Studies of nations' military efforts and social well-being are a staple of sociology, economics, and political science, but have produced ambiguous results. This article argues that the standard measure of military efforts--defense spending--inadequately captures the social and political impact of military preparedness. It instead suggests that military personnel policies impact social welfare efforts to the degree that they alter citizens' relationships to labor markets, directly provide social welfare benefits to military personnel, or create discursive obstacles to other groups seeking benefits. The results indicate that net of military spending, nations with relatively large armed forces make smaller social welfare efforts, while nations with conscription tend to spend more generously.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.