Militarization
Militarization is the step-by-step process by which military forces, ideologies, and practices gain control over or permeate civilian institutions, resources, and social relations, reshaping society to prioritize armed conflict preparation, force legitimacy, and hierarchical structures often infused with gendered, racial, and class dynamics.[1][2] This entails shifts in values that normalize war and violence as desirable, alongside expansions in standing armies, resource allocations for weaponry and training, and cultural diffusion of martial norms through media, education, and rituals.[2] Key dimensions of militarization include quantitative indicators such as military personnel per capita, defense spending relative to GDP, and the prevalence of paramilitary or security apparatuses, which empirical datasets track globally to assess its scope and intensity.[3] While proponents argue it bolsters deterrence and national cohesion against threats, rigorous studies reveal causal drawbacks: resource diversion hampers social welfare and environmental sustainability, as militarized economies amplify carbon emissions and freshwater demands without commensurate security gains.[4][5] In domestic contexts like policing, transfers of surplus military gear fail to curb crime or enhance officer safety but correlate with heightened use of lethal force against civilians, underscoring a pattern where militarized responses escalate rather than resolve conflicts.[6][7] These processes often intensify during geopolitical tensions, fostering debates over trade-offs between preparedness and civil liberties, with evidence suggesting that over-reliance on military paradigms erodes public trust and invites authoritarian tendencies by embedding force-centric problem-solving in governance.[8][9]Definition and Conceptual Foundations
Etymology and Definitions
The term "militarization" entered the English language as a nominalization of the verb "militarize," which first appeared in print in 1856 with meanings including "to give a military character to," "to equip with military forces and defenses," and "to adapt for military use."[10] The root "military" derives from Latin militaris ("of soldiers" or "warlike"), the adjectival form of miles ("soldier"), a word possibly linked to Proto-Indo-European *mēl- ("to crush" or "mill," implying armed service); this entered Middle English via Old French militarie around the late 16th century, initially denoting armed forces or pertaining to warfare. The "-ization" suffix, of Greek-Latin origin via French, denotes a process of transformation, as seen in contemporaneous terms like "industrialization," reflecting 19th-century linguistic patterns amid rising European state-building and colonial expansions that emphasized organized military capacity. Definitions of militarization emphasize its character as a dynamic process rather than a static state, typically involving the reorientation of societal resources, institutions, and culture toward military priorities. Scholarly accounts, such as those in international relations literature, describe it as "the process that fundamentally changes society and all types of relations in it: the formal and institutional as well as the informal and cultural," often manifesting in expanded military budgets, conscription, or the blurring of civilian-military boundaries.[11] Anthropologist Catherine Lutz frames it as mechanisms that "redirect material resources to armies, intelligence agencies, defense contractors, military research and development, and war-making capacities," while simultaneously "glorify[ing] and legitimat[ing] military action" through historical narratives and cultural symbols.[12][13] Quantitative approaches, like the Multidimensional Measures of Militarization (M3) dataset, operationalize it across dimensions such as personnel mobilization, arms proliferation, and military economic influence, treating it as measurable shifts in state capacity for organized violence. Distinctions from related concepts like militarism are crucial: while militarism denotes an ideology or belief system prioritizing military solutions and glorifying armed forces—traced to Prussian influences in the 18th-19th centuries—militarization refers to the concrete mechanisms enacting such priorities, such as policy-driven expansions of military infrastructure without necessarily implying doctrinal zeal.[2] This process-oriented view avoids conflation, as evidenced in analyses preserving "militarization" for its analytical utility in tracking empirical changes, such as increased defense expenditures relative to GDP or the adoption of military tactics in non-combat domains like policing.[14] Variations persist across contexts; for example, in geopolitical studies, it may highlight state-level arms buildups, whereas sociological perspectives stress cultural permeation, underscoring the term's flexibility yet potential for imprecise application in non-rigorous discourse.Distinction from Related Concepts
Militarization denotes the dynamic process through which civilian institutions, culture, and economy increasingly adopt military priorities, structures, and logics, often expanding military roles beyond traditional defense into governance, education, and social policy.[15] This contrasts with militarism, which constitutes a static ideological framework that normalizes and valorizes war preparation and martial prowess as inherent societal goods, independent of active processes of institutional change.[2] While militarization may foster militaristic attitudes—such as deference to uniformed authority—militarism can persist without corresponding expansions in military infrastructure or influence, as seen in interwar European societies where ideological glorification preceded full societal reconfiguration.[16] Distinct from armament, which entails the targeted accumulation of weaponry, equipment, and forces primarily for combat readiness, militarization extends to the permeation of military norms into non-combat domains, such as the integration of ex-soldiers into civilian policing or the framing of domestic policy through strategic doctrines.[13] For instance, post-2001 U.S. defense budgets surged by over 50% in real terms by 2010, representing armament, but the concurrent embedding of counterinsurgency tactics in urban law enforcement exemplified broader militarization.[14] Securitization, by comparison, involves the discursive elevation of diverse threats—ranging from migration to climate change—into existential imperatives demanding exceptional measures, which may invoke military tools but does not inherently require the wholesale restructuring of society around martial paradigms.[17] This Copenhagen School framework, formalized in the 1990s, emphasizes speech acts by elites to bypass normal politics, whereas militarization presupposes material and organizational shifts, such as increased defense spending as a share of GDP or military oversight of civilian agencies.[18] Thus, securitization can precipitate militarized responses without equating to the sustained cultural and institutional entrenchment characteristic of militarization itself.[19]Historical Evolution
Pre-Modern and Early Modern Examples
In ancient Sparta, societal structure was profoundly shaped by militarization, with the agoge system mandating rigorous military training for male citizens from age seven until approximately age 30, emphasizing endurance, combat skills, and communal discipline to maintain dominance over helot subjects.[20] This system subordinated civilian pursuits to perpetual military readiness, as adult Spartiates (homoioi) lived in barracks, shared communal messes, and prioritized warfare over commerce or arts, enabling Sparta's hegemony in the Peloponnesian League by the 5th century BCE.[21] The Assyrian Empire exemplified state-driven militarization through a professional standing army supported by centralized administration and resource extraction, achieving conquests via iron weaponry, siege engineering, and mass deportations to suppress rebellions, expanding from a regional power in the 9th century BCE to control Mesopotamia, the Levant, and parts of Egypt by the reign of Ashurbanipal (668–627 BCE).[22] Economic policies funneled tribute and labor into military campaigns, with annals documenting over 100 expeditions under kings like Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BCE), fostering a culture where royal ideology equated expansion with divine favor and civilian life revolved around sustaining the war machine.[23] In the Roman Republic, militarization intensified with the transition from citizen-militia levies to a professionalized force following Marius's reforms in 107 BCE, which recruited landless proletarians into long-service legions, embedding military loyalty to generals over the state and contributing to civil wars by the 1st century BCE.[24] By the Empire's height under Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), the exercitus comprised 28 legions and auxiliaries totaling around 300,000 men, financed by imperial taxes and integrated into provincial governance, where veterans received land grants that militarized frontier economies.[21] Early modern Europe saw the emergence of permanent standing armies as a key facet of state militarization, beginning with France's Ordonnance of 1445 under Charles VII, which established the compagnies d'ordonnance—cavalry units of 6,000–8,000 professional soldiers paid by royal funds, marking the first sustained European standing force since antiquity and enabling centralized control amid the Hundred Years' War. In Brandenburg-Prussia, Frederick William the Great Elector formalized a standing army by 1653, growing it to 30,000 men by his death in 1688 through cantonal recruitment and tax revenues from the General War Commissariat, subordinating civilian administration to military needs and laying foundations for absolutist rule.[25] Similarly, the Ottoman Empire maintained militarization via the devshirme system, levying Christian boys for conversion and training as Janissary infantry corps, which numbered 12,000–15,000 elite troops by the 16th century under Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), integrating military service into imperial bureaucracy and sustaining expansion into Europe and the Mediterranean.[26] These developments reflected causal pressures from interstate rivalry and fiscal innovations, prioritizing extractive capacity for sustained warfare over feudal levies.[27]19th and 20th Century Developments
In the 19th century, the Napoleonic Wars catalyzed widespread adoption of conscription across Europe, transforming military organization from reliance on professional standing armies to mass citizen levies integrated with nation-building efforts. Prussia, defeated in 1806, implemented reforms under leaders like Gerhard von Scharnhorst and August von Gneisenau, establishing the Kriegsspiel training methods, merit-based promotion, and the Landwehr militia system in 1813, followed by universal conscription in 1814 that required all able-bodied men to serve, thereby embedding military service as a core element of national identity and state power.[28][29] These changes enabled Prussia's rapid military resurgence, contributing to its victories in the Wars of Liberation (1813–1815) and later unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck, where the army's structure influenced European peers like France and Austria-Hungary to adopt similar systems by mid-century.[30] Industrial advancements, including rifled firearms and railways, further facilitated the scaling of these mass armies, shifting warfare toward total societal commitment rather than limited professional engagements. By the late 19th century, militarization extended beyond conscription to include naval expansions and colonial forces, driven by imperial rivalries; for instance, Britain's Two-Power Standard policy from 1889 mandated a fleet surpassing the next two largest navies combined, spurring an Anglo-German arms race that allocated 3–4% of GDP to military spending in major powers.[31] This era saw military values permeate education and culture, as in Germany's Kadettenschulen academies, which trained officers in a disciplined, hierarchical ethos reflective of broader societal Prussianization. The 20th century accelerated militarization through the world wars' demands for total mobilization, where economies and societies were reoriented en masse. In World War I (1914–1918), belligerents like France mobilized 7.5 million men—over 18% of its population—while implementing rationing, labor conscription for women and munitions workers, and propaganda to sustain home-front support, blurring distinctions between combatants and civilians in a conflict that killed 16–20 million.[32][33] World War II (1939–1945) intensified this, with the U.S. converting 40% of its industrial output to war materials by 1944, employing 17 million in defense-related jobs and boosting GDP by 15% annually through government contracts that integrated private firms like Ford and General Motors into tank and aircraft production.[34][35] Such efforts exemplified "total war," where civilian sectors were subordinated to military needs, as seen in Britain's allocation of 50% of steel production to armaments and Germany's Totaler Krieg decree in 1943. Post-1945, the Cold War institutionalized peacetime militarization via the military-industrial complex, a term coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his January 17, 1961, farewell address, warning of its "disastrous rise of misplaced power" through symbiotic ties between defense contractors, armed forces, and Congress that sustained U.S. military spending at 5–10% of GDP from 1950–1990.[36] This complex propelled technological advancements like nuclear arsenals—peaking at 31,000 U.S. warheads by 1967—but also entrenched lobbying influences, with firms like Lockheed securing $1.8 billion in contracts by 1960, fostering dependency on perpetual preparedness against Soviet threats.[37] In Europe and Asia, decolonization often involved militarized state-building, such as India's retention of British-era forces numbering 1.4 million by 1962, reflecting how wartime precedents normalized armed bureaucracies in newly independent nations.Post-Cold War and Recent Trends
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, global military expenditure initially declined as nations anticipated a "peace dividend," with world spending dropping from approximately 3.5% of global GDP in the late 1980s to around 2.2% by the mid-1990s.[38] However, this trend reversed in the early 2000s amid asymmetric threats and interventions, including the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, which spurred counter-terrorism operations and elevated global military budgets. By 2008, international arms transfers had reached levels not seen since the Cold War's end, with volumes increasing 10% from 2008–2012 to 2013–2017.[39] The 2010s marked a shift toward great power competition, exemplified by China's People's Liberation Army modernization efforts, which accelerated under Xi Jinping's reforms to achieve technological parity and global power projection capabilities by 2049.[40] Concurrently, Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 prompted NATO members to recommit to the 2% GDP defense spending guideline, leading to sustained increases; by 2024, European NATO allies had boosted expenditures amid ongoing threats.[41] Domestically in the United States, the 1990 National Defense Authorization Act enabled transfers of military equipment to law enforcement for counter-drug operations, evolving into the 1033 Program, which by the 2010s had distributed billions in surplus gear, including armored vehicles and weapons, to police departments.[42] By 1995, 89% of U.S. police departments serving populations over 50,000 had tactical (SWAT) teams, reflecting a broader adoption of military tactics for urban policing.[43] Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 catalyzed a sharp escalation, with global military spending surging 9.4% in 2024 to a record $2,718 billion—the steepest annual rise since the Cold War's conclusion—and marking a decade of uninterrupted increases totaling 37% since 2014.[44] [38] This trend, driven by conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, saw arms transfers in 2020–2024 reach the second-highest five-year volume post-Cold War, underscoring renewed emphasis on conventional deterrence and hybrid warfare capabilities.[45] In response, NATO reoriented toward territorial defense, enhancing forward postures in Eastern Europe, while U.S. military presence, reduced post-1991, expanded with additional brigades and missile defenses.[46] These developments highlight a reversal from post-Cold War demobilization toward heightened militarization fueled by revisionist powers and persistent instability.Drivers and Causes
Geopolitical and Security Pressures
Geopolitical pressures contribute to militarization through the security dilemma, wherein one state's measures to enhance its defense are interpreted by others as offensive threats, prompting reciprocal escalations in military capabilities.[47] This dynamic, rooted in anarchy of the international system, incentivizes states to prioritize relative power gains over absolute security, often resulting in arms buildups and alliances.[48] Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, exemplified such pressures, compelling NATO members to bolster defenses against perceived expansionism.[49] In response, European NATO allies increased collective defense spending by 18% in the year following the invasion, with the number of members meeting the 2% GDP target rising from seven in 2022 to 23 by 2024.[50][51] This surge included enhanced forward deployments, with NATO activating defense plans and stationing thousands of additional troops in Eastern Europe.[49] Similarly, China's military modernization and territorial assertions in the South China Sea and around Taiwan have driven militarization among U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing's construction of artificial islands and deployment of naval forces since 2013 have enabled greater control over vital sea lanes, prompting responses like Australia's AUKUS pact in 2021 and increased U.S. freedom-of-navigation operations.[52] Taiwan, facing heightened Chinese incursions—over 1,700 aircraft violations of its air defense zone in 2022 alone—raised its defense budget above 3% of GDP by 2025.[53] These developments reflect a broader shift where rising powers' actions amplify alliance commitments and procurement of advanced systems, such as hypersonic missiles and submarines, to deter potential aggression. In a multipolar context, these pressures extend to resource competitions and hybrid threats, where states like Russia and China leverage military posture to secure economic lifelines, further entrenching cycles of militarization. Global military expenditure reached $2.443 trillion in 2023, up 6.8% from 2022, largely driven by conflicts in Europe and Asia.[54] Such trends underscore how unresolved territorial disputes and power transitions causally propel states toward fortified postures, independent of domestic ideologies.[55]Economic and Industrial Factors
Economic interests within the defense sector incentivize militarization by fostering dependency on sustained military budgets and procurement contracts, creating a feedback loop where industrial profitability hinges on expanded armed forces and capabilities. The military-industrial complex, as articulated by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, describes the intertwined influence of defense contractors, military leaders, and policymakers that perpetuates high spending levels to maintain production lines and employment. In the United States, major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing derive significant revenue from government contracts, with the top five firms receiving over $100 billion in Pentagon awards between 2020 and 2024, motivating advocacy for threat inflation and program expansions.[56] Industrial lobbying amplifies this dynamic, as defense firms expend substantial resources to shape policy toward higher allocations. In 2024, the U.S. defense industry spent $151 million on lobbying efforts, employing 950 registered lobbyists—many former military or government officials—to secure favorable legislation and budgets.[57] [56] This influence extends globally, where arms manufacturers promote export sales and domestic production to offset economic downturns, as evidenced by the sector's role in sustaining manufacturing bases in regions like Europe and Asia amid deindustrialization pressures.[58] Broader economic factors, such as resource security and supply chain protection, further propel militarization in industrializing economies. Nations like China have escalated military investments to safeguard import-dependent growth, with naval expansions explicitly tied to securing energy and raw material routes since the early 2010s.[59] Empirical trends show global military expenditure reaching $2,718 billion in 2024—a 9.4% real-term increase from 2023 and a 37% rise over the prior decade—partly driven by industrial needs for stable markets and technological innovation funded by defense outlays.[38] In third-world contexts, military industrialization emerges as a strategy for economic self-sufficiency, though capital investments in arms production often prioritize strategic autonomy over civilian development.[60] Militarization also intersects with financialization, where advanced weaponry becomes an investment vehicle, drawing private capital into defense ventures and reinforcing policy biases toward conflict readiness. Studies indicate that militaries reduce industrial risks by guaranteeing demand, thereby accelerating the adoption of militarized technologies in civilian economies, such as surveillance and automation.[4] [61] This causal linkage underscores how industrial imperatives, rather than purely security needs, sustain escalating commitments to military expansion.Political and Institutional Motivations
Political leaders often pursue militarization to bolster domestic support, leveraging the "rally-around-the-flag" effect where military actions or buildups temporarily increase public approval amid internal challenges.[62] This diversionary incentive, rooted in the theory that elites initiate foreign policy assertiveness to distract from economic woes or scandals, manifests in heightened military spending before elections, as evidenced by meta-analyses showing electoral cycles correlating with expenditure spikes across democracies.[63] For instance, U.S. Republican administrations have historically raised defense budgets by an average of $46.3 billion upon taking office, contrasting with Democratic reductions, partly to signal strength and appeal to voters prioritizing security.[64] In authoritarian contexts, coup-proofing drives militarization as rulers restructure armed forces to prioritize loyalty over combat efficacy, creating parallel units or exploiting ethnic ties to deter internal threats.[65] Such strategies, employed in regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or contemporary Turkey and Egypt, involve promoting politicized officers and underfunding training, resulting in bloated, inefficient militaries focused on regime survival rather than external defense.[66] [67] This institutionalizes militarization by embedding military roles in political control, often at the expense of professionalization, as leaders trade operational readiness for personal security.[68] Institutionally, the military-industrial complex fosters self-perpetuating incentives for expansion, as bureaucracies, contractors, and legislators form symbiotic relationships that prioritize procurement over necessity. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his January 17, 1961, farewell address, cautioned against this "unwarranted influence," noting its potential for "disastrous rise of misplaced power" through intertwined economic and political pressures.[36] Post-World War II U.S. reforms streamlined weapons acquisition, amplifying bureaucratic drives for larger budgets to sustain jobs and influence, with defense firms lobbying politicians who benefit from campaign contributions and district employment.[69] [70] This dynamic extends globally, where military elites advocate for heightened readiness to justify resource allocation, often exaggerating threats to secure institutional autonomy.[71] These motivations intersect in policy "iron triangles" of executives, defense establishments, and industry, where mutual benefits—such as pork-barrel projects for votes—entrench militarization beyond geopolitical imperatives.[71] Empirical studies confirm leaders' tenure incentives favor spending hikes for power retention, with accountability mechanisms like elections sometimes curbing but often amplifying such cycles in low-transparency systems.[72] While genuine security rationales exist, these political and institutional factors reveal causal realism in how self-interest sustains military dominance in governance.Manifestations Across Domains
State and Political Structures
Militarization of state and political structures manifests as the growing dominance of military institutions in governance, policy formulation, and power allocation, often transforming civilian-led systems into praetorian arrangements where armed forces act as arbiters of political legitimacy.[73] This process typically arises from weak civilian institutions, internal threats, or elite reliance on military loyalty for regime stability, leading to coups, juntas, or institutionalized military veto power over elected governments. Empirical measures, such as indices tracking military personnel in executive roles or coup frequency, quantify this shift; for instance, garrison state indices from 1990 to 2020 highlight elevated militarization in regions like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, correlating with fragmented political authority.[74] Praetorian states exemplify advanced militarization, defined by chronic instability oscillating between military rule and nominal civilian facades, with armies intervening to prevent or install regimes amid societal fragmentation.[75] Pakistan illustrates this pattern, having experienced three successful military coups since 1947 (1958, 1977, 1999), alongside periods of indirect influence through intelligence agencies shaping electoral outcomes and policy, as documented in comparative governance studies.[76] In Latin America, countries like Brazil and Argentina historically featured praetorian dynamics, with militaries staging coups in 1964 and 1976 respectively to counter perceived leftist threats, though influence has waned post-1980s transitions; quantitative analyses show military governance involvement peaking at 20-30% of executive decisions in such eras.[73] The 21st century has seen a resurgence of militarized political interventions, particularly in Africa, with successful coups rising from an average of one per decade pre-2010 to five in sub-Saharan Africa between 2020 and 2021 alone (Mali twice, Guinea, Chad, Sudan).[77] [78] This trend correlates with governance fragility, economic shocks, and external influences, including support from powers like Russia and China for coup leaders via arms and legitimacy, reversing post-Cold War declines in global coup success rates from 50% in the 1980s to under 30% by 2000.[79] [80] Even in democracies, subtle militarization occurs through "erosion by deference," where civilian leaders delegate security and foreign policy to generals, as observed in U.S. post-9/11 advisory roles or European reliance on military expertise in hybrid threats, potentially undermining elected oversight without formal takeovers.[81]| Region | Notable Examples of Military Political Interventions (Post-2000) | Key Data Points |
|---|---|---|
| Africa | Mali (2020, 2021 coups), Burkina Faso (2022), Niger (2023) | 8 successful coups 2010-2023; tied to jihadist insurgencies and aid suspensions[82] [83] |
| Middle East/North Africa | Egypt (2013 coup), Sudan (2019, 2021) | Military juntas retain 40-60% policy control post-intervention[76] |
| Asia | Myanmar (2021 coup), Thailand (2006, 2014) | Recurrent cycles; 50%+ success rate in officer-led ousters[80] |
Economic Systems
Militarization manifests in economic systems through the substantial allocation of national resources to defense-related production, procurement, and research, often prioritizing military capabilities over civilian economic activities. This includes elevated military expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), with global military spending reaching $2,718 billion in 2024, equivalent to approximately 2.2% of world GDP on average, though varying significantly by country—such as the United States at around 3.5% and Russia exceeding 5% in recent years.[38] In planned economies like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, militarization involved directing up to 15-20% of GDP toward defense industries, integrating military production into central planning and subordinating consumer goods sectors to sustain armaments output.[86] Capitalist systems exhibit militarization via the military-industrial complex, where defense contractors, government agencies, and political interests form symbiotic relationships that sustain high procurement levels; for instance, U.S. defense firms received contracts totaling over $400 billion annually in the 2020s, influencing congressional budgeting through lobbying expenditures exceeding $100 million yearly.[87] Mechanisms of economic militarization include government subsidies and contracts that bolster employment in defense sectors—accounting for about 3.5 million direct and indirect U.S. jobs in 2023—but at the cost of opportunity diversion from more productive civilian investments.[88] Military research and development (R&D) drives technological advancements with civilian spillovers, such as semiconductors and aviation technologies originating from U.S. Department of Defense programs, contributing to broader economic innovation.[89] However, empirical analyses indicate that defense spending multipliers are lower than for infrastructure or education outlays; a dollar of U.S. military expenditure generates roughly $0.60-1.00 in GDP growth short-term, compared to $1.50+ for non-defense public investments, due to inefficiencies in procurement and reduced incentives for cost control.[90][91] Cross-national studies reveal divergent impacts: in developing and conflict-prone economies, higher military burdens correlate with slower growth rates, as resources crowd out human capital development and private investment, with panel data from 1988-2019 showing a statistically significant negative effect in 35 non-OECD countries.[92][93] Conversely, in advanced economies with robust institutions, short-term demand stimulus from defense outlays can offset recessions, though long-run effects turn neutral or adverse as fiscal deficits accumulate—evident in post-2008 U.S. trends where sustained spending contributed to national debt exceeding $34 trillion by 2024 without commensurate productivity gains.[89][91] Protectionist policies tied to militarization, such as using military presence to secure trade routes or resources, further embed defense priorities, as seen in U.S. naval operations safeguarding oil imports, which indirectly subsidize energy-dependent industries but risk escalating global tensions.[94]| Country/Region | Military Spending (% GDP, 2024 Avg.) | Key Economic Manifestation |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3.5% | Dominance of private defense contractors; R&D spillovers to tech sector.[38] |
| Russia | 5.9% | State-controlled arms exports funding budget amid sanctions.[86] |
| Middle East (e.g., Saudi Arabia) | 7-8% | Oil revenues funneled into procurement, crowding out diversification.[38] |
| Global Average | 2.2% | Rising trends post-2014, linked to geopolitical conflicts.[38] |