Guns, butter, and development: Security and military famine extensions of the modernization versus dependency debate

Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Winter 2001 by Scanlan, Stephen J

With regard to modernization theory, for example, human capital formation appears to be an important outcome of countries with high military participation ratios. Those societies that are able to integrate citizens from diverse backgrounds into the military institution and thus provide training for a portion of the population that otherwise may not receive such benefits have positive developmental spin-offs that improve food security.

The positive effects of the military participation ratio may have to do not only with the social investment component of this form of militarization as noted above but may also relate to the institutional impact that greater numbers of personnel may have. The military participation ratio could actually more appropriately be considered a "military modernization" indicator than one capturing military famines because it supports arguments claiming an important role for the military institution in LDCs and positive development outcomes. For example, in complex crises such as natural disasters or famine, the military may serve a relief function by distributing emergency food supplies or other aid efforts. The same can be said for political militarization in the form of the military dependency. Ties to an outside source for arms may also include not just aid packages but also equipment and personnel that may assist in relief efforts and improve distribution and access. Thus, the United States gave food aid in recent humanitarian disasters such as the ones in Haiti and Somalia, but it also provided the military backing necessary to ensure delivery. Findings indicate that having ties to specific arms suppliers likely extend to other benefits, probably in the form of access to assistance, infrastructural development, treaty protection, and other processes in the global political-economy. In this regard, security in its traditional conceptualization of peacekeeping and international relations can have positive security consequences with food security benefiting specifically.

Military dependency and ties to a specific arms supplier have important links to the dynamics of globalization and the impacts of this process on food security. Contrary to what dependency theory would argue, findings show that globalization in the form of increased reliance of food imports does not harm global food markets. However, this "non-finding" merits scrutiny, for it does not reveal a positive effect either. In separate analyses examining dietary energy and protein supply (Scanlan 2000), globalization improves these components of food security but it does not trickle down to improve food access and how that supply is distributed. As the present analysis reveals, globalization stops short of improving child nutrition or the relative adequacy of the food supply.

Globalization may only be relevant to countries that can take advantage of food import opportunities meaning that the already vulnerable poorest of the less industrializing countries are in even more precarious situations by not being able to afford "global grocers" (French 2000). Because the effects of increased food imports do not actually improve food distribution, it is likely that, in countries that actually can take advantage of global markets, the poorest citizens within those countries are probably not benefiting much. What should be examined from this perspective is not how to keep global economic processes from occurring but how to make the benefits more distributive so that the advantages of a global economic system can trickle down to improve food security for all.