Domestic unrest

Militarization and War as Impediments to Development

Destruction and Disruption. Wars interfere directly with economic development by destroying

productive economic resources, both capital and labor, especially within the territory of the

nations where they are fought. Wars can also make it difficult to carry on ordinary economic

activity in areas that are part of the war zone. Part of the reason for famine in conflict-plagued

areas, such as the Horn of Africa, is the disruption of agricultural activities that results when

farmers are literally afraid to go out into the fields because of the possibility that they will be

injured or killed, intentionally or by accident, by one or another of the armed combatants.

Resource Diversion. In the midst of war, production or acquisition of the supplies needed to

sustain the war effort, whether they are specialized to military use (such as weapons and

ammunition) or more generally useful (such as food and fuel), is usually given higher priority

than provision of ordinary goods and services for the civilian population. In less developed

countries, where the quantity and quality of consumer goods and services and the capital

needed to produce them are less than abundant, this pre-emption of provisions is particularly

problematic. Often enough, it is not just the government that takes these provisions through

ordinary means, but also rebel forces and other armed gangs that forcefully expropriate what

they want or need. Under these conditions, development inevitably suffers.

In militarized societies, even in the absence of war, valuable productive resources and their

outputs are channeled with priority to what I have elsewhere called “economically noncontributive

activity” in the military sector. Taking the central purpose of the economy to be

providing material wellbeing, all activities that use resources to produce goods and services can

be divided into one of two categories ― those that contribute to that purpose and those that

do not. Since consumer goods and services raise the present material standard of living, while

producer goods and services raise the future standard of living by increasing the economy’s

capacity to produce, the activities involved in providing both are “economically contributive.”

On the other hand, whatever else may be said for battle tanks, fighter planes, missiles, artillery,

and the services soldiers provide, they do not add to present material wellbeing as consumer

goods do, or to the economy’s capacity to produce standard-of-living goods and services in the

future, as producer goods do. Military goods and services are produced in the belief that they

enhance physical security. Though the purposes for which they are produced may be

important, and these goods and services may be very useful for the purposes they serve, they

do not directly contribute to increasing material wellbeing, the central purpose of the economy.

It is logical, then, to classify them as “economically non-contributive.” Military-oriented activity

is only one of many forms of non-contributive activity, but today, closing in on two decades after

the end of the Cold War, it is still one of the largest and most important in the world.

The tax base is generally much smaller and the difficulties of actually collecting taxes much

greater in developing countries than in the more developed world. Access to developmentoriented

foreign capital — whether in the form of grants, loans or foreign direct investment — is

also more limited, especially in countries that are conflict-ridden or politically unstable. The

diversion of public funds, including limited hard currency reserves, to military spending further

reduces the government’s ability to finance capital investments vital to development.

Virtually by definition, militarized societies are also likely to slight or completely overlook

nonmilitary options for dealing with what they perceive as threats to their internal or external

security. Domestic unrest, disaffection and dissidence tend to be seen as threats best dealt with

by force, rather than by negotiation or a serious attempt to try to understand and address the

underlying causes. More often than not this eventually exacerbates the underlying problems,

strengthens grievances and gives rise to political instability, terrorism or rebellion. Similarly,

disagreements between militarized states are also seen as calling for a hard, forceful, even

aggressive response that increases the probability of armed conflict. All of this creates

conditions that are antithetical to development.