This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: Elveren, A. Y. (2023). Does militarization hinder female labor income share? Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 30(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2023-0057
Talking Points
- Militarization negatively affects gender equality during both wartime and peacetime.
- Military spending has a negative effect on women’s share of income in middle- and high-income countries wherein a 1% increase in military spending leads to 0.588% decrease in women’s share of income.
- Governments should consider “the gendered consequences of military budgets” and reallocate military spending into education and healthcare to improve gender equality and increase women’s share of income.
Key Insight for Informing Practice
- Since 2022, global military expenditures have increased significantly and there have been noticeable setbacks in women’s equality—perhaps not a coincidence when considering the results of this research—but a politics of care offers an alternative way to achieve safety and security.
Summary
The gendered economic effects of military spending have garnered little attention in defense economics. More broadly, research suggests that militarization has numerous negative effects on gender equality during both wartime and peacetime. During war, rape and sexual assault, and the destruction of critical infrastructure, disproportionately affects women. During peace, “militarization, often intertwined with patriarchy, reinforces women’s secondary roles in society.” Adem Yavuz Elveren investigates the relationship between militarization and women’s share of the income in a global, quantitative study over a 29-year period (1991-2019). He argues that militarization has a negative impact on women’s share of income due to “the reinforcement of unfavorable conditions in the paid labor market for women” linked to increased military spending.
Women’s share of income is measured by women’s wages, salaries, and self-employment income as a percentage of total income in a given country each year. Elveren considers this measure a particularly important way to test for gender inequality, as women’s share of income encompasses numerous types of discrimination. Whether facing barriers to education and healthcare, or restrictions to political-economic rights, “gender inequality inevitably manifests in the income of women.” In a situation of perfect equality, this rate would be at 50%—however, the reality reveals that women’s share of income is substantially lower, ranging between 10% and 45%. Elveren also controls for informal work in this research, noting that women are “disproportionately employed in the informal sector,” with upwards of 92% of women in low-income countries estimated to work in the informal sector.
Militarization is measured in several ways: military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, military spending in relation to spending on healthcare, the number of military personnel as a percentage of the total population, and “the number of heavy weapons in relation to the total population.” Elveren also includes a measure on the level of democracy because democratic countries are more likely to promote gender equality, thus producing a higher share of income for women. Finally, country-level economic development (i.e., low-income, medium-income, high-income) is included to control for overall economic conditions.
The results show that military spending has a negative effect on women’s share of income in middle- and high-income countries, wherein a 1% increase in military spending leads to a 0.588% decrease in women’s share of income. Curiously, the opposite effect is seen in low-income countries where a 1% increase in military spending leads to a 0.945% increase in women’s share of income. While Elveren calls for further inquiry into this result, he suggests that military spending in low-income countries might create employment opportunities for women or, alternatively, might reduce men’s share of income in these countries. Further, the author finds that informal work decreases women’s share of income in all countries, and an increase in levels of democracy increases women’s share of income in all except high-income countries.
With such a strong result linking militarization to reduced gender equality, Elveren calls on “governments to reallocate resources to prioritize investments in sectors that directly contribute to gender equality, such as education and healthcare.” He points to recent research showing that investments in certain sectors—such as social care services or education—create more gender-inclusive economic growth. A decline in educational opportunities for women may explain why higher military spending affects women’s share of income. As such, Elveren calls on governments to consider “the gendered consequences of military budgets” and reallocate military spending into education and health spending to improve gender equality and increase women’s share of income.
Informing Practice
Since 2022, global military expenditures have increased by 6.8% in all regions of the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). These increases are driven by wars that should have never begun, increased “tensions” among geopolitical rivals, and state efforts to address domestic conflict (i.e., crime and gang-related activity). While increased military spending reveals a world of increasing insecurity and volatility for everyone, its gendered repercussions contribute to setbacks for women in particular. The results of this research suggest that the joint occurrence of increased levels of global military spending and worsening conditions for women is no coincidence.
Militarization, along with patriarchy, diminishes gender equality in part by reinforcing women’s secondary roles in society. This process is a question of values and how those values are prioritized. Values that are associated with “femininity”—empathy, understanding, or care for others—are seen as less serious or less important than values that are associated with “masculinity”—strength, force, or domination over others. So much of our political decision-making is constrained by the perceived need to demonstrate strength and domination that the more humane and often-times more effective policy options are totally ignored. Consider the state of police militarization in the U.S. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) outlines the severity of police militarization in their report, “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Police,” noting, for example, that the majority of SWAT team deployments—originally designed for sudden, violent events like an active shooter or hostage situation—are used for drug search warrants (notably nonviolent, alleged crimes). This policy choice persists despite, according to the ACLU, a majority of Americans favoring drug treatment and rehabilitation over policing as a solution to the illicit drug crisis.
As this research calls for governments to reallocate funding to sectors that contribute to gender-inclusive economic growth, governments and policymakers should embrace a politics of care to shift mindsets away from prioritizing the need to show strength, use force, or dominate others to solve problems. Ironically, we witnessed what a politics of care can do in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The eviction moratorium kept people housed and protected from the many dangers of living on the streets. Economic impact payments to Americans below an income threshold eased the burden of paying rent or buying food. The child tax credit single-handedly lowered the poverty rate to a historic low of 5.2%.
|
Politics of care:
|
governance activities “oriented towards the responsibility to exercise and provide care for those most impacted by oppression and domination.” |
| Woodly, D. R. (2021, November 26). Reckoning: Black Lives Matter and the democratic necessity of social movements. Oxford University Press. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reckoning-9780197603956?cc=us&lang=en& |
The Poor People’s Campaign created a moral budget that identified $350 billion in annual military spending cuts, $886 billion in “fair taxes on the wealthy, corporations, and Wall Street,” and billions of long-term savings from actually solving problems like mass incarceration or climate change. With a moral budget as a guidepost and a politics of care driving decision-making, more genuine forms of safety and security can be achieved without compromising women’s equality. [KC]
Continued Reading
SIPRI. (2024, April 22). Global military spending surges amid war, rising tensions and insecurity. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/global-military-spending-surges-amid-war-rising-tensions-and-insecurity
Bergsten, S.S. & Lee, S. A. (2023, March 7). The global backlash against women’s rights. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/07/global-backlash-against-womens-rights
Nadasen, P. (2023, November 28). Radical care and the making of a new world. Public Seminar. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://publicseminar.org/2023/11/radical-care-and-the-making-of-a-new-world/
Leonard, S. and Woodly, D. (2022). The political philosophy of care. Dissent Magazine. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-political-philosophy-of-care/
Woodly, D.R. (2021, November 26). Reckoning: Black Lives Matter and the democratic necessity of social movements. Oxford University Press. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reckoning-9780197603956?cc=us&lang=en&
ACLU. (2014, June 23). War comes home: The excessive militarization of American police. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/war-comes-home?redirect=war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing
Poor People’s Campaign. (2019, June). Poor people’s moral budget. Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/resource/poor-peoples-moral-budget/
Organizations
Poor People’s Campaign: https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/
National Priorities Project: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/
ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/
Keywords: managing conflicts without violence, militarization, women’s equality, military spending, peace economics
Photo credit: PICRYL
