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

Because the Western model is believed to be the ideal, the more contact a developing nation has with the industrial world, the better off it will be. Such contact is best fostered through globalization processes in their various cultural, economic, and political forms. A strong security apparatus based on military ties and arms imports will help a nation form its military apparatus. Once a military foundation is established and accompanied by regional power and internal stability, the modernizing effects noted above can follow and have important geopolitical and economic and social development outcomes.

Modernization theory applies to food security with claims that economic and social development will reduce hunger as countries seek full participation in the global economy and make the transition from traditional to modern societies. For example, McClelland (1997) and Bongaarts (1996) note that improvements in global trade and access to new food markets that are characteristics of modernization will improve food supply channels and food security. Full participation means pursuing policies of import substitution and structural adjustment in which inward-looking "traditional" economies deemed to be relegated to stagnation in the form of subsistence agriculture and local crafts industries are replaced with foreign and domestic investment that creates industry and technology and utilizes the vast natural and human resources to fuel global economic growth.

Dependency Theory. Dependency theory challenges these assertions (See Frank 1967; Cardoso & Faletto 1979) contending that colonialism and globalization processes disrupt and exploit indigenous economies for their agricultural products, raw materials, and human labor creating a "northsouth" poverty divide (Amin 1976; Frank 1967). With regard to militarization, dependency theorists emphasize that military spending and action have devastating consequences for human populations. Basic needs and the outcomes of growth in military spending take center stage (See Deger 1986; Kaldor 1976; Rosh 1986). Those who emphasize the negative impacts of militarization claim that military ties foster underdevelopment and the exploitive dynamics of transnational linkages between industrial and developing countries (Kick & Sharda 1986).

Although dependency theorists often focus on economic dependency and its impacts on growth, military dependency is closely linked to this. Arms transfers and foreign capital penetration can work simultaneously with one opening the door for the other. From a dependency point of view, foreign capital and foreign weapons are links between the developing and industrial world that enable the latter to dominate the former. Arms transfers or foreign military presence bring the LDC into the world political system, linking its citizens to the international order and possibly providing the setting for superpower, regional, or ethnic conflicts (Brzoska & Pearson 1994). Political leaders and the military become beholden to imperial powers and less in touch with the needs of the citizenry, increasing the possibility of negative impacts on development and hindering self-determination and nation-building.