Wars are often blamed for plunging the countries involved into economic crises due to heavy military spending and the diversion of large portions of national budgets into this sector. While this accusation is not entirely false, it is not entirely accurate either.
Former US President Dwight Eisenhower advocated for the liberalisation of military production and encouraged its development as a key driver of economic growth, provided there was significant regulation and oversight. Naturally, a superpower like the United States is bound to benefit from such an approach, given its dominant role in either igniting or defusing global conflicts as a key player in the international arms trade. Other major powers have similarly divided the military export market among themselves, ensuring a steady flow of arms to all warring factions.
But beyond the influence of these powerful nations, which manipulate the course of wars to serve their own economic interests, some developing countries have also managed to benefit from war economies in ways that have ultimately improved the lives of their own people. Brazil and Chile are two such examples.
Despite successive changes in government over the past 50 years, Brazil has consistently allocated a significant portion of its budget to military investment. This has not necessarily meant prioritising arms imports or the acquisition of weapons manufacturing technology but rather focusing on military research, production, and technical training.
Investing in war technologies ensures that a country stays ahead by addressing its own security needs—both in terms of defending its sovereignty and creating a psychological deterrent against potential aggressors. Moreover, advancements in military technology can be transferred to other industrial sectors, yielding direct or indirect economic benefits. If a country chooses to export its military technology, it can command the highest prices in the market.
Military production also spares a nation from the economic and political burdens associated with arms imports. Purchasing foreign weapons or production lines often places immense financial strain on the importing country and forces it into political concessions that ultimately cost the average taxpayer—who bears the burden through high costs or diplomatic trade-offs made to appease the exporting nation.
Finally, there is the issue of technical training. Investing in a highly skilled workforce capable of handling advanced technology serves a fundamental security objective. However, the greatest indirect benefit comes when these trained individuals transition into civilian life, bringing with them technical expertise that contributes to various economic sectors. This phenomenon, known as ‘Technology Spillover’, has a profound impact.
There is a stark difference, for instance, between an engineering graduate in Brazil who, during his military service, worked on modifying a military device, and an engineering graduate in Egypt whose skills are put to use preparing wedding cakes for guests at an army club in Nasr City.
Most developing nations, particularly in the Arab world, have fallen into what some economists call the ‘Security Dilemma’. Many Arab governments pursued military investment, but in the absence of real trust within the framework of largely superficial pan-Arab unity projects, many opted instead to depend entirely on major arms exporters. This quick-fix approach has yielded nothing but budget deficits, deeper divisions among neighbouring states, worsening poverty, and technological stagnation. Meanwhile, these countries are left with stockpiles of weapons that, due to lack of use, have rusted to the point where they cannot even be sold as scrap.
This article is originally published by AlBorsa in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.