Guns and Butter: Child Mortality and the Mediators of Militarization

• Author: Steve Carlton-Ford,Katherine A. Durante,T. David Evans,Ciera Graham
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X18758288
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Guns and Butter: Child

Mortality and the

Mediators of Militarization

Steve Carlton-Ford

1

, Katherine A. Durante

2

,

T. David Evans

1

and Ciera Graham

3

Abstract

Which types of militarization affect child mortality? Which type appears to lower it;

which appears to push it higher? This article focuses on social militarization (i.e.,

troops as a proportion of workforce-aged population) and praetorian militarization

(i.e., the military’s control or strong influence over the government), investigating

their impact on child mortality using pooled time series analysis covering 142

countries from 1996 through 2008. We find that social and praetorian militarization

have opposite effects even after controlling for potentially confounding influences.

Access to basic public health infrastructures and education mediates between each

type of militarization and child mortality.

Keywords

militarization, child mortality, education, sanitation

What impact do different patterns of militarization have on civilian life chances?

Worldwide, countries now spend just under US$1.7 trillion (constant 2015 US) on

the military, up from a recent low of about US$1.0 trillion in 1996 (Stockholm

International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI], 2017a). In 2016, military spending

accounted for just over 2%of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) (SIPRI,

2017b), down from a high of 4.77%in 1990. Although the number of troops

1

Department of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

2

Nevada State College, Henderson, NV, USA

3

Washington State University, Everett, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Steve Carlton-Ford, Department of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.

Email: carltosl@uc.edu

Armed Forces & Society

2019, Vol. 45(1) 177-197

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18758288

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

increased from 22.8 million individuals in 1990, to 26.9 million in 2013, during

roughly the same time period, the size of armies as a proportion of the labor force

dropped from an average of about 2.2%(e.g., 2.19%in 1990, and 2.21%in 1996) to

1.24%(author’s calculations using World Development Indicators data). Although

military spending per se appears to have a little impact on social and economic

outcomes,

1

both social militarization (i.e., buildup of armies as a proportion of the

workforce-aged population) and praetorian militarization (i.e., control or strong

influence of the military over the government) appear to strongly influence civilian

life chances,

2

the institutionally anchored, structurally available “choices” and

“bonds” that may either diminish or enhance the general population’s opportunities.

They include but are not limited to the “rule of law,” “political life chances,”

“economic life chances,” chances for “education,” “chances for a good life,” and

the focus of this study “survival”—the chance for life itself (Dahrendorf, 1979, pp.

67, 73–80). Three institutional sectors appear crucial in either promoting or under-

mining life chances: (1) the economy; (2) the government, both its general organi-

zation (e.g., as a democracy) and the quality of governance (e.g., lack of corruption);

and (3) the military (see Andreski, 1968; Giddens, 1987; Mann, 2013). Researchers

have systematically examined the impact of the first two of these institutional sectors

on survival chances. Yet, despite the dedication of significant proportions of national

budgets and national populations to the military, the relationship of militarization to

the survival chances of general populations remains underexamined.

Finding the right balance of defense spending (i.e., “guns”) and civilian spending

(i.e.,“butter”) has serious consequencesfor the life chancesof general populations.The

research and theory that link militarization and survival chances have reached almost

diametrically opposed conclusions, arguing for the beneficial effect of social militar-

ization (i.e.,building up armies) and for the adverse effectsof praetorian militarization

(i.e.,direct or indirect militarycontrol of the government)on life chances. Governments

mustdecide on a position in the guns–butterdebate. Shouldsociety invest in the military

and expect socialbenefits or will they pursue a pattern of military spending that harms

generalpopulations? After discussingthe theoreticaldisputes and relevantresearch, we

estimate—using a pooled time series that extends from 1996 to 2008—the impact of

both social and praetorian militarization on a standard measure of survival chances—

child mortality. We then identify key infrastructures that mediate between militariza-

tion and child mortality. In short, we answer the question: How does militarization

influence the survival chances of children around the globe?

Background Literature

Militarization: Social and Praetorian

Two forms of militarization—social and praetorian—have been hypothesized and

found to affect survival chances but with very different expectations about whether

the effects will be beneficial or harmful.

178 Armed Forces & Society 45(1)