The political economy of militarism.

As global military expenditures increase every year, the culture, products, and consequences of militarism have also been increasing and becoming more embedded in social, political, and economic structures. More weapons--and newer, more lethal weapons--are produced. Many countries have created an economy dependent on the production and export of armaments. These governments spend excessive financial, technological, and human resources developing their military-industrial-academic complexes, which are composed of a state's armed forces, the government, suppliers of weapons systems and services (corporations), and academic institutions that conduct research on weapon systems and designs. Local communities become entrenched in these complexes; their existence becomes dependent upon the weapon manufacturer or military base for employment or patronage. Government funds are reduced from social, educational, cultural, employment, health, and housing programs and redirected to support the perpetual war economy.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Violence-driven economies

The military-industrial-academic complex needs to sell its weapons. Sometimes governments spend excessive money on technologies that entail years of development and testing, upset global "strategic stability," and may or may not ever actually be deployed--such as many elements of the US "missile defense" system. However, there are huge markets for weapon systems that are deployable and that are bought and used in outrageous quantities every year.

In 2006, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing states, which amounted to nearly $28.8 billion, comprised 71.5 per cent of all such agreements worldwide. Also in 2006, 17 major armed conflicts were active in 16 locations throughout the world. Seven of these took place in Asia, three each in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, and one in Europe. The developing world provides the largest market for arms transfers, for two reasons in particular. First of all, most developing countries import most of their military equipment because they do not have the resources (financial or human) to build their own military-industrial complexes. Secondly, the relationship between poverty and military spending is cyclical and reinforcing: military spending goes up due to conflict; less money is available to tackle development challenges; the shortage of funds for economic and social development is a catalyst for conflict and violence within and among states. Thus countries fall into perpetual cycles of conflict, military spending, and poverty that limit or even exclude the possibility of political, social, or economic development.

Money for militarism or dollars for development?

It is evident through commitments governments have made on paper to the Millennium Development Goals and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness that the international community recognizes investment in development is necessary to create conditions for sustainable security.