• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Estimating the ‘legitimate’ percentage of annual military expenditures

Estimating the ‘legitimate’ percentage of annual military expenditures

Helpdesk Report
  • Sumedh Rao
November 2012

Question

Identify frameworks to estimate the 'legitimate' annual percentage of expenditure spent by different states on the military, which may vary according to issues such as history, geography, politics and defence needs.

Summary

Key findings: There are no frameworks that estimate a ‘legitimate’ annual percentage of military expenditure for countries. Legitimacy is often highly contested, and arms-importing and -exporting countries can differ, quite significantly, in their opinions on whether an arms transfer is legitimate and justified, or not. An internal needs assessment may outline different priorities compared to an external needs assessment, which would, in many cases, be costly and difficult to undertake. However, without an externally verifiable needs assessment and an agreement on legitimacy, it is not possible to identify and quantify illegitimate arms deals and compare them to total military expenditure.

To estimate legitimate annual percentages of military expenditure, a better approach may be a case-by-case approach. This report provides suggestions for what could make up the criteria for such an approach. The first part of the report looks at an approach focusing on the process involved in military expenditures. With this approach, in cases when the military expenditure process is undertaken correctly, military spending would be considered legitimate. The second part of the report looks at a number of factors that have been linked to military expenditure. There does not, however, seem to be a comprehensive framework that assesses legitimacy based on such factors and it is likely that any framework based on them would be questionable.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Infrastructure Project Failures in Colombia
Helpdesk Report
2018
Public procurement reform: assessing interventions aimed at improving transparency
Literature Review
2016
Legislative oversight in public financial management
Literature Review
2016
Measuring the performance of PFM systems
E-Learning
2015
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more