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

Others point to the tenuous relationship between military rule and the well-being of the state, emphasizing praetorianism and the conduct of the military in the potential preference for repression in the allocation of state resources (Wolpin 1983). Misplaced priorities with regard to military expenditures and arms imports detract from more productive private investment and the acquisition of basic needs and social welfare spending also being associated with repression or war (Brzoska & Ohlson 1987; Brzoska & Pearson 1994; Kaldor 1976; Wolpin 1983). Research on military famine has increasingly incorporated ecological concerns with scarcity and its links to conflict (de Soysa & Gleditsch 1999; Homer-Dixon 1999). For example, various "water wars" (Starr 1991) have the potential for dominating the nature of war with food being at the core of resource needs; factors that contribute to its increasing scarcity or maldistribution will fester in an ongoing cycle of deprivation and violence.

DATA AND METHODS

I examine the effects of militarizationon food security between 1970 and 1990 in LDCs with a population of 1 million or more at the start point of this period. I use an ordinary least squares lagged panel design to determine the effects of independent variables net of the dependent variable at the earlier point in time. I perform standard procedures necessary to ensure robustness of modeling in small sample, cross-national analyses, including checking residual plots for evidence of heteroskedasticity and tests for influential cases using standard methods from Bollen and Jackman (1985) neither of which indicate any problems.

THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE: FOOD SECURITY

I use two different measures for food security: the relative adequacy of food supply and child nutrition. Past research has typically examined the caloric and protein supply per capita (see Bullock & Firebaugh 1990; Wimberley & Bello 1992), but in this analysis I move beyond notions of availability and examine more important concerns with food access more essential to food security.

The relative adequacy of food supply is derived from annual supply data generated by the FAO (1996). Although a threshold with which to compare the well-being of countries would be ideal, it is not possible to establish a universal human standard for daily energy or protein supply due to differences in age, climate, culture, level of activity, race, and sex (See Foster & Leathers 1999; World Health Organization 1985). However, the FAO has developed a measure that considers a threshold for each country to determine the proportion of its population that meets a minimum need (see FAO 1996, Appendix 3). What they determine as relative adequacy of food considers supply and its likely distribution patterns. FAO constructs this measure assuming a log-normal distribution of dietary energy supply per capita and an estimation of the minimum energy requirement above which an average person's intake is adequate, based on each age-sex group in the population.