Blog Post

War against climate change or a broad concept of security?

Many of the arguments which could justify “green growth” might have been employed equally well in favor of one of the oldest and most sizable government policies: military expenditure. Theoretically, military expenditure has been linked to many productivity-improving civil innovations, such as civil aviation or the internet. Large scale military spending has been used to […]

By: and Date: June 5, 2012 Topic: Energy & Climate

Many of the arguments which could justify “green growth” might have been employed equally well in favor of one of the oldest and most sizable government policies: military expenditure.

Theoretically, military expenditure has been linked to many productivity-improving civil innovations, such as civil aviation or the internet. Large scale military spending has been used to stabilize business cycles, replace cheap energy imports with expensive domestic energy sources (coal liquefaction), and to create a competitive edge in exporting military equipment. Even improved healthcare has been linked with military expenditure (Benoit 1978).  Similarly to green growth policies, the aim of military expenditure has been to create an insurance against “disaster”.

Looking only at green growth, Fay, HallegatteHealTréguer argue against the common view that green policies involve large costs in the short-run, with much delayed gains in the long-run. They call for green growth actions now as benefits can be expected even in the short and medium term.  They identify four channels of transmission from green measures to GDP growth: input effects on the quantity and quality of natural and physical capital, efficiency effects obtained by increasing productivity and correcting market failures, stimulus effects as a consequence of Keynesian green measures, and innovation effects, increasing the potential output of the economy.

Dager and Sen identify three channels of transmission from military expenditures to GDP growth, which are comparable to the transmission channels of the green measures identified above: demand-side effects; skill formation, R&D, and technological progress; “modernization effects” on culture, bureaucracy, and public administration. Moreover, these authors claim that the optimal level of military expenditures is determined exogenously. It derives from strategic considerations and not from its effects on growth. It can have a positive externality effect, which brings into focus once more its similarities with military expenditure.

Stronger differences between the impacts of green growth and those of military expenditure emerge when one considers mirco-economic side-effects. In a recent blog article, Bill Mitchell stresses that while military expenditure can be very profitable for overall growth, negative spillover effects emerge at the micro level. Mitchell makes a broader argument about how macroeconomic assessments, focused merely on variables such as economic and employment growth, ignore important micro considerations. He goes on to give the example of US arms exports, arguing that while arms export contracts support thousands of manufacturing jobs, the underlying motivation for the activity is in fact America’s alliances with specific countries and its role on the world scene. Mitchell further refers to an article by Robert Higgs, who argues that an increasing focus on US military expenditures has diverted valuable resources from other ‘civilian opportunities’. Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed similar concerns back in 1961, namely that increased military expenditure may have grave implications such as ‘the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex’ and could ‘endanger our liberties or democratic processes.’

Looking again at the macro level, Michael S. Leonard suggests that military expenditure is suitable only above a certain per capita GDP and in the absence of free riding benefits.

Surprisingly, the literature does not provide a comprehensive empirical answer to the question of whether, and under which conditions, military expenditures are growth friendly. Several authors have found correlations between military spending and growth. Landau (1996) finds that, below a certain threshold, increasing military expenditures is growth enhancing. However, other authors either claim that these correlations do not constitute causality or do not find a correlation at all (Benoit 1978 for developed countries). Some even detect negative correlation, such as Faini et al. (1984), who find a 0.13% lower GDP growth rate for each 10% of increase in military expenditures, on average. They present some negative spillover effects which associate higher military burdens with higher taxation, shifts from agriculture to manufacturing, and lower saving/investment shares. Smith (1980) also finds a negative impact of military expenditure on investment in 13 OECD countries.

Hence, even despite major investments and innovation efforts related to military expenditure, a clearly attributable effect of military expenditure on economic growth is absent. The inconclusiveness of the literature on the growth impact of military spending serves as a reminder of how difficult it might be to properly identify the presence/absence of “green growth”.

However, even if causality between military expenditure and growth is difficult to establish, it is still worthwile to evaluate similarities/differences in the links between military expenditure and growth on the one hand and green expenditure and growth on the other hand. From Figure 1 and Table 1 we learn that between 2002 and 2009 military expenditures grew more slowly than the economy while environmental protection expenditures grew at almost twice as much as GDP.

Table 1

Average annual growth rates 2002-2009

 

Total GDP

Environmental protection expenditure

Military expenditure

2.47%

5,09%

1.62%

Data source: Eurostat, World Bank

One possible explanation for the relative increase of environmental protection expenditures compared to military expenditures is a change in preferences. Such a shift in preferences might have many reasons, one of which could be changes in risk aversion when countries grow richer. We can assume that increases in per capita GDP would also increase risk aversion[1], bringing new phenomena within the range of risks which the population is willing to pay to be protected against. In addition, risks generated by environment-related phenomena typically concern the long run, while military risks concern more the medium and short term. As rich countries should grow more slowly they feature a lower discount rate. Hence, they value distant risks more than poorer, faster growing countries. In other words, our evaluation of insurances evolves together with our wealth.

Data source: World bank, Eurostat

When we look into military expenditure on the country level we find that all EU countries spend on average 1.6 percent of their GDP on the military (between 0.5 and 3.3 percent). From 2002 to 2007 many countries have reduced the share of their military spending in GDP, while per capita GDP grew at the same time. However, poorer and richer countries do not differ systematically in the share of military spending in their GDP. Hence, wealth does not seem to be the driving force for expanding/reducing the share of military spending (see Figure 2)

Data source: Eurostat

By way of contrast, the share of spending on environmental protection in GDP appears clearly linked to the wealth of European countries. While poorer countries (<20.000 € per capita GDP) spend only around 0.5%, the richest countries (>30.000 € per capita GDP) spend around 0.75 %, or about 50% more.

Hence, richer countries do not spend a higher share of their GDP on the military than poorer countries but they invest more in environmental protection. This is in line with the hypothesis, that already at modest income levels the preferences for additional insurance against short and medium term risk become stable (i.e., only grew with GDP) while the preference to insure against long-term risks increase with the wealth of a country[2]

Appendix


[1] “The consensus view is that absolute risk aversion should decline with wealth” [Luigi Guiso & Monica Paiella, 2008. “Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk” Journal of the European Economic Association 6(6), p. 1109-1150]

[2] Along these lines it would also be worthwhile testing whether faster growing countries that have a higher discount rate insure less against long-term risk.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/bruegelo/public_html/wp-content/themes/bruegel/content.php on line 449
View comments
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Book/Special report

Developing the EU long term climate strategy

To ensure that EU climate policy is in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and takes into account substantial recent shifts in the technical and political framework, the EU needs a new long-term climate strategy that will supersede the 2050 Roadmap that was issued in 2011.

By: Georg Zachmann and Andrei Marcu Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 18, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Developing the EU Long-Term Climate Strategy Launch event

The project “Developing the EU Long-Term Climate Strategy”, a joint initiative of Bruegel and the European Roundtable Climate Change and Sustainable Transition (ERCST/ICTSD). The project aims to provide a “roadmap” for the development and delivery of the EU’s new long-term decarbonization strategy

Speakers: Tomasz Chruszczow, Imke Luebbeke, Andrei Marcu, Eva Svedling, Arthur Runge-Metzger and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Swedish Permanent Representation, Square de Meeûs 30, 1000, Brussels Date: April 15, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Brief

Addressing Europe’s failure to clean up the transport sector

The European Union has the long-term vision to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 and it adopted in 2014 a binding 40 percent emissions reduction target to be achieved by 2030. Transport is therefore set to become the main obstacle to the achievement of the EU’s decarbonisation goals.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 9, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Brexit consequences for EU climate and energy policy

Bruegel fellow Georg Zachmann joins Richard Tol, professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Sussex, and Pieter-Willem Lemmens, head of analysis at the climate policy think-tank Sandbag, for this episode of 'The Sound of Economics', to discuss the impact of Brexit on climate and energy policy in the European Union.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Climate policies risk increasing social inequality

The aggressive political interventions needed to effectively counteract climate change will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, if social concerns are not given greater prominence in policy debates.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 8, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Impact of Brexit on the EU energy system

This meeting will build on Bruegel’s recent report for the European Parliament (link) and will consist of two sessions. The first session will discuss the impact of Brexit on the EU energy sector, with a special focus on the consequences of Brexit for the Irish energy system. The second session will look at the impact of Brexit in terms of […]

Speakers: Georg Zachmann, Richard Tol and Pieter-Willem Lemmens Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 8, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU long term climate change strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Czestochowa, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy”.

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Czestochowa, Poland Date: January 29, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU Long Term Climate Change Strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Copenhagen, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy".

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Date: January 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The clock is ticking: Ukraine’s last chance to prevent Nord Stream 2

Ukraine is running out of time to provide western gas consumers with the necessary trust to abandon the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: January 24, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU Long Term Climate Change Strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Berlin, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy”.

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Berlin, Germany Date: January 24, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU long term climate change strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Rome, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy”.

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Rome, Italy Date: January 22, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Energy digitalization: challenges and opportunities for the industry

What are the the industrial implications of Europe’s digital energy revolution? What new business models do we need to make the best of it? What policy frameworks do we need to facilitate this development?

Speakers: Laura Cozzi, Jean Jacques Marchais, Hans Nieman, Mark van Stiphout and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 17, 2018
Load more posts