesn’t Even Come Close To US Military Spending. 2014. Web.

Wall, Robert. U.S. Military Spending Plan Will Give BAE Systems More Stable Outlook –CEO . 2014. Web.

• Pros and Cons of Consumption Tax Over Income Tax
• Economic Globalization and the State's Capacity
• Cell Phone Magnifier Market
• US Army's Competencies, Resources, Capabilities
• Maritime Security and Pirate Activity
• The United States Army's Change Management
• Al-Yamamah Arms Deal: Details and Legislation
• Military Career: Human Resource Certification
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 23). The United States Military Spending. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-united-states-military-spending/

"The United States Military Spending." IvyPanda , 23 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-united-states-military-spending/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The United States Military Spending'. 23 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The United States Military Spending." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-united-states-military-spending/.

1. IvyPanda . "The United States Military Spending." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-united-states-military-spending/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The United States Military Spending." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-united-states-military-spending/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(12); 2020 Dec

Does military spending stifle economic growth? The empirical evidence from non-OECD countries

Muhammad azam.

a Department of Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

b School of Economics, Finance & Banking, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

Associated Data

Data will be made available on request.

Undeniably, peace and long-term sustainable economic development are the prime agenda of all countries. This study aims to empirically evaluate the impact of military spending on economic growth for a panel of 35 non-OECD countries over 1988–2019. A multivariate regression model based on the augmented production function is used to achieve the objective of the study. The panel autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL)/pooled mean group (PMG) technique is employed, while, in addition the robust least squares and fixed-effect estimators are implemented for the robustness of the results. This study found a clear negative effect of military spending on economic growth. The pairwise Dumitrescu Hurlin panel causality test results exhibit bi-directional causality between military expenses and economic growth. Overall, these estimates provide strong support that military expenditure is not beneficial rather detrimental to economic growth. The empirical findings of this study suggest that policymakers need to redesign the military budget to stimulate economic growth and improve social welfare.

Military spending; Economic growth; Non-OECD countries; Balanced panel data.

1. Introduction

The assessment of the economic and social effects of military expenditure remains an interesting desirable area of research. The ultimate objectives of underdeveloped and developed countries are to achieve sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the long-run. There is a substantial volume of literature about the economic consequences of military expenditure; however, no consensus has been developed, whether military spending is beneficial or detrimental to economic growth. Military spending according to the Keynesian approach is a component of government consumption, which stimulates economic growth by expanding demand for goods and services. Military spending affects economic growth through many channels. When aggregate demand is lower relative to prospective supply, rises in military spending tend to enlarge capacity utilization, raise profits, and consequently, enhance investment and aggregate output ( Faini et al., 1984 ). Several prior studies have drawn findings that support the Keynesian military view of the positive influence of military expenditure on national output ( Benoit, 1978 ; Khalid and Noor, 2018 ; Raju and Ahmed, 2019 ). In a study conducted by Lobont et al. (2019) , it is ascertained that military spending has several positive effects on capital, labor, growth, and the effectual use of available resources in the economy as a whole.

The focus of academicians, researchers, and developmental economists for peace economics are useable as military spending is one of the main concerns of countries, regardless of their development status. According to conventional logic, the military formulation is an economic encumbrance. While comparatively more resources are devoted to military formulations, and lesser proportion is left for investment in the education and technology sectors, which play a vital role in the economic growth process and provide a broader base for socio-economic development 1 . Generally, it is believed that in the insecure region, each country deliberately allocates an uneven share of its meager economic resources to “unproductive” military expenditure. In the absenteeism of international collaboration to minimize political pressure, military expenditures can be driven more and more across a region as each country goes beyond its neighbors to safeguard its security, raise the level of regional military expenditure and bring little rise or even a decline in the security of all. However, there are two direct and interconnected ways by which higher military expenditure may unfavorably affect long-run economic growth. First, military spending upsurge may diminish the total accumulation of existing resources available for other domestic usages such as investment in prolific capital, education, and market-oriented technological enhancement. Second, high military expenditure can intensify misrepresentations that condense the efficiency of resource distribution, thereby diminishing the total yield factor 2 .

Military expenditure tends to attenuate productivity because more funds diversion to military expenditure causes the government to either increase taxes or get loans from the foreign capital market to balance its budget. The second alternative is therefore primarily harmful to economic prosperity, since it escalates the rate of interest, decreases investment and consumer demand, and drives economic growth sluggish ( Russett, 1969 ; Borch and Wallace, 2010 ). In a similar vein, some other studies including Lim (1983) noted that military expenses are harmful to the growth of any economy. Even, a study by Dunne (2000) focusing on the Keynesian framework reveals that military spending has no influence on growth at best, but most probably has an inverse effect; obviously, there is no indication of a positive influence of military burden on economic growth. This implies that disarmament certainly offers a prospect for augmented economic performance.

Figure 1 shows the trend analysis of Latin American and Caribbean; lower middle income, low & middle income, and world military expenditure in billion US$. The trend analysis reveals that defense spending has grown from 1980 to 2019.

Trend analysis of the military spending in US$. Data source : World Development Indicators (2020) , the World Bank.

The motivation of this study is based on the growing global military burden–worldwide military spending as a share of global GDP–in 2019 it was estimated at 2.2%, a minor upsurge from 2018. Military expenditure per head increased from USD243 in 2018 to USD249 in 2019. In 2019, non-OECD countries' China and India were the 2nd and 3rd largest military payers in the world respectively 3 . Likewise, the statistics reveal that military expenditures have been increasing in many non-OECD countries which are not a good symptom for national economic development and the desired level of social welfare. Moreover, there are still very limited empirical studies on non-OECD countries except Lee and Chen's (2007) study, where the authors evaluate the long-run causality between defense expenditure and national income using panel data for 62 non-OECD countries from 1988–2003.

The main objective of this study is to explore empirically the impact of military expenditure on growth in the context of 35 non-OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development) countries from 1988 to 2019. The panel of countries is considered based on balanced and consistent data availability 4 . I assume that all sample countries have similar characteristics. This study contributes to the growing literature on the effects of defense expenditures on growth in four novel ways. Firstly , this study analyzes the effect of defense spending on a panel of 35 non-OECD countries, where military spending has been increased substantially during the investigated period. To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing studies covers this large panel of non- OECD countries. Secondly , unlike the erstwhile studies, I employed the Panel ARDL/PMG approach, and the methods of Robust Least-Squares, and Fixed-Effect for the robustness of results. Additionally, the commonly used heterogeneous panel Granger causality test by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) is employed to find the causal linkages between the variables. Thirdly , I used a different portfolio of regressors to avoid any misspecification of the growth equation. Finally , I have articulated several prior studies to comprehend the problem in depth. Consequently, to mitigate the gap in the literature, this study contributes to the literature about the impact of military spending on economic growth for less developed countries.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. Section 2 contains the literature review. Section 3 deals with the empirical methodology and data. Section 4 consists of empirical results and discussion. Finally, section 5 concludes the study.

2. Literature review

2.1. the theoretical literature on defense sending and economic growth relationship.

Benoit (1978) documented that countries with substantial defense expenditure mostly had the quickest rate of growth compared to those with the lowermost defense expenditures which tended to exhibit the lowermost growth rates. On the positive contribution of defense spending in economic growth Benoit (1978) noted that “Defense programs of most countries make tangible contributions to the civilian economies by (i) feeding, clothing, and housing a number of people who would otherwise have to be fed, housed, and clothed by the civilian economy-and sometimes doing so, especially in less developed countries, in ways that involve sharply raising their nutritional and other consumption standards and expectations; (ii) providing education and medical care as well as vocational and technical training (e.g., in the operation and repair of cars, planes, and radios; in hygiene and medical care; in construction methods) that may have high civilian utility; (iii) engaging in a variety of public works-roads, dams, river improvements, airports, communication networks, etc.-that may in part serve civilian uses; and (iv) engaging in scientific and technical specialties such as hydrographic studies, mapping, aerial surveys, dredging, meteorology, soil conservation, and forestry projects as well as certain quasi-civilian activities such as coast guard, lighthouse operation, customs work, border guard, and disaster relief which would otherwise have to be performed by civilian personnel. Military forces also engage in certain R & D …… which might not be economically produced solely for civilian demand.” (p. 277).

A study conducted by Narayan and Singh (2007) claim that the direct and indirect contribution to the national income by defense spending is consistent with the Keynesian theory of consumption.

On the other hand, Smith (1977) expounded that in interpreting the empirical results of any study, it is required to have a valid theory, even if it may not by itself be provable. Unfortunately, there is no economic theory to this date covering the economic impact of defense expenditure. 5 Deger and Smith (1983) noted that the classical school of thought argues that an upsurge in defense spending is likely to impede economic growth. This argument is based on the principle that greater defense expenditure indicates a lower level of private investment, savings, and consumption due to small aggregate demand. In other words, increased military spending contributes to a rise in the interest rate, which subsequently overwhelms private investment. The Keynesian school of thought argues that a rise in the defense expenses stimulates demand, boosting purchasing power and aggregate output, and generating positive externalities. In their study Dunne and Tian (2016) , it was noted that there was no theoretical basis to guide the experimental analysis. Though, the Keynesian consumption theory reveals that defense spending may stimulate growth through positive spill-over effects. However, such kind of theoretical prediction based on the Keynesian model is less clear.

2.2. Empirical studies on the impact of military spending on economic growth

Despite the voluminous empirical studies on the military-growth connection, the empirical findings are still inconclusive 6 . The discussion in the present literature on the influence of military spending opened with the seminal work of Benoit (1978) which opined that military spending and growth have a positive correlation. Afterward, many studies are continuously performed to empirically verify the relationship between these variables by using different models, estimation techniques, set of countries, and data period. Several other studies support the positive effect of defense spending including Atesoglu (2002) , who observed that there exists a significantly positive association in military outlays and aggregate output in the case of the United States from 1947:2–2000:2. The empirical analysis of the study by Yildirim et al. (2005) found that military spending boosts national income in the Middle Eastern countries and Turkey over 1989–99. Narayan and Singh (2007) empirically verified that defense expenses Granger causes exports, and exports Granger causes national income (GDP), indicating that defense spending indirectly Granger causes national income in the short-run for Fiji over 1970–01. According to Borch and Wallace (2010) , higher levels of military expenditure are better prepared to stave off the harmful influences of an economic slump than states with lower levels of military spending in the 49 U.S. states during 1977–04. Malizard (2010) observed two-way causality between military spending and growth in France during 1960–08. Findings of Farzanegan (2014) study supported the positive impact of the military outlay on growth in Iran during 1959–07. Khalid and Noor (2018) concluded that military spending has a positive relationship with growth in sixty-seven developing economies during 2002–10.

On the other hand, some prior studies, for example, Faini et al. (1984) detected that a greater military burden is related to sluggish growth for 69 countries during 1952–70, whereas a rise of 10% military spending leads to a decrease of annual economic growth by 0.13%. Deger (1986) revealed that overall the direct and indirect effects of military expenditure will dampen growth rate and impede development in a panel of 50 developing economies during 1965–73. The author suggested that empirical indication goes against the conclusions of Benoit and others about the positive impact of military outlay on growth in less-developed economies. Abu-Bader and Abu-Qarm (2003) found that military expenditure hampers economic growth, but civilian expenses have a positive impact on growth for Egypt, Israel, and Syria (1975–98), (1967–98), and (1973–98) respectively. The empirical findings of Klein (2004) reveal that overall the military outlay has a negative influence on the growth rate of Peru over 1970–96. Chang et al. (2011) found that military expenditure leads to deleterious growth for low-income countries in the whole sample of 90 countries during 1992–06. D'Agostino et al. (2017) observed a significantly negative effect of military spending on growth in 83 countries from OECD over 1970–14. Saba and Ngepah (2019) examined the causal link between military spending and economic growth for 35 African countries over 1990–15. The authors found that (i) no causal link in seven countries; (ii) one-way causality from military spending to growth in two countries; (iii) one-way link from growth one-way in 14 countries; and (iv) two-ways link in 12 countries. Overall, the GMM estimates reveal that military spending has a significant negative effect on economic growth in Africa.

Similarly, other studies provide evidence of mixed results on the economic effects of military expenses on growth, for example, the study of Frederiksen and Looney (1982) divided the economies into financial resource restrained and unrestrained groups over 1960–78. The findings revealed that enhanced military expenditures promoted growth in the unrestrained group, but a small visible impact was found in resource-constrained countries. In a study on three North American countries namely Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. during 1963–05, Bremmer and Kesselring (2007) found that enhanced military expenditure promotes nominal GDP in Canada and Mexico, while it declines the growth in nominal GDP in the U.S. Aye et al. (2014) observed no Granger causal association between military outlay and growth for South Africa during 1951–10. However, by using the bootstrap rolling window estimation approach, the study finds two ways Granger causality in different subsamples. The results of Chang et al. (2014) supported the neutrality hypothesis for France, Germany, and Italy, while, the military expenditure–growth hampering hypothesis for Canada and the UK, and unidirectional Granger causality running from national income to military outlay for China. Moreover, the results supported the feedback 7 between military spending and national income in the case of Japan and the U.S. over 1988–10. Using the “Hendry General-to-Specific modeling” methodology, the study of Abdel-Khalek et al. (2019) fails to find any causal linkages between military spending and economic growth in India over 1980–16. Some more related empirical studies are given in Table 1 .

Table 1

Selected prior studies on the association between Milex and aggregate output.

The existing empirical studies have shown that, although it is a subject of concentration for many researchers, economists, and policymakers, there is still no harmony in the literature on the economic impact of military spending on economic growth.

3. Empirical methodology

3.1. model specification.

Based on the existing literature on the growth theories, the present study specified a growth equation introduced by Solow (1956 ; 1957) , also used by Mankiw et al. (1992) , Barro et al. (1995) , and Barro (2003) where inputs namely physical and human capital together produce aggregate production. The Solow model encompasses four inputs, namely, output ( Y ), capital ( K ), labor ( L ), and “knowledge” or the “effectiveness of labor” ( A ), and t denotes time. The economy produces output with a combination of certain amounts of labor, capital, and knowledge. The model can be written in mathematical form as follows:

I specify the empirical model by incorporating military spending in the growth equation following the existing literature including ( Dunne and Tian, 2015 ; D'Agostino 2017 , see for details on the empirical model). Thus, in this study, a multivariate probabilistic model, based on the augmented production function is used to validate empirically the impact of military spending as a percentage of GDP along with some other control variables, including human capital, physical capital, foreign remittances, and the level of development on economic growth proxied by GDP per capita growth rate. Similar growth models encompass military spending is also frequently used in erstwhile research studies, for instance by Antonakis (1997) , Dunne and Nikolaidou (2012) , Hou and Chen (2013) , Lobont et al. (2019) , Mohanty et al. (2020) . The multivariate regression equation used in this study can be expressed symbolically as follows;

In Eq. (2) α 1 , α 2 , α 3 , α 4 , and α 5 symbolizes the estimated coefficients, i and t indicates the i t h country and the t t h time period, respectively ( i = 1,2 , … , N = 35 ; t = 1,2 , … , T = 32 ) . Where G is the GDP per capita growth rate, M S represents military spending, I is an investment by gross capital formation, R M is personal remittances received, H K is human capital by total life expectancy at birth in years, P C I is GDP per capita at level represents the level of development, and ε is an error term, which shows effects of other variables not included in the model. It is assumed that the error term (ε t ) is to be independently and identically distributed ( ε t ∼ i i d ( 0 , σ 2 ) .

I hypothesized that in Eq. (2) , the impact of human capital, physical capital, and workers' remittances have a positive relationship with economic growth, and initial per capita income hurts economic growth, while the impact of military spending is determined in this study.

The unrestricted error correction for the ARDL model ( p , q , q , … … , q ) model by Pesaran et al. (1999: 623–24) is used as per the order of integration of the data and can be expressed symbolically as follows:

In Eq. (3) , the subscripts i and t show group (country) and period, respectively. So, the periods t = 1, 2,…… T (i.e., 1988–2019) and the groups (countries) i = 1,2,…., N (in this case N = 35). G i , t is the growth rate of GDP per capita (regressand); X i t ( k × 1 ) is the vector of explanatory variables (regressors), including military spending, investment, human capital, workers remittances, and initial per capita income, μ i denote the fixed effects; λ i j represents the coefficient of the lagged regressand; δ i j are k × 1 coefficient vectors (representing the coefficient of the lagged explanatory variables); and ε is an error term. T needs to be suitably large such that the model for each group (country) can be estimated separately.

Eq. (3) in reparameterized form can be used to accomplish the objectives of the study:

where, φ i = − ( 1 − ∑ j = 1 p λ i , j ) , β i = ∑ j = 0 q δ i , j .

In Eq. (4) , φ is the coefficient of the speed of adjustment in the long-run equilibrium.

3.2. Data and it sources

Annual cross-sectional balanced panel data from 1988 to 2019 is used. Though we intend to use longer period data, consistent balanced data were available for only 32 years. The growth rate of GDP per capita is used as regressand, and the regressors are military expenditure as % of GDP, worker remittances are personal remittances, received (current US$), GDP per capita (current US$), gross capital formation, and total life expectancy at birth (years). The data initially were in US$ and converted to GDP ratio except for GDP per capita. Data on all variables are extracted from the World Development Indicators ( WDI, 2020 ), the World Bank.

3.3. Estimation strategy

3.3.1. panel unit root tests (purts).

Before the formal empirical exploration of the panel data, it is essential to have an understanding of the integrating properties of the data. Therefore, this research work employed PURTs i.e., Levin et al. (2002) (LLC), Fisher-ADF, and Fisher-PP tests by Maddala and Wu (1999) and Choi (2001) ; and Im et al. (2003) (IPS).

3.3.2. The autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL)/pooled mean group (P.M.G.)

Pesaran and Shin (1999) introduced the Autoregressive Distributed lag (ARDL) model in error correction form as a comparatively innovative cointegration test. Pesaran and Shin (1999) claim that the panel ARDL can be employed for variables even with dissimilar order of integration i.e. either in case of I ( 0 ) or I ( 1 ) . The ARDL model, in particular, the P.M.G. provides reliable coefficients despite the potential existence of endogeneity, as it comprises lags of regressand and regressors ( Pesaran et al., 1999 ). This study, therefore, uses the panel ARDL approach to explore the long-run equilibrium association of the elemental variables and the P.M.G. model to assess the impact of defense spending on economic growth. The error correction model provides information regarding the long-run demeanor of the parameters of the model. This approach has the advantage that it uses a single condensed form equation, compared with the other cointegration approach, so that endogeneity is not a major problem as it is free from the residual relationship. Likewise, the ARDL neglects the specification of the exogenous and endogenous variables required to be incorporated into the model. It also uses optimal lags for the elemental variables that cannot be used in standard cointegration tests ( Guei, 2019 ). This method is also employed by D'Agostino et al. (2017) for investigating the long-run equilibrium linkage between military expenditure and growth in 83 OECD countries.

3.3.3. The robust least squares (RLS), fixed-effect and Dumitrescu and Hurlin

The robust least squares estimators are applied because the outliers in the data can have a severe effect on regression results. Usually, the most commonly used method, including the traditional least squares method (OLS) for data analysis, overlooks the issue of outliers ( Barnett and Lewis 1978 ; Belsley et al., 1980 ). Robust regression is an alternate solution to overcome this problem, which provides robust results ( Huber, 1973 ). M-estimation is a broadly used method for robust statistical results. The setting of M-estimation is logically advantageous to penalization to standardize parameters, and it is generally employed to perform robust estimation and variable selection ( Owen, 2007 ). Many prior studies such as Wilcox and Keselman (2012) , and Pitselis (2013) documented that the M-estimation of R.L.S. method gives large advantages over the least-squares method.

This study also employed the fixed-effect estimator suggests by the Hausman (1978) test over the random-effect as the p-value (0.0279) is statistically significant (see Table 6 ). To deal with endogeneity bias is offered by the fixed-effect analytic approach, which necessitates multilevel data/panel data ( Allison, 2009 ). The method of fixed-effect is a very flexible approach to adjusting for endogeneity originating from omitted variable bias. The predominant purpose of the fixed-effect method is to eliminate all bias that is due to the association of encompassed variables with omitted time-invariant variables ( Wooldridge, 2009 ; Stone and Rose, 2011 ). The fixed-effect estimator is also implemented by Knight et al. (1996) Dunne and Nikolaidou (2012) , Azam and Feng (2017) , and Dunne et al. (2019) in related studies. Also, the commonly used heterogeneous test by Dumitrescu and Hurlin  ( 2012 ) which is a simple non-causality test in heterogeneous panel data models developed by Granger (1969) is employed to find the direction of causality between the variables.

Table 6

Robust least squares, and fixed-effect estimates.

Method: M-estimation M settings: weight = Bisquare, tuning = 4.685, scale = MAD (median centered).

Huber Type I Standard Errors & Covariance .

Note: a, b, and c denotes 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance respectively.

4. Results and discussions

Table 2 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of balanced panel data set containing 35 non-OECD countries over the period of 1988–19. The results of the pair-wise correlation between the series are also given in Table 2 . These results reveal that all the variables are normally distributed whereas the error term is having zero mean and finite variance indicated by Jarque-Bera's statistic. The pair-wise correlation results expose that military spending and per capita income is negatively correlated with economic growth, while a positive correlation exists between physical capital and economic growth, and the same is true for human capital and foreign remittances. The correlation analysis suggests no evidence of multicollinearity between the series.

Table 2

Summary statistics and correlation matrix.

Note: p-values are in ( ).

Before checking stationarity properties of selected variables namely military spending, physical capital, human capital, per capita income, foreign remittances, and economic growth, this study first implements Pesaran's (2004) tests to check the cross-sectional dependence in panel data. To avoid the problem of cross-sectional dependence may lead to partial results. The cross-sectional dependence test results are reported in Table 3 . These results reveal solid evidence to discard the null hypothesis of cross-sectional dependence as the relevant p-values are statistically significant. These results endorse the existence of cross-sectional dependence for military spending, physical capital, human capital, per capita income, foreign remittances, and economic growth.

Table 3

Results of CD cross-sectional dependence tests.

Note: Null hypothesis: No cross-section dependence. d.f. = 595. Alll tests shows that all included variables are signficant at the 1% level of significance.

A summary of the results of PURTs is given in Table 4 . The panel unit root results demonstrate that the growth rate of GDP per capita, military spending, human capital, investment, and workers remittances are stationary at the level, while and PCI proxied by GDP per capita are found non-stationary at the level and became stationary after its first difference with individual constant and trend in a panel. PURTs results suggest that all variables used in the study are mixed in order of integration i.e. integrated at I ( 0 ) and I ( 1 ) in each panel. Thus, I implement the ARDL/P.M.G. methods for empirical estimation purposes. For the sake of robustness, this study also employed the methods of robust least squares and fixed-effect.

Table 4

Summary of PURTs results.

Note: The unit root tests are carried out with a specification of constant and time trend. Where, asterisk a indicates statistical significant at the 1% level of significance. C shows Constant, and T show Trend.

Based on the PURTs results, this study first implements the pooled mean group technique for exploring the long-run equilibrium association between variables. Empirical estimations of both the long-run and short-run parameters that link military spending, human capital, remittances, the initial level of development, and national income (economic growth) by employing the PMG method are reported in Table 5 . It is evident from Table 5 that all empirically evaluated explanatory variables have considerable effects on the economic growth of the 35 non-OECD economies. The P.M.G. results reveal that all regressors are statistically significant individually, thus, validating and signifying that the estimated model is theoretically and statistically acceptable. All the regressors carry the probable coefficient signs.

Table 5

Pooled Mean Group results.

Note: Regressor is GDP per capita growth rate.

Asterisk a, denotes 1% level of significance.

ECM = Error crrection coefficient . Model selection method: AIC.

Results given in Table 5 reveal that military spending ( M S ) has an inverse effect on the national income ( G ) in the long-run. I obtained impartially robust empirical results on the negative impact of defense spending and economic growth in the long-run. Results favor the likely adverse effect of military spending on growth. In the long-run, the estimated coefficient of -0.3223 is estimated for the military spending variable, which is significant statistically at the 1% level. Empirical results indicating that a 1% upsurge in military expenditure will dampen economic growth by 0.3223%. Similar results are also obtained by Dunne and Nikolaidou (2012) using panel data for 15 countries from the EU over 1961–07. The findings of this study are consistent with the study carried out by Knight et al. (1996) , Hou and Chen (2013) , and D'Agostino et al. (2017) , and Saba and Ngepah (2019) . While, our results are in contrast with the findings of Narayan and Singh (2007) , Feridun et al. (2011) , Farzanegan (2014) , Sheikh et al. (2017) , and Lobont et al. (2019) , as these studies yield positive relationship between military expenditures and economic growth, also quite consistent with the illustration of the Keynesian school of thought. Mostly military expenditure is unproductive in developing countries. Developing countries face multiple challenges and need to focus on promoting economic growth and thereby social welfares. After achieving the desired level of economic growth, these countries may opt for military spending. Countries spending on the military are in loss unless they export armaments to other countries and increase their foreign exchange.

It is evident from Table 5 , that the impact of workers' remittances ( R M ) on economic growth is significantly positive at a 1 percent level. The estimated coefficient found is 0.0916 in the long run, signifying that a 1% upsurge in workers' remittances flow leads to a 0.0916% upsurge in economic growth. The positive and statistically significant correlation between remittances and growth was also acquired by Azam (2015 ; 2016) .

Investment ( I ) represented by gross capital formation is included in the regression model, which is one of the fundamental inputs for production. Table 5 indicates that the investment variable is positively associated with economic growth in the long run. The estimated coefficient value is 0.1195 and significant at the 1% level in the long-run. This result infers that an upsurge of 1% in investment leads to an enlargement in the national growth rate by 0.1195 % in the long-run. This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Azam (2016) , and Mohanty et al. (2020) .

Human capital ( H K ) is a key element of the production function; so, human capital by total life expectancy in a year is included in the regression model. The P.M.G. results exhibit that human capital has a positive impact on economic growth in the long-run. The estimated coefficient for human capital found is 0.0283 and significant at the 1% level in the long-run. Empirical estimates exhibit that one unit change in the human capital will promote economic growth by 0.0283%. The results of the encouraging connection between human capital and growth show that investment in human health has a momentous and valuable impact by a growing lifespan, thus, growing output and hence, economic development. The significantly positive effect of human capital on growth is consistent with the study conducted by Karim and Amin (2018) , and Azam (2020) .

Initial GDP per capita represents the level of development that has a negative association with the growth and significant statistically at the 1 percent level. The estimated coefficient for the initial level of development is -0.0005 in the long-run. The negative result of the coefficient on the initial level of development variable, the GDP per capita at the start of each year, shows the conditional convergence effect. The estimated speed of conditional convergence is around 0.0005% per year. The significantly negative impact on initial GDP per capita on the growth was also explored by Hou and Chen (2013) .

The robust least squares and fixed-effect estimators’ results are given in Table 6 confirms that military spending has a detrimental impact on the growth in 35 non-OECD countries. Whereas workers' remittances, physical and human capital have a positive effect on national income, and initial GDP per capita harms growth. There is no indication of any positive impact of military spending on economic growth. All estimated coefficients are statistically significant and strongly support the empirical results of the P.M.G. approach. Non-OECD countries are mostly developing countries if compared to developed countries. The developed world often can allocate resources of their national budget to military spending. Whereas most developing economies including non-OECD countries suffer from high levels of poverty, and allocation of their resources to military spending may further contribute to poverty. Comparing the empirical results of this study with many including Saba et al. (2019) , I conclude that military expenditure in non-OECD does not stimulate economic growth.

Moreover, the commonly used heterogeneous test by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) is used to explore the causal linkages between the variables. The Dumitrescu and Hurlin test allows for heterogeneity through cross-sections, and the results are presented in Table 7 . The results reveal that there exists a statistically significant bidirectional causality between military spending and economic growth. It is evident from Table 7 that most of the results show the existence of causality between variables which are also statistically significant. The Dumitrescu − Hurlin Granger causality results suggest a feedback link between military spending and growth. The empirical finding of a feedback link indicates that neither of these two variables can be measured exogenous. These results are consistent with the findings accrued by Frederiksen (1989) , and Lobont et al. (2019) , while inconsistent with the findings of Abdel-Khalek et al. (2019) .

Table 7

Results of Dumitrescu Hurlin panel causality tests.

Null hypothesis: no causality; top values represents W-Stat; Zbar-Stat are in ( ); p-values are in [ ]. Lag: 2.

Asterisk a, b, c indicates statistical significant at the 1%, 5 % and 10% level respectively.

Thus, overall, the PMG, RLS, fixed-effect, and Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality tests results reveal that military spending does not have any positive impact on military spending in non-OECD countries, while it has a significant negative effect on the economies. These theoretically, technically, and statistically sound empirical results are plausible for policy formation.

5. Concluding remarks

Several empirical studies are available on the relationship between military spending and economic growth, but their empirical findings are yet inconclusive. Undeniably, the economic effect of military expenditure is an essential issue for the developing world. Therefore, this research work aims to determine empirically the impact of military expenditure along with some other control variables on the growth, for a set of thirty-five countries from non-OECD over 1988–19. According to the nature of the data, the widely used panel unit tests are employed to check the order of integration of each variable. The results are found mixed (i.e., I(0), and I(1)) based on stationarity, and thus, the panel ARDL/PMG approach is applied. Afterward, the panel robust least squares and fixed-effect estimators are also employed as analytical techniques for parameters’ estimation to affirm the results, and the Dumitrescu –Hurlin Granger causality test is employed to find the direction of causality between the variables.

The empirical results of all the methods suggest that military spending and economic growth have a strong inverse relationship, suggesting that encouraging military expenditure is not a good option because it discourages economic growth. Moreover, the Dumitrescu–Hurlin Granger causality test exposes bidirectional causal nexus between military expenses and economic growth in the sample countries. The bidirectional causal linkage between military spending and growth though exhibits a degree of interdependence between military spending and economic growth policy objectives. Thus, the execution of economic growth policies should not be given more primacy over the military burden while other than military expenditure factors shall be considered.

Overall, the empirical results validated that military spending is undesirable for national economic development. The results of the significantly negative effect of military spending on national income go against the results obtained by Benoit (1978) , and others who claim that military expenditure positively contributes to the aggregate output, while, consistent with the findings by Dunne and Tian (2015) for 106 countries over 1988–10, Dunne and Tian concluded that “These results do seem to provide valuable robustness checks and support strongly the view that military spending hurts growth” (p.29). The findings of the present study are technically and statistically acceptable and plausible for frontwards policy recommendation purposes.

From these findings, the unequivocal negative effect of military spending on economic growth indicates that non-OECD countries are developing countries with scarce resources, and these economies can't afford military spending, while when these economies grow, governments can contemplate rising its military spending to strengthen its military power. Enlarged military spending can't be used to boost economic growth in the non-OECD countries, since any positive impacts it would have on the economic growth through augmented demand, modernization, and resource outset, would have overwhelmed by the damaging effects on economic growth through reduced investment. Policymakers should thus leave military spending for security objectives only and restructuring public resources from the military sector toward civilian objectives 11 . Likewise, policymakers should focus on rationalizing their budget spending more on improving social welfare. Furthermore, incremental efforts are required to adopt an effective and prudent policy to further encourage growth, while shrinkage in military spending can largely benefit the economies. Therefore, military expenditures need to be reduced while expenditures on other developmental sectors including health and education sectors to be increased.

The limitation of this study is that it deals only with a panel of 35 non-OECD countries over the period of 1988–19, as consistent and balanced data were only available on this period on selected variables.

It is suggested for future research to divide the non-OECD countries based on the levels of military spending, re-run regression on non-OECD and OECD countries separately, and compare their empirical findings which will certainly help the management authorities. Moreover, the turning point/threshold effect of military spending shall be empirically evaluated. Perhaps, it will need advanced econometric techniques to come up with a meaningful investigation.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Muhammad Azam: Conceived and designed the analysis; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

1 Looney and Frederiksen (1986) .

2 Knight et al. (1996) .

3 SIPRI (2020) .

4 Countries included are Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Paraguay, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Eswatini (Swaziland), Egypt, Arab Rep., Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, China, Fiji, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Thailand.

5 D'Agostino et al. (2010).

6 See Dunne and Nikolaidou (2012) .

7 It means two-way Granger causal connection between military expenditure and economic growth.

8 For China and Pakistan (1989–17), for India (1980–17).

9 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal, Turkey, Spain, Sweden the Netherlands and UK.

10 The results confirm the hypothesized positive relationship between defense and growth in the unconstrained group, but was not confirmed for the constrained group. where the study hypothesize that a negative relationship will exist between defense and economic growth in countries which are financially resource constrained, and a positive relationship will exist in countries which are relatively resource unconstrained.

11 See Antonakis (1997) .

• Abdel-Khalek G., Mazloum M.G., El Zeiny M.R.M. Military expenditure and economic growth: the case of India. Rev. Econom. Political Sci. 2019; 5 (2):116–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abu-Bader S., Abu-Qarm A. Government expenditures, military spending and economic growth: causality evidence from Egypt, Israel and Syria. J. Policy Modelling. 2003; 25 (6-7):567–583. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajmair M., Hussain K., Abbassi F.A., Gohar M. The impact of military expenditures on economic growth of Pakistan. Appl. Econom. Finance. 2018; 5 (2):41–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison P.D. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2009. Fixed Effects Regression Models (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series) [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonakis N. Military expenditure and economic growth in Greece, 1960-90. J. Peace Res. 1997; 34 (1):89–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arshad A., Syed S.H., Shabbir G. Military expenditure and economic growth: a panel data analysis. Forman J. Econom. Stud. 2017; 1 3 :161–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atesoglu H.S. Defense spending promotes aggregate output in the United States-evidence from cointegration analysis. Defence Peace Econ. 2002; 13 (1):55–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aye G.C., Balcilar M., Dunne J.P., Gupta R., Eyden R.V. Military expenditure, economic growth and structural instability: a case study of South Africa. Defence Peace Econ. 2014; 25 (6):619–633. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azam M. “The role of migrant workers remittances in fostering economic growth: the four Asian developing country’s experiences. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2015; 42 (8):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azam M. Does governance and foreign capital inflows affect economic development in OIC countries? J. Econom. Cooperation Dev. 2016; 37 (4):21–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azam M. Energy and economic growth in developing Asian economies. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2020; 25 (3):447–471. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azam M., Feng Y. Does military expenditure increase external debt? Evidence from Asia. Defence Peace Econ. 2017; 28 (5):550–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett V., Lewis T. John Wiley and Sons; New York: 1978. Outliers in Statistical Data. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barro R.J. Determinants of economic growth in a panel of countries. Ann. Econ. Finance. 2003; 4 :231–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barro R., Mankiw N.G., Sala-i-Martin X. Capital mobility in Neoclassical models of growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 1995; 85 (1):103–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belsley D.A., Kuh E., Welsch R.E. Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 1980. Regression diagnostics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benoit E. Growth and defence in developing countries. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change. 1978; 26 :271–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borch C., Wallace M. Military spending and economic well-being in the American states: the post-vietnam war era. Soc. Forces. 2010; 88 (4):1727–1752. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bremmer D., Kesselring R. Presented in the 49th Annual Conference of the Western Social Science Association Hyatt Regency Hotel, Alberta, Canada, April 13, 2007. 2007. The impact of defense spending on GDP: the case of North America. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang H.-C., Huang B.-N., Yang C.W. Military expenditure and economic growth across different groups: a dynamic panel Granger-causality approach. Econ. Modell. 2011; 28 :2416–2423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang T., Lee C.-C., Hung K., Lee K.-H. Does military spending really matter for economic growth in China and G7 countries: the roles of dependency and heterogeneity. Defence Peace Econ. 2014; 25 (2):177–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi I. Unit root tests for panel Data. J. Int. Money Finance. 2001; 20 (2):249–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deger S. Economic development and defense expenditure. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change. 1986; 35 (1):179–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deger S., Smith R. Military expenditure and growth in less developed countries. J. Conflict Resolut. 1983; 27 (2):335–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumitrescu E.-I., Hurlin C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ. Modell. 2012; 29 (4):1450–1460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne J.P. Economics Group, Middlesex University Business School; The Burroughs, Hendon, London: 2000. The Economic Effects of Military Expenditure in Developing Countries. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne J.P., Nikolaidou E. Defence spending and economic growth in the EU 15. Defence Peace Econ. 2012; 23 (6):537–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne J.P., Tian N. Military expenditure, economic growth and heterogeneity. Defence Peace Econ. 2015; 26 (1):15–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne J.P., Tian N. “Military expenditure and growth, 1960–2014. Econom. Peace and Security J. 2016; 11 (2):50–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne J.P., Nikolaidou E., Chiminya A. Military spending, conflict and external debt in Sub-Saharan Africa. Defence Peace Econ. 2019; 30 (4):462–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• D’ Agostino G., Dunne J.P., Pieroni L. Does military spending matter for long-run growth? Defence Peace Econ. 2017; 28 (4):429–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faini R., Annez P., Taylor L. Defence spending, economic structure and growth: evidence among countries and over time. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change. 1984; 32 (3):487–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farzanegan M.R. Military spending and economic growth: the case of Iran. Defence Peace Econ. 2014; 25 (3):247–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feridun M., Sawhney B., Shahbaz M. The impact of military spending on economic growth: the case of North Cyprus. Defence Peace Econ. 2011; 22 (5):555–562. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederiksen P.C. “The relationship between defence spending and economic growth: some evidence for Indonesia, 1964–85. Contemp. S. Asia. 1989; 10 (4):375–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederiksen P.C., Looney R.E. Defense expenditures and economic growth in developing countries. J. Econ. Dev. 1982; 7 (1):113–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Granger C.W.J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica. 1969; 37 :424–438. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guei K.M. External debt and growth in emerging economies. Int. Econ. J. 2019; 33 (2):236–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hausman J.A. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica. 1978; 46 (6):1251–1271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou N., Chen B. Military expenditure and economic growth in developing countries: evidence from system GMM estimates. Defence Peace Econ. 2013; 24 (3):183–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber P.J. Robust regression: asymptotics, conjecture, and Monte Carlo. Ann. Stat. 1973; 1 :799–821. [ Google Scholar ]
• Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., Shin Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econom. 2003; 115 :53–74. (revise version of 1997’s work) [ Google Scholar ]
• Karim A., Amin S. The impact of population growth on the economic growth of selected South Asian countries: a panel cointegration analysis. J. Account. Finance Econom. 2018; 8 (3):17–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalid M.A., Noor Z.M. Military expenditure and economic growth in developing countries: evidence from system GMM estimates. J. Emerg. Trends Econ. Manag. Sci. 2018; 9 (2):90–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein T. “Military expenditure and economic growth: Peru 1970–1996. Defence Peace Econ. 2004; 15 (3):275–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knight M., Loayza N., Villanueva D. Policy Research Working Paper 1577. The World Bank Policy Research Department Macroeconomics and Growth Division and International Monetary Fund; 1996. The peace dividend: military spending cuts and economic growth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C.C., Chen S.T. Do defence expenditures spur GDP? A panel analysis from OECD and non-OECD countries. Defence Peace Econ. 2007; 18 (3):265–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin A., Lin C., Chu C.-J. Unit Root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J. Econom. 2002; 108 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim D. Another look at growth and defense in less developed countries. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change. 1983; 31 (2):377–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobont O.R., Glont O.R., Badea L., Vatavu S. Quality & Quantity ; 2019. Correlation of Military Expenditures and Economic Growth: Lessons for Romania. [ Google Scholar ]
• Looney R.E., Frederiksen P.C. Defense expenditures, external public debt and growth in developing countries. J. Peace Res. 1986; 23 (4):329–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maddala G.S., Wu S. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1999; 61 (S1):631–652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malizard J. Causality between economic growth and military expenditure: the case of France. Defense Secur. Anal. 2010; 26 (4):401–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mankiw N.G., Romer D., Weil D.N. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 1992; 107 :407–437. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohanty R.K., Panda S., Bhuyan B. “Does defence spending and its composition affect economic growth in India?” Margin . J. Appl. Econom. Res. 2020; 14 (1):62–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narayan P.K., Singh B. Modelling the relationship between defense spending and economic growth for the Fiji Islands. Defence Peace Econ. 2007; 18 (4):391–401. [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen A.B. A robust hybrid of lasso and ridge regression. Contemp. Math. 2007; 443 :59–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pesaran M.H. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics; 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pesaran M.H., Shin Y. An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In: Strom S., editor. Chapter 11 in Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century: the Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium . Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., Smith R.P. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999; 94 (446):621–634. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitselis G. A review on robust estimators applied to regression credibility. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2013; 239 :231–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raju M.H., Ahmed Z. Effect of military expenditure on economic growth: evidences from India Pakistan and China using cointegration and causality analysis. Asian J. German Eur. Stud. 2019; 4 (3):1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russett B. Who pays for defense? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1969; 63 (2):4l2–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saba C.S., Ngepah N. Military expenditure and economic growth: evidence from a heterogeneous panel of African countries. Econ. Res. 2019; 32 (1):3586–3606. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh M.R., Akhtar M.H., Abbas A., Mushtaq M.I. Military spending, inequality and economic growth: evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Econ. Soc. Rev. 2017; 55 (2):491–509. [ Google Scholar ]
• SIPRI . 2020. Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2019. https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2020/global-military-expenditure-sees-largest-annual-increase-decade-says-sipri-reaching-1917-billion Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith R.P. Military expenditure and capitalism. Camb. J. Econ. 1977; 1 :61–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solow R.M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 1956; 70 (1):65–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solow R.M. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1957; 39 (3):312–320. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone S.I., Rose R.A. Social work research and endogeneity bias. J. Soc. Soc. Work. Res. 2011; 2 (2):54–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcox R.R., Keselman H.J. Modern regression methods that can substantially increase power and provide a more accurate understanding of associations. Eur. J. Pers. 2012; 26 (3):165–174. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wooldridge J.M. Southwestern-Cengage Learning; Mason, OH: 2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Development Indicators . 2020. The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/country Retrieved. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yildirim J., Sezgin S., Ocal N. Military expenditure and economic growth in Middle Eastern countries: a dynamic panel data analysis. Defence Peace Econ. 2005; 16 (4):283–295. [ Google Scholar ]

• TeachableMoment

Should U.S. Military Spending Rise?

Students explore the debate over the U.S.'s rising military budget and where young people stand on the issue.

Introduction  

Ask students if they’ve heard any news in recent months about the U.S. military budget. If they haven’t heard about it, ask them why they think that is.  Ask:

• Is the level of U.S. military spending an important issue? Why or why not?
• What are a few things you know about U.S. military spending in general?

Share with students that the U.S. government is considering President Biden’s proposal for an increase in the U.S. military budget in 2022 – and there is much debate about this plan.

Today we’ll read about and discuss what is happening with the U.S. military budget, arguments for and against increasing it, and what some young people are saying and doing about it.

Reading One The U.S. Military Budget Continues Its Historic Ascent  

pdf version  

This year, the United States military budget is on course to reach historic highs, continuing a long trend of budget increases backed by both Democrats and Republicans.

President Biden’s proposed budget for the Department of Defense in 2022 is $715 billion, representing an increase of approximately $10 billion over last year’s budget – despite Biden’s move to wind down the U.S. war in Afghanistan. This spending figure does not include funds for Veterans Affairs, management of the country’s nuclear weapons, or other military spending – costs  that bring the total to well over $1 trillion.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, challenged Biden’s proposed hike in military spending: “We’re in the midst of a crisis that has left millions of families unable to afford food, rent, and bills,” she said. “But at the same time, we’re dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Don’t increase defense spending. Cut it—and invest that money into our communities.”

Critics have often pointed out that the massive sums going to the military dwarf most other areas of federal spending. They argue that if some of this money were redirected it could have a major impact in addressing social problems. A 2020 report by the Institute of Policy Studies found that money from even a 10 percent cut to the military budget could end homelessness in the U.S., create more than a million jobs, fund free college educations for over 2 million low-income students, and much more.

Robert Reich, an economist and former Secretary of Labor, is one of the many voices who has criticized the country’s tradition of military budget increases. Reich’s views were detailed in an April 13, 2021, article by John Nichols, a national affairs correspondent for The Nation. Nichols wrote :

“The Pentagon already spends: $740,000,000,000 every year, $2,000,000,000 every day, $1,000,000 every minute,” says the former secretary of labor [Robert Reich]. “The last thing we need is a bigger military budget.” Unfortunately, that’s what the president is seeking. This has led Reich to announce that he is “frankly disappointed that Biden’s proposing $715 billion for the Pentagon—an increase over Trump’s $704 billion defense budget—instead of moving back toward Obama-Biden era levels of defense spending, or less.” “Or less” is the right direction, especially at a moment when Republican deficit hawks are circling in preparation for attacks on domestic spending that is essential for working families who have been battered by the coronavirus pandemic…. Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) is blunter: “We’re in the midst of a crisis that has left millions of families unable to afford food, rent, and bills. But at the same time, we’re dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Don’t increase defense spending. Cut it—and invest that money into our communities.” That’s not a radical response. When Data for Progress surveyed voters nationwide last year about budget priorities, 56 percent supported cutting the Pentagon budget by 10 percent to pay for fighting the coronavirus pandemic and funding education, healthcare, and housing. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats expressed enthusiasm for the proposed cut, which was striking. Even more striking was the 51 percent support it got from Republicans. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-military-budget/

Of course, there are many Americans who support growing the military budget. Some experts argue that the U.S. military presence in bases throughout the world helps to lend stability to the global economy and protect U.S. interests. The current budget is designed, in part, to develop the United States military into a force capable of preventing the further rise of China. In fact, Hal Brands, professor of international affairs at John Hopkins University, argued in a June 6, 2021, article for Bloomberg.com that Biden’s proposed budget is too small and does not do enough to address this challenge. The budget, he wrote :

… continues a trend, established under the Trump administration, of reorienting American defense strategy toward the threat posed by hostile great powers but then underfunding the investments and reforms needed to implement that strategy…. This wouldn’t matter so much if the U.S. still had the luxury of treating China as a problem on the distant horizon. But that’s no longer the case. The indications are mounting that a moment of real military danger — the point at which Chinese President Xi Jinping might be willing to attack Taiwan or otherwise assault the regional status quo even at the risk of a showdown with Washington — could arrive in 2025, rather than the generally held previous estimate of 2035. There is, then, something incongruous about a situation in which high-ranking military officials publicly warn that the U.S. could face an incredibly daunting conflict with China in the Taiwan Strait just a few years from now, and the administration then takes a steady-as-she-goes approach to defense spending. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-07/the-pentagon-s-flatlining-budget-is-good-news-for-china

Critics of military spending have responded by arguing that defense hawks have perennially discovered new threats to justify ever-increasing budgets, even in times like the pandemic, when other needs are profound. Moreover, in an April 7, 2021, commentary in the New York Times, journalist Peter Beinart pointed out:

[China] spends less than one-third as much on defense as the United States does and has fewer than one-tenth as many nuclear weapons. China’s military could indeed be a match for the United States in conflicts near China’s shores, but globally, China poses a far greater economic challenge. To meet it, the United States must invest enormously in education and emerging technologies — the very investments that military spending will sooner or later crowd out. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/opinion/biden-defense-budget.html  

Given that it represents one of the largest areas of federal government spending, the size and trajectory of the military budget is critical in determining the nation’s priorities in coming years.

For Discussion:  

• How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?
• According to the reading, what are some of the things that could be funded with even a modest cut to the military budget?
• Why do some experts, such as professor Hal Brands, believe that the military budget should be even higher than it is now? What do you think about this argument?
• How do you feel about the current military budget and the priorities it reflects? Do you support this allocation of resources, or do you believe that the money might be better used for other purposes?  

Reading Two Youth and the Military

pdf version In recent years, the peace movement has not drawn much attention in the United States.

But some young people are organizing to change that.

A new youth-led organization called Dissenters aims to bring the perspective of a new generation to anti-war activism, making connections between militarism and issues such as police violence and healthcare reform.

In a January 24, 2020, article for Brandeis University’s weekly newspaper The Hoot , Polina Potochevska interviewed a co-founder of the Dissenters chapter at Brandeis, Sarah Arthi Jacob. The organization, Jacob said, was launched by “seasoned organizers of color from across the country who work in prison abolition, anti-policing efforts and anti-occupation activism.”

Jacob said the movement aims to unite strategies and values into “a cohesive movement to stop ‘endless war’ and militarism which first and foremost affects communities of color in the U.S. and around the world.” Jacob noted efforts by students on campuses across the country to push universities to divest from the military industry, including companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Boeing.

While Dissenters is pushing for the government to reallocate funds from the military in ways that can aid local communities across the country, other students are debating whether Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) should be welcome in high schools.

JROTC, a counterpart to the military’s program to provide officer training for college students, focuses on recruiting and preparing high school students for military service. Critics see the program as a manipulative initiative that primarily targets poorer school districts and students of color.

Some students who have participated in JROTC report enjoying the program and feeling it was a means of personal development. In a June 4, 2021 article on Chalkbeat.com, a nonprofit news organization focused on reporting on urban school districts, independent journalist Alex Ruppenthal reported on some responses from Chicago students who were placed in JROTC courses in their schools.

Brianna Gordon, a former JROTC student who enrolled in the program at Chicago Vocational High School in Avalon Park, said it was an easy class that involved exercise challenges, drill team competitions, and wearing military-issued uniforms once a week. “I had a very, very bad attitude, and with them being very understanding and very strict, I learned how to control my attitude a lot,” said Gordon.

While some young people report positive experiences, a range of students, parents, and educators have criticized JROTC programs—particularly those programs that do not give students a choice in advance about whether to enroll.

Natasha Erskine, a former JROTC participant and U.S. Air Force veteran turned anti-war activist, told Chalkbeat that “the concentration of JROTC programs in predominantly Black and Latino schools raises similar concerns as the over-policing of students of color, an issue that has come under renewed scrutiny over the past year.”

Such criticisms have a long history. Veterans for Peace, an organization created by former members of the armed forces to promote alternatives to war and military spending, passed a resolution in 2003 condemning JROTC. The resolution contended that “The purpose of JROTC and military recruitment in our schools is the exploitation of children by adults for the purposes of violence” and that the program conditions young people to “unquestionably accept the nobility of war and the correctness and virtue of killing as a solution to problems[.]”

• How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?  
• What did you think about the viewpoint of Dissenters? How might this group’s approach to confronting militarism be different from that of activists in previous generations?  
• According to the reading, what are some of the arguments made for and against the JROTC program? What arguments seem most compelling to you?  
• What do the Dissenters and those opposing JROTC have in common?  
• Given the size of the U.S. military budget, why do you think most of us hear so little about it?

Extension Activity

Ask students to write a well-researched essay that argues for either increasing or decreasing the U.S. military budget.

Research assistance provided by Akin Olla.

Share this Page

We Get What We Pay For: The Cycle of Military Spending, Industry Power, and Economic Dependence

Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the United States; military personnel make up the majority of U.S. government manpower; and military industry is a leading force in the U.S. economy. This report finds that as a result, other elements and capacities of the U.S. government and civilian economy have been weakened, and military industries have gained political power. Decades of high levels of military spending have changed U.S. government and society — strengthening its ability to fight wars, while weakening its capacities to perform other core functions. Investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and emergency preparedness, for instance, have all suffered as military spending and industry have crowded them out. Increased resources channeled to the military further increase the political power of military industries, ensuring that the cycle of economic dependence continues —  militarized sectors of the economy see perpetual increases in funding and manpower while other human needs go unmet. 

This report details the primary economic distortions that have come at such a high cost to the more balanced functioning of the U.S. federal government through examining the federal discretionary budget, DoD spending, and the federal workforce.  Ultimately, this paper illustrates that reducing the military budget and funding other priorities such as healthcare, education, clean energy, and infrastructure will help increase other forms of security – the kind of meaningful human security rooted in good health, good living conditions, and a productive and well-educated society – while also increasing employment nationwide.

READ FULL PAPER >

Executive Summary (PDF) >

Peace Science Digest

The Effects of Military Spending on Economic Growth

This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: d’Agostino, G., Dunne, J. P., & Pieroni, L. (2017). Does military spending matter for long-run growth?. Defence and Peace Economics , 1-8.

Talking Points

• Increased military spending leads to slower economic growth.
• Military spending tends to have a negative impact on economic growth.
• Over a 20-year period, a 1% increase in military spending will decrease a country’s economic growth by 9%.
• Increased military spending is especially detrimental to the economic growth of wealthier countries.

The debate over how military spending impacts a country’s economy has been fiercely argued, and the results of studies trying to understand this relationship have been mixed. Early researchers ran into trouble due to inadequate time frame or country data. Others have studied only certain types of countries or periods in time, leading to results that could arguably be caused by other social, political, or economic factors. Past research, for example, was highly influenced by military spending data in the Cold War era. After the Cold War, the reduced military spending was matched with an era of strong economic growth, which provided for a very different economic environment than what was seen during periods of high military spending during the Cold War era. To overcome past limitations, this study analyzes military spending by a large and diverse group of countries over the span of 45 years, with special attention to global events that may otherwise influence major economies.

In this study, the authors consider two main questions: (1) is long-run economic growth affected by military spending; and (2) do other types of government spending have any significant impact on economic growth? The second question is asked to identify if military spending specifically affects economic growth, or if government spending in general affects growth. To further narrow the scope of their research, the authors also break the countries down into different income levels to see if the economic growth/military spending relationship affects wealthy countries differently than less wealthy countries.

To build their study, the authors use military spending information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) dataset. The data includes government spending on current military forces and activities including salaries, benefits, operational expenses, arms and equipment purchases, military construction, research and development, central administration, and command and support. The SIPRI dataset covers 170 countries and extends back to 1949 for most countries (1957 for some). Available data from the World Penn Table dataset restricts the authors’ starting year to 1970, but provides country-specific per capita gross domestic product (GDP), private investment, employment growth, and current GDP. This allows the authors to accurately compare a country’s military spending to its economic growth.

Their results show that increased military spending has consistently negative impacts on a country’s economic growth. This even is the case when analyzing different time periods and countries with varying GDPs, as well as when comparing military spending to other forms of government spending. When analyzing all countries together, the findings show that over a 20-year period, a 1% increase in military spending decreases economic growth by 9%. The negative economic impact is especially apparent for most countries in the “Global North,” as seen in the authors’ observation of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member states. Although there was also a negative economic impact to military spending in non-OECD countries, the negative economic impact in OECD countries was much more pronounced.

Contemporary Relevance

There is a popular assumption that war, or even increased military spending, will boost a nation’s economy. True, when a nation goes to war the surge of government investment into war-related industries can lead to short-term economic gains. However, these gains are short-lived, affect only certain, usually isolated, industries (“conflict industry”, “war profiteers”), and are no consolation for the long-term economic cost of war.

A study of six major U.S. wars (World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) finds the costs of war to negatively affect the national economy, taxes, debt, jobs, investment, and inflation. [1] Key findings of the report show that in most wars public debt, inflation, and tax rates increase, consumption and investment decrease, and military spending displaces more productive government investment in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure—all of which severely affect long-term economic growth rates. While military spending may offer some short-term economic benefit, after the fighting starts, and especially after it ends, the unintended consequences of military spending on the economy are severe and numerous. “War is good for the economy” is a myth.

Practical Implications

Economic concerns are consistently cited among U.S. voters as a top issue. [2] Knowing a healthy economy is important to many Americans, candidates often campaign on tightening government spending, redirect funding between programs, or pitch stimulus packages promising to boost the country’s economic growth. However, when the debate pivots to national defense, questions around how military spending may affect the economy are mostly absent, as these issues are usually viewed as unrelated.

This research, however, provides substantial evidence of a direct link between increased military spending and decreased economic growth. This finding can and should contribute to debates about the merits of increased military spending, helping to re-frame it in terms of economic, not only security, concerns. Additionally, voters should question whether increased military spending, as well as military action and aid, actually provides the increased security that is often promised. Other research featured in this issue of the Peace Science Digest suggests that military support leads to a heightened risk of retaliatory terror attacks at home.

Continued Reading

Economic Consequence of War on the US Economy By the Institute for Economics and Peace. 2012. http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2017/04/The-Economic-Consequences-of-War-on-US-Economy_0.pdf

Cost of War Project By the Watson Institute at Brown University. http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic

National Priorities Project https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/war/

Joseph Stiglitz: How the Iraq War Ruined the Economy By Big Think. 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFQyQ9nLZSw

The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: 2011 Update By Robert Pollin, Heidi Garrett-Peltier. 2011. https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/449-the-u-s-employment-effects-of-military-and-domestic-spending-priorities-2011-update

Keywords : costs of war, economy, military budget, military spending

[1] Economic Consequences of War on the U.S Economy. Institute of Economics and Peace. 2012.

https://thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Economic-Consequences-of-War.pdf

[2] Americans Continue to Cite the Economy as Top Problem. Gallup. 2016.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/196430/americans-continue-cite-economy-top-problem.aspx

The above analysis is from Volume 2, Issue 6 of the Peace Science Digest.

Photo credit: Thomas Hawk via flickr

Informing and educating about alternatives to war and violence.

Demilitarizing Security

Managing Conflicts Without Violence

Press/Media

Jubitz Family Foundation

SUPPORT OUR WORK

Your support is vital to our mission to prevent all war.

PEACE SCIENCE DIGEST

May 20, 2024

May 10, 2024

April 29, 2024

13 Key Pros and Cons of Military Spending

As the US economy tanked, the banks have been bailing out and the country losing its jobs, its military spending has continued to grow. For the past years, it is recorded to have increased more than 100%, which is very high compared to the height of Ronald Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. The money allocated for the defense budget is used to purchase sophisticated weapons that often do not make it into production, but when they do, they are just too expensive to maintain. This means the US has been maintaining its spending a full 1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) just to maintain its arsenal.

However, military spending has become a hot topic during debates in many years now, where some people suggest of cutting it, while others are okay with increasing it. To come up with a good decision on our end for this matter, let us take a look at its pros and cons.

List of Pros of Military Spending

1. It is used for important military matters. The US military budget is the portion of the country’s discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense or, more generally, the portion of the budget that is allocated to any expenditure related to the military. It is used to pay the training, health care and salaries of civilian and uniformed personnel; maintain arms, equipment and facilities; to fund operations; and to develop and buy new equipment. It funds all of the country’ military branches, such as the Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps.

2. It allocates a certain amount for emergency and supplemental spending. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were largely financed through supplementary spending bills that are outside the federal budget and are also not included in the military budget figures. But since the fiscal year of 2010, the wars in these countries were put under the “Overseas Contingency Operations” category, making the budget for them included in the federal budget.

3. It is useful in deterring foreign threats. Even though the Cold War is over and the threat from the Soviet Union is already eliminated, the country is still facing threats from smaller rogue nations, such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Syria and Sudan.

4. It makes military preparation efficient. It is critical to keep the military forces ready to fight and quickly win. The fund is used for this purpose, especially for major regional wars that could happen at the same time. Remember that readiness will decline if funds are not increased for training and equipment.

5. It supports peacekeeping in foreign regions. There are several long-term demands on US troops from other regions, such as for peacekeeping in the Balkans for example.

6. It prevents recruitment and retention issues. The armed services in the country have been facing problems with the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel due to low benefits and pays. This can be avoided with sufficient budget for the military.

7. It can keep defense factories operational. Increasing military spending will enable struggling defense contractors to keep their factories operational and retain jobs at military bases.

8. It is spent to ensure national security. The last on the “pros” list, but obviously one of the most important, military spending is done to make national security a priority.

List of Cons of Military Spending

For the opponents, they also have several reasons why we should not put too much focus on military spending, even suggesting cuts. Here are them:

1. Its share to global military spending is already too big. Though the US’s military spending has declined since 1989, its share of total worldwide military spending has increased greatly. In fact, the country’s military spending and its allies’ account for more than half of the total amount worldwide. Moreover, the US spends 18 times the combined military budgets of the rogue nations.

2. It is used to fund unrealistic wars. As opponents said, the current 2-war strategy is unrealistic, considering that the country is fighting two simultaneous wars with no help from the allies.

3. It may support the rhetoric about readiness that may not reflect reality accurately. The fact that the country’s forces were overwhelmingly superior to its oppositions in the Iraq and Yugoslavia wars seems to contradict the idea that they might not be ready.

4. It is not balanced with foreign aid and diplomacy. If foreign aid and diplomacy budgets were more balanced with military spending, there would be a better chance to prevent conflict and avoid military involvement. Also, let us remember that national security means more than military power. So, to sustain a secure nation, federal spending must be balanced among military defense, economic security, healthcare, education and job training.

5. It might be used irresponsibly. Enlisted men and women who are having difficulties in supporting their families should receive a fair wage, adequate healthcare and housing. Financial support would be available for these needs if the country’s military authority improved the way it manages its funds to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.

Military budgets are only one of the many gauges of military power. Their spending adequacy depends on the capability and number of the country’s adversaries, how well it invests its funds and its objectives, among other factors. Now, policymakers have been debating whether the level of military spending is appropriate, considering the increasingly constrained budgets and the winding down of wars in other countries. This fiscal year of 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54% of all the country’s federal discretionary spending, which has a total of USD598.5 billion. It is created to cover a range of areas, including all Department of Defense’s regular activities, nuclear weapons spending, war spending, international military assistance and other expenditures related to the Pentagon.

Taking all the context of this article into consideration, are you a supporter or an opponent of military spending?

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Key Republican calls for ‘generational’ increase in defense spending to counter US adversaries

FILE - Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., meets with reporters during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 11, 2024. The top Republican on a Senate committee that oversees the U.S. military is making an argument for aggressively increasing defense spending over negotiated spending caps. Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, is releasing a plan for a “generational investment” that seeks to deter coordinated threats from U.S. adversaries like Russia, Iran and China. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - In this March 27, 2008, file photo, the Pentagon is seen in this aerial view in Washington. The top Republican on a Senate committee that oversees the U.S. military is making an argument for aggressively increasing defense spending over negotiated spending caps. Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, is releasing a plan for a “generational investment” that seeks to deter coordinated threats from U.S. adversaries like Russia, Iran and China. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top-ranking Republican on a Senate committee that oversees the military is calling for a “generational investment” in America’s defense, saying aggressive and significant spending increases are necessary to deter coordinated threats from U.S. adversaries such as Russia, Iran and China.

Sen. Roger Wicker told The Associated Press that he will seek an additional $55 billion in defense spending over the limits that were forged in the deal to suspend the nation’s debt limit a year ago. Wicker explained his position in global terms, saying there has “never been such a level of cooperation and coordination among an axis of aggressors” that aims to challenge U.S. dominance.

The plan lays down a significant marker for Senate Republicans as they enter into a new round of budget fights with Democrats in the heat of a closely fought election year. The White House has proposed $850 billion in defense spending , adhering to the debt limit deal by proposing a 1% increase from the previous year. That plan is unlikely to keep pace with inflation and would seek to reduce the military’s costs by retiring older ships and aircraft.

Wicker acknowledged it would be “a hill to climb” to convince Congress to break from the spending caps at a time of deep political upheaval. Washington is still grappling with divisions over support for Ukraine, the aftershocks of two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a presidential election between two presumptive candidates — Biden and Republican Donald Trump — who espouse vastly different visions of America’s role abroad.

But Wicker, R-Miss., said the U.S. has no choice. “We would be very foolish on a national survival basis to adhere to that when it comes to national defense,” said Wicker, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

While GOP defense hawks have long advocated for robust defense spending, Wicker’s plan goes a step further, calling for a broad shift in the U.S. defense posture that would amount to a reshuffling of national priorities. Under his proposal, the military would eventually consume 5% of America’s gross domestic product, or total economic output.

Defense spending when measured as a portion of GDP is currently about 3% and has been declining since the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has not reached above 5% since the early 1990s.

Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, Wicker said, “nobody took a chance against the United States because we were powerful enough to keep the peace. We are simply not anywhere near that right now.”

“I think that the fact that we’re in a new Cold War is self-evident,” he said.

Wicker’s full plan is laid out in a 52-page paper he has been working on for the past year. In it, he makes the case for a new generation of weapons, pointing to an aging American arsenal as Russia moves to expand its territory in Europe and China tries to show increasing dominance in parts of the Pacific.

Closer ties between China and Russia were underscored earlier this month by a visit between leaders Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping . The two-day visit — Putin’s first trip abroad after being inaugurated to a fifth term in office — reflected a growing partnership between the two nations, an alliance grounded in support for authoritarian regimes and dominance in their respective regions.

China has given diplomatic support to Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine and emerged as a top export market for Russian oil and gas, helping fill the Kremlin’s war coffers for the ongoing offensive.

Wicker said the high-level meeting between Putin and Xi “ought to be a wake up call.”

He said in his proposal that the U.S. faces “the most dangerous threat environment since World War II” and urges a national war footing appropriate for a long, drawn-out conflict with a major world power. For Wicker, that encompasses everything from addressing deferred maintenance on U.S. military facilities that don’t have the right voltage on power outlets to preparing for nuclear weaponry in space.

Still, the spending increases are likely to be viewed skeptically by lawmakers wary of growing the defense budget, which already dominates annual discretionary funding. The legislation to suspend the nation’s debt limit passed Congress with strong bipartisan support and aimed to limit federal budget growth to 1% for the next six years, although the spending caps were only mandatory through this year’s budget.

The House Armed Services Committee this month approved with near-unanimous support an $884 billion proposal for the annual defense authorization bill, keeping within the spending caps but shifting funding towards specific military programs. Yet Senate Democrats are likely to resist further spending cuts to other government programs.

The Senate committee is set to craft the annual military authorization bill next month, but the chairman, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has not publicly released the spending amount that he will propose. Wicker said that he had been in contact with Reed, as well as top Democratic appropriators, about the plan, but their level of support was not clear.

At the same time, defense hawks like Wicker are navigating the shifting politics of defense spending in their own party under Trump’s “America First” brand of foreign policy. Earlier this year, a $95 billion package of foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan faced heavy resistance from a large portion of congressional Republicans, even though much of the funds would be spent buying equipment and ammunition from U.S.-based defense manufacturers.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been vocal about countering those within his party who want to push the U.S. towards a more isolationist stance. And Wicker said there was “an opportunity” to win broad support for redoubling U.S. efforts in the Pacific because congressional Republicans are still supportive of countering China.

As he works to convince Congress to rethink defense spending, Wicker said he was modeling his effort on the push that former Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, made in 2017 as he tried to dramatically increase defense spending. That effort was mostly unsuccessful.

But Wicker expressed confidence that this time can be different.

With China’s military strength dramatically growing and Russia launching the largest land invasion in Europe since World War II, the difference between 2017 and now is “the reality on the ground,” he said.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — NASA — NASA’s Budget vs. Military Spending: Is it Justified?

NASA's Budget Vs. Military Spending: is It Justified?

• Categories: NASA

About this sample

Words: 2046 |

11 min read

Published: Aug 30, 2022

Words: 2046 | Pages: 4 | 11 min read

Bibliography

• Anderson, D. (2016). 10 Reasons the US Should Not Cut Military Spending. [online] Listland.com. Available at: https://www.listland.com/10-reasons-the-us-should-not-cut-military-spending/2/ [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Brannen, K. (2008). FORECAST: ARMY S&T INVESTMENT TO INCREASE SLIGHTLY OVER 10 YEARS. Inside the Army,20(44), 5-5. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24826891 [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Brookes, P. (2008). Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might. [online] Heritage.org. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/why-the-world-still-needs-americas-military-might [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Goldstein, M. (2007). NASA Funding Slow, Not Steady, after Space Race. Science, 318(5857), 1721-1722. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20051792 [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Jpl.nasa.gov. 8 Real World Science Facts about Saturn’s Moon Enceladus. [online] Available at: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/slideshow/8-real-world-space-facts-about-saturns-moon-enceladus/ [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Jwst.nasa.gov. James Webb Space Telescope FAQ. [online] Available at: https://jwst.nasa.gov/faqLite.html [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Marinho, F., Orwig, J. (2017). Here’s what NASA could accomplish if it had the US military’s $600 billion budget. [online] Businessinsider.com. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-nasa-do-with-us-military-budget-2017-7?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Opam, K. (2011). Air Conditioning the Military Costs More Than NASA’s Entire Budget. [online] Gizmodo.com. Available at: https://gizmodo.com/air-conditioning-the-military-costs-more-than-nasas-ent-5813257 [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Siegel, E. (2017). 5 incredible advances science could buy with the government’s $600B military budget. [online] Forbes.com. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/01/5-incredible-advances-science-could-buy-with-the-governments-600b-military-budget/#3c6d3c3b902f [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Spacex.com. (2017). Making life multiplanetary. [online] Available at: https://www.spacex.com/dragon [Accessed 12 May 2019]
• Ward, A. (2018). China’s military power could match America’s by 2050. [online] Vox.com. Available at: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/14/18091800/china-military-power-congress-commission-report-2050 [Accessed 12 May 2019]   

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1262 words

1 pages / 552 words

4 pages / 1913 words

1 pages / 534 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on NASA

The first Apollo 1 named AS-204 was the first mission of the American Apollo program and it will be the first mission to land on the moon. Arranged as the primary low-Earth circle trial of the Apollo order and administration [...]

Early in 2017, a new blockbuster movie hit theaters nationwide. Out-grossing high production films such as “Star Trek Beyond,” “X-Men Apocalypse,” and “La La Land,” the movie “Hidden Figures” follows the brilliant minds of three [...]

Billion years ago, there was an extra-ordinary event without which nothing would exist. It was the beginning of the universe. It was the time when a large amount of energy in an infinitely small space violently expanded and led [...]

Cosmology is the scientific study of the large-scale properties of the universe as a whole. It endeavors the use of scientific method to understand the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe. Cosmology involves the [...]

A line that stood out most to me in The Man Who Stole the Sun was when a government official remarked on how an individual does not need an atomic bomb -- that nations are what need it. There's a lot that can be unpacked in this [...]

In 2022, SpaceX intends to land humans on Mars using its new rocket, BFR, and interplanetary spaceship, BFS. In order to prepare for this mission, an unmanned BFS will fly to Mars in 2020, validating life support, EDL, and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Impact of Ronald Reagan’s Foreign Policy on Global Politics

This essay about Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy highlights his aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, significant military buildup, and support for anti-communist movements. It examines his policies in Latin America and the Middle East, his role in the end of the Cold War, and the lasting impacts of his administration on global politics, emphasizing the complexities and controversies of his approach.

How it works

Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, served from 1981 to 1989. His foreign policy significantly impacted global politics, particularly through his stance against the Soviet Union, his approach to military spending, and his initiatives in the Middle East and Latin America. Reagan’s era marked a definitive shift in U.S. foreign policy, moving from détente to a more aggressive posture aimed at countering Soviet influence and promoting democracy worldwide.

Reagan’s foreign policy was heavily influenced by his firm belief in American exceptionalism and his conviction that the U.

S. had a moral responsibility to champion freedom and democracy. This ideological foundation was evident in his administration’s aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which he famously labeled the “Evil Empire.” Reagan’s rhetoric and policies aimed to roll back Soviet influence and challenge its legitimacy on the world stage.

One of the most significant aspects of Reagan’s foreign policy was his commitment to a substantial military buildup. Believing that a strong military was essential for peace, Reagan increased defense spending dramatically, leading to the development and deployment of advanced weapons systems. This buildup included the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), often referred to as “Star Wars,” which aimed to develop a missile defense system to protect the U.S. from nuclear attacks. Although the feasibility of SDI was widely debated, its announcement sent a clear signal to the Soviet Union of America’s technological and military ambitions.

Reagan’s military strategy was closely tied to his economic policies, which included significant tax cuts and increased defense spending. Critics argued that these policies led to large budget deficits, but Reagan believed that economic strength and military power were intertwined. The economic revival of the 1980s, often attributed to Reaganomics, provided the financial foundation for his ambitious defense programs.

The Reagan Doctrine was another cornerstone of his foreign policy, which supported anti-communist movements worldwide. This doctrine was evident in U.S. support for various insurgent groups fighting against Soviet-aligned governments. In Afghanistan, the Reagan administration provided significant aid to the Mujahideen, who were battling Soviet forces. This support contributed to the eventual Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and had long-term implications for the region, including the rise of the Taliban.

In Latin America, Reagan’s anti-communist stance led to U.S. involvement in several conflicts. The administration supported the Contras in Nicaragua against the Sandinista government, which was aligned with the Soviet Union. This support was part of a broader strategy to contain and roll back Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, these actions were highly controversial and led to significant domestic and international criticism, particularly after the Iran-Contra scandal, where it was revealed that funds from secret arms sales to Iran were diverted to support the Contras.

Reagan’s foreign policy also had a significant impact on the Middle East. His administration aimed to counter Soviet influence and ensure the stability of key allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1982, as part of a multinational force, was a response to the Israeli invasion and aimed to stabilize the region. However, the mission faced significant challenges, including the tragic bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which resulted in the deaths of 241 American servicemen.

Reagan’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was characterized by strong support for Israel while attempting to broker peace agreements. The administration played a crucial role in facilitating the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and promoting peace talks, although a lasting resolution to the conflict remained elusive.

One of Reagan’s most notable achievements was his role in the eventual end of the Cold War. His willingness to engage in dialogue with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked a significant shift from his earlier confrontational stance. The series of summits between Reagan and Gorbachev, starting with the Geneva Summit in 1985, paved the way for significant arms reduction agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987. These negotiations helped reduce tensions between the superpowers and set the stage for the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Reagan’s foreign policy legacy is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, his aggressive stance against the Soviet Union and significant military buildup contributed to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet communism. On the other hand, his support for controversial insurgent groups and the Iran-Contra scandal raised ethical and legal questions about U.S. foreign interventions.

Reagan’s emphasis on military strength and his belief in American exceptionalism continued to influence U.S. foreign policy long after his presidency. His administration’s actions in Latin America and the Middle East had lasting impacts, shaping regional dynamics and U.S. relations with these areas for decades.

In conclusion, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy had a profound impact on global politics, particularly in the context of the Cold War. His aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, significant military buildup, and support for anti-communist movements played key roles in shaping the international order. While his policies were often controversial and faced significant criticism, they ultimately contributed to the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower. Reagan’s legacy in foreign policy remains a subject of debate, reflecting the complexities and challenges of navigating global politics in an era of intense ideological conflict.

Cite this page

The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/

"The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/ [Accessed: 2 Jun. 2024]

"The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 2, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/

"The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/. [Accessed: 2-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Impact of Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy on Global Politics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-impact-of-ronald-reagans-foreign-policy-on-global-politics/ [Accessed: 2-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on War

Example Of Why We Should Increase Military Spending Argumentative Essay

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: War , Drones , Politics , Technology , Afghanistan , Military , Middle East , Violence

Published: 02/12/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

In the wake of 9/11, many new military advancements were created in order to fight a brand new enemy: extremist terrorist groups. Terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Jordan, p. 267). Instead of country fighting against country, the adversaries the American military face are smaller, splintered, and not affiliated with any specific government. They fight for an ideal, not for land, and the governing bodies of the countries in which they reside have no official political or economic ties with them. As a result, it is far easier for them to hide, making traditional military methods ineffective. Because of the need to find new ways to combat terrorism, military spending in the United States should be increased. According to John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, "What happens in Afghanistan directly affects our safety here at home" (McCain et al., 2012). Abandoning the state will have similar, disastrous consequences for our national security. Our military must remain in Afghanistan, otherwise it gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda more political ammunition to strike back at the US years down the road. These senators and members of the Armed Forced Committee believe wholeheartedly that military action should remain in Afghanistan, due to the veiled threat of retaliation should we leave. To that end, the US military should remain funded as best we can. The US campaign of Afghanistan in 2001 was the first showcase of this new military, consisting of small land forces (often infantry and armored forces) acting in conjunction with unmanned drones, which became their eyes and ears (Jordan, p. 68). The toppling of Iraq used the exact same military strategy, and was successful in effecting a government change within a single day (Bolt et al., 2008). Another attribute of this new paradigm of military action was the formation of a coalition of nations which would provide military and intelligence assistance however possible. In the case of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became staging areas for US air assets, as temporary bases were formed there (Jordan, p. 68). From these points, friendly forces could then act on potential threats from miles away. This change in organization made warfare safer, as military leadership is kept as far away from the fight as possible, leaving infantry as the only real physical presence in the battlefield. The advent of robotic drone technology has completely revolutionized the way in which warfare is conducted. These small, agile, technologically advanced drones have the ability to fly high overhead, travel long distances, provide accurate surveillance from hundreds of feet in the air, and even occasionally carry weapons. Advancements in wireless technology have made it incredibly easy to communicate with troops across vast distances, and unmanned drones can provide real-time support to any friendly presence. This transformation is somewhat necessary in order to create a battlefield that is devoid of friendly casualties. The more we find we can use automated weapons and long-shot artillery to attack our enemies from a distance, the fewer troops we can put in harm’s way. This should be the primary goal of a revolution in military affairs, therefore it is entirely required that we do whatever we can to emphasize (and fund) the use of drones and automated weaponry (Jordan, p. 326). It is becoming increasingly clear that the presence of the human individual in a military campaign is becoming obsolete, with the use of drones and AC-130 gunships, all of whom can tactically and surgically take out enemies from further away than they can reach. They also provide needed intelligence, which is a vital component of military action, and therefore an important part of this new Revolution of Military Affairs. What’s more, a greater proportion of troops can be allotted to domestic defense, where an automated surgical strike is less feasible, due to its likelihood of creating domestic civilian casualties. At the same time, drone technology is expensive and time-consuming to create and maintain; this requires funding to pay for the drones themselves and the personnel to complement and repair them. In conclusion, due to the need for an emphasis on more nontraditional warfare, military spending should continue as is (if not be increased, to allow for greater research into drone technology and effective ways to keep troops alive and accomplish objectives). While drones are beginning to change the way we wage war and gather intelligence on our enemies, they must be used in greater frequency and for a greater number of tasks. As much as we can, it is important to keep troops out of the fray as much as possible and rely more on these unmanned solutions. Increasing these capabilities will go a long way toward decreasing the number of casualties for American troops, as well as creating more efficient means of toppling potential threats to national security. At the same time, these changes must happen gradually, so as not to upset the already established order of military protocol, and ensure that these greater focuses on military technology are without flaws.

Bolt, Paul J. et al. (2008). American Defense Policy, Eighth Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0801880940. Jordan, Amos A. et al. (2009). American National Security, Sixth Edition. Johns Hopkins McCain, J., Lieberman, J. I., & Graham, L. "Sustaining success in Afghanistan." Washington Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steps-to-ensure-we-achieve-success-in-afghanistan/2012/03/20/gIQAJiNXSS_story.html>.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 114

This paper is created by writer with

ID 278376493

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Disabilities theses, entrepreneur case studies, comparisons between the great depression and the great recession research paper examples, thesis on ethnic groups in the us, demands for prompt estimates of house price inflation can clash with demands for case study examples, free course work on lawyers and ethics, quality and cost essay examples, poverty essay examples, essay on a guide for planning and implementing individualized education programs, esol 400 essay examples, free course work on business and the law, marketing for start u s vs established companies essay examples, design and evaluation of competitive intelligence capacity research proposal examples, process improvement case study examples, coping with stress research paper samples, aging and spirituality in a clean well lighted place a sample essay for inspiration mimicking, option 2 literature review, the insecurity of african americans essay samples, draw topic writing ideas from this research paper on determinants of capital budgeting methods, good example of essay on a time to kill, treasury risk management essay examples, family systems theory a top quality essay for your inspiration, free contingency plan evaluation essay top quality sample to follow, expertly crafted research paper on argumentative for cochlear implants, military court essays, emanation essays, ground noise essays, spondylosis essays, physical rehabilitation essays, cervical collar essays, argosy essays, refugee problem essays, rational choice theory essays, doxa essays, rose water essays, alster essays, tardy essays, cushman essays, equator essays, hydrography essays, natural vegetation essays, rainforests essays, cumulus essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• My View My View
• Following Following
• Saved Saved

Despite war needs, Israel's military should not get a 'blank check' -cenbank chief

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Steven Scheer; Additional reporting by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Giles Elgood

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Mexicans vote in election seen crowning first female president

Mexicans will vote in national elections on Sunday with the ruling party candidate, Claudia Sheinbaum, commanding a hefty lead in the polls and expected to become the country's first female president.

Two Palestinian teenagers were killed by Israeli gunfire in the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian health ministry said on Sunday.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Melinda French Gates: The Enemies of Progress Play Offense. I Want to Help Even the Match.

By Melinda French Gates

Ms. French Gates is a philanthropist and the founder of the charitable organization Pivotal.

Many years ago, I received this piece of advice: “Set your own agenda, or someone else will set it for you.” I’ve carried those words with me ever since.

That’s why, next week, I will leave the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , of which I was a co-founder almost 25 years ago, to open a new chapter in my philanthropy. To begin, I am announcing $1 billion in new spending over the next two years for people and organizations working on behalf of women and families around the world, including on reproductive rights in the United States.

In nearly 20 years as an advocate for women and girls, I have learned that there will always be people who say it’s not the right time to talk about gender equality. Not if you want to be relevant. Not if you want to be effective with world leaders (most of them men). The second the global agenda gets crowded, women and girls fall off.

It’s frustrating and shortsighted. Decades of research on economics , well-being and governance make it clear that investing in women and girls benefits everyone. We know that economies with women’s full participation have more room to grow. That women’s political participation is associated with decreased corruption. That peace agreements are more durable when women are involved in writing them. That reducing the time women spend in poor health could add as much as $1 trillion to the global economy by 2040.

And yet, around the world, women are seeing a tremendous upsurge in political violence and other threats to their safety, in conflict zones where rape is used as a tool of war, in Afghanistan where the Taliban takeover has erased 20 years of progress for women and girls, in many low-income countries where the number of acutely malnourished pregnant and breastfeeding women is soaring.

In the United States, maternal mortality rates continue to be unconscionable , with Black and Native American mothers at highest risk. Women in 14 states have lost the right to terminate a pregnancy under almost any circumstances. We remain the only advanced economy without any form of national paid family leave. And the number of teenage girls experiencing suicidal thoughts and persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness is at a decade high.

Despite the pressing need, only about 2 percent of charitable giving in the United States goes to organizations focused on women and girls, and only about half a percentage point goes to organizations focused on women of color specifically.

When we allow this cause to go so chronically underfunded, we all pay the cost. As shocking as it is to contemplate, my 1-year-old granddaughter may grow up with fewer rights than I had.

Over the past few weeks, as part of the $1 billion in new funding I’m committing to these efforts, I have begun directing new grants through my organization, Pivotal, to groups working in the United States to protect the rights of women and advance their power and influence. These include the National Women’s Law Center, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

While I have long focused on improving contraceptive access overseas, in the post-Dobbs era, I now feel compelled to support reproductive rights here at home. For too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women's rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense. I want to help even the match.

I’m also experimenting with novel tactics to bring a wider range of perspectives into philanthropy. Recently, I offered 12 people whose work I admire their own $20 million grant-making fund to distribute as he or she sees fit. That group — which includes the former prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, the athlete and maternal-health advocate Allyson Felix, and an Afghan champion of girls’ education, Shabana Basij-Rasikh — represents a wide range of expertise and experience. I’m eager to see the landscape of funding opportunities through their eyes, and the results their approaches unlock.

In the fall, I will introduce a $250 million initiative focused on improving the mental and physical health of women and girls globally. By issuing an open call to grass-roots organizations beyond the reach of major funders, I hope to lift up groups with personal connections to the issues they work on. People on the front lines should get the attention and investment they deserve, including from me.

As a young woman, I could never have imagined that one day I would be part of an effort like this. Because I have been given this extraordinary opportunity, I am determined to do everything I can to seize it and to set an agenda that helps other women and girls set theirs, too.

Melinda French Gates is a philanthropist and the founder of Pivotal, a charitable, investment and advocacy organization.

Source photographs by Bryan Bedder, filipfoto, and Westend61, via Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .