Source: Washington Post.
Source: All Business. Source: Intel Daily. Source: Lexington Institute. Search icon A magnifying glass.
It indicates, "Click to perform a search". Close icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. It indicates a way to close an interaction, or dismiss a notification. This first list is a list of countries by military expenditure share of GDP—more specifically, a list of the top 15 countries by percentage share in recent years—the amount spent by a nation on its military as a share of its GDP.
The second list presents this as a share of the general government expenditure.
The first list is sourced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for the year and from Military Balance published by International Institute for Strategic Studies for the year The second list is sourced only from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for the year None of the following analyze such potential record-breakers like North Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Libya.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved 30 April The Military Balance London : Routledge.
World Bank. As the national debt grows, the interest expense of the debt grows and the cost of borrowing subtly increases due to the risk that increased debt represents. In theory, the increased debt will also drag on economic growth and eventually a driver towards higher taxes. As of now, however, the US, in particular, has enjoyed generous debt terms from domestic and international lenders, so the role that military spending plays in increasing the debt is generally not focused on. Some advocates for decreased military spending have tied it to a certain percentage increase in the mortgage rates people pay, given the relationship between treasury yields and commercial lending.
This reasoning holds and military spending does sit as a large percentage of discretionary spending. In other nations, particularly ones that are still developing economically, a focus on military spending often means foregoing other important spending priorities.
There are many nations that have a standing military but an unreliable public infrastructure, from hospitals to roads to schools. North Korea is an extreme example of what an unrelenting focus on military spending can do to the standard of living for the general population.
The generous debt terms that the US enjoys are far from universal, so the trade-off between military spending and public infrastructure is more painful for many nations. Jobs are a big part of the economic impact of military spending.
Of course, there are the active troops, but there is also a considerable infrastructure built up around them that requires contractors, trades, consultants, and so on to support the military. Then there are the private businesses that spring up as a result of the military spending, including everything from weapons manufacturers to the restaurants that pop up near military bases. Here again, the free market economists point out that the public dollars going to support those jobs directly or indirectly are actually sucking the equivalent number of jobs—or more—out of the private economy due to the taxation needed to create them.
It really comes down to whether or not you believe a standing military is a necessity. If it is, then some jobs will need to be sacrificed in the private sector to make that happen. Of course, people will still argue about what size a standing military should be.
Given the overarching trends, one may proceed to ask whether increases of the G-M share during military mobilizations occurred at the expense of G-NM or P shares. This decline has slowed considerably in the latter half of the 's, and military expenditure in Africa has been on the increase since Arms Exports. Saudi Arabia is the world's third largest military spender. Third Party: Have someone you trust travel to a less restrictive environment and deliver the information via one of the above methods. Critics may argue, for example, that programs providing support for low-income people are excessively generous or encourage dependency, and that domestic spending includes unnecessary and sometimes unproductive subsidies to interested business or industry groups. The post demobilization has continued into the early s, so its ultimate character remains to be seen.
Another argument for the negative economic impact of military spending is that there is a diversion of talent and technical skills towards supporting military research and development. This appears to be a bit unfair as, in the past, military research has benefited the private economy as technological leaps and talented people flowed back and forth.