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

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute defines militarization as "the growth in the military potential of the state... usually accompanied by an increasing role of military institutions both in national affairs, including the economic, social, and political spheres, and in international affairs" (1982:383). One should consider multiple dimensions of militarization and its domestic and international aspects. Bullock and Firebaugh (1990) describe economic militarization as the growth in spending for military purposes. In this sense, the military receives an increased portion of budget priorities for armaments and weapons, equipment, defense systems, and the costs of personnel and training. Social militarization, on the other hand, refers simply to an increase in armed forces personnel relative to its total population (Bullock & Firebaugh 1990). This component can be summarized as Andreski's (1968) concept of the "military participation ratio" implying that high levels of civilian recruitment into the military indicates integration into society and the potential for positive development spin-offs from this. Social militarization focuses on the human development aspects and impacts of the military institution in society.

Economic and social militarization are linked because a large component of spending goes to training troops and paying their salaries. In addition, they are also connected when their levels are determined by political decisions. Thus, militarization involves politics, and the specific conceptualization of political militarization considers the role of the military formation, operation, and establishment of political order. Political militarization could encompass military personnel in government operation and could mean a greater place of the military in important policy-making decisions, including budgeting, foreign policy pursuits, and international relations including trade patterns and treaties that link arms flows to access to global food security arrangements. The prevalence of a strong military machine is likely indicative of the viability of other "modern" institutions in these societies.

THEORETICAL LINKS

In the "guns versus butter" debate, the links between militarization and food security can be couched in broader theoretical discussions concerning modernization and dependency theories on development. However, this debate does not go far enough to include other important dynamics, and it must be expanded to include concepts such as human security and military famines.

Modernization Theory. One side of debate on militarization and development is that the military has a positive, "modernizing" effect on LDCs. Modernization theory argues that links between the industrialized countries and LDCs are essential, claiming the latter should follow the path set forth by developed countries to achieve societal well-being (Rostow 1962). A key in the creation of a modern state is the formation of the military institution that is believed to have economic, social, and political impacts that improve the quality of life (See Benoit 1973; Weede 1983). Modernization theorists claim that militarization has a unifying effect on a country with the military benefiting human capital formation and development by promoting mobility, mobilizing economic resources, and breaking down regional and ethnic divisions through discipline and the notion of a common cause (Dixon & Moon 1986).