Trade off between guns and butter in the world specifically Pakistan

Introduction:
Trade off between guns and butter is a very common phrase in public sector economics or human development economics. But few people understand its true meaning and implications in an increasingly insecure world. To start with, we must mentions some points which normally people take for granted. First of all, it is the responsibility of the modern nation state and its associated elements, to maintain its survival and of the nation embedded in it. In order to fulfill this duty, it has to build a huge army and it has to build and buy arms to protect it against an external threat. It requires finance which is accumulated through people` s taxes and is popularly mentioned as guns. Secondly, it is also the responsibility of the modern nation state to provide maximum welfare to the people of that state. It is the duty of the modern nation state to provide basic facilities to its citizens and these basic facilities are considered as essential human rights of citizens. These basic facilities which the state must provide and which are considered essential human rights include fore mostly, basic education and basic health i.e. social sector development; popularly called butter in this phrase. This social sector development is deemed essential to enable all citizens to have equal opportunities and is not an end but a means to enable people to have meaningful and prosperous lives. But again, this social sector development requires finance to develop the sector and is collected through people` s taxes. Both are essential responsibilities of the state and both are necessary for people` s security but both require huge financing and here comes the dilemma. A state has limited resources which are collected through people` s taxes. Now the revenue collected has to be spent on both of these functions but more financing on one responsibility makes less finance available for the other responsibility; there is a trade-off involved. And here comes the trade off between guns and butter in the world. The word GUNS means defense expenditure and BUTTER means social sector expenditure. Both have same source of finance and more finance utilized for one sector means you have to compromise for the other sector. From this trade off, this dilemma starts that where should a state spend more? Should it spend more on its people or its very survival? If it

spent more on its people and if the state ceased to exist then of what use would it be? But if the state spent too much on its own survival and had nothing left for its citizens then what would be benefit of this security state to its people? These are the questions which one has to face when he tries to solve this puzzle of trade off between guns and butter.

Does this trade-off really exists-evidence from empirical studies:

Although this trade off is quite apparent but supporters of military expenditure refuse to accept it. And claim that this trade-off might exist in theory but it does not exists in practice. It is argued that the opportunity costs of military spending are relatively smaller because the resources devoted to military consumption might go to otherwise private consumption or social investment, such as housing, Medical care or education which contribute little to current economic growth. Furthermore, it is argued that military spending has a relatively smaller opportunity cost because the resources used for military purposes might not be otherwise available for public use, considering that such resources are available only through foreign military aid or loans. It is also said that the military expenditures have a positive impact on economic growth as a resulted of the relatively large benefits of the increased aggregate demand generated by military spending, the creation of employment and training opportunities and the construction of basic infrastructure. The other view is that military expenditure leads to a deterioration of economic growth. It is argued that military expenditure can become very costly where military demand is diverted to foreign supplies or results in a shift away from the production of wage goods. Where an increase in military spending is compensated by a decrease in public spending causing a reduction of employment or where military demand diverts scarce skilled workers from other industries; military expenditure deteriorates economic growth. Most empirical work supports this view military spending has had a negative impact on economic growth. David Lim (1983) examined the relationship between defense spending and economic growth for 54 developing countries and concluded that there is a negative correlation between military spending and economic growth in developing countries. Similar results were obtained by Ricardo Faine, Patricia Annez and Lance Taylor (1984) in a study of 69 countries. A more definitive study empirical study of 83 countries by Alfred Maizels and Machiko Nissanke (1986) clearly demonstrated that the

impact of military spending on economic growth in developing countries has been unambiguously negative.

National security:
The basic concept of security is undergoing a profound change all over the world. The security of people is moving to centre stage, with more emphasis on income and job security, environmental security, security against crime, security of both individuals and of communities. National security is still paramount, but its attainment is linked more and more with human security. It is widely recognised that national security cannot be achieved in a situation where people starve but arms accumulate; where social expenditure falls and military expenditure rises. Mahbub ul Haq Having discussed the empirical evidence that the trade-off exists between military spending and social sector spending, the question now arises that is military the only way to preserve national security? Can` t there be other ways to preserve national security? In order to answer these questions we have to define and understand the concept of national security; that what is national security, what are its determinants, and what can be possible threats to national security? National security broadly defined, is the requirement to maintain the survival of the nation state. Every state faces threats to its existence, be they in internal or external and efforts to maintain national security are based on threat perceptions to that state and efforts done to counter those threats. There are five elements in the conventional view of national security.

1. Military Power:
Military power is the basic pre-requisite for the protection of a state. It is considered essential for the protection of territorial integrity as without territory, there will be no state and no society and secondly, the biggest threat received from external sources is in the form of military power which is used to conquer a state. However, in the modern dynamic world, this is the last way which is used to conquer a nation. The primary methods used are cultural power and through economic power.

2. Economic Power:
Economic power is the second way to preserve national security. In the international polity of states, it is difficult to influence a state whose economy is strong. It is difficult because of three reasons. First of all, it has strong trading relations with many countries

of the world, and those powers of the world with which they have good trading and diplomatic relations would come to help her. Secondly, because of strong economy, it would have necessary finances to build a strong army and buy modern warfare weapons so economic power would be automatically converted to military power. Thirdly, because of its strong economy, military expenditure or war would cause much less burden on its economy compared to an economically weak country and so it could bear the extravagance of war or high military expenditures. In fact, economically strong states have a strong say in the international system and instead of being influenced, they influence other states. China is an excellent example of the contemporary modern world who with the help of its ever expanding economy and by keeping a balance between the military and the economic power has managed to become the forthcoming super power of the world.

3. Political power:
One of the prime objectives of national security is to maintain a state` s sovereignty. The realm of state sovereignty is where many countries try to influence other country` s national security by bribing the ruling elite and then consequently exploiting its economic resources without exerting military influence. In order to counter the threat of erosion of national sovereignty, a state must have sufficient political power in terms of efficient democracy and peaceful transfer of power between successive rulers, political stability and harmony between different ethnic, religious, and minority groups, efficient implementation of rule of law and good governance.

4. Cultural power:
Another threat to national security is the hard hit influence of one country` s culture on an other. There is a strong linkage between state and the society. If the society is unable to preserve its culture, its values and norms, it will ultimately automatically go into the hands of the foreign interventionist power without any resistance as the national identity which is key feature of loyalty with the modern state, will be eroded. In order to preserve national security, it is essential for a state to preserve its indigenous culture and values. Its especially true for the case of imperialist powers that try to intervene in other countries and try to change their culture and try to build local elite which is similar looking to native people but mentally/psychologically they have an imperialist outlook.

5. Security agencies:
Last, but not the least, these are the modern secret agencies which are considered the most essential tool of modern state to preserve its national security. They are considered as the eyes, ears and nose of a state that see, hear and smell any threats for the state. Their primary objective is to have an idea, through secret means, of what other countries are planning to do to undermine their state` s national security or what the politically or socially active groups inside a country plan to do. Often the use of security agencies is exploited by those states that have a weak political structure and these agencies are used by the state for human rights violations against its own citizens as has happened in Pakistan. But states who have a strong democratic culture fear to do so because of strong resistance from civil society groups, disliking of the political party in power by the masses, and most importantly because their ruling elite is connected with masses and have a native mind set; not an imperialist abusive mindset against their own people. Closing the discussion, all these four measures of national security are inter-related and a balanced complex or combination of these four measures can preserve the national security. Other wise, national security would be undermined in one way or another in the long run which would ultimately harm national interests.

Role of butter or social sector development in national security; towards a new paradigm of national security:
Unfortunately, what has happened is that countries mostly emphasize on militarism to achieve objectives of national security and to reduce the threats to national security while other aspects of national security or achieving national security through other means is often ignored. Conventionally, the ruling elite of a country especially of those countries where military is powerful and is involved in politics pays more emphasis on military expenditures as they are concerned more with the present security threats. It is mostly ignored that greater emphasis on military will preserve national security today but its costs in terms of social sector development forgone will be extremely high and the consequent weak state; economically and politically, will be insecure for tomorrow i.e. in the long run. As compared to those countries who have maintained a balance between economic and military power, gained political power and preserved cultural power, they will have no say in the international order and would be more vulnerable to any external or internal threat.

In the traditional or conventional paradigm of national security, it is assumed that the threat is mainly from external sources so more emphasis is put on military means to counter those threats. The role of butter or social sector development is often ignored as it has no use for current national security. It is just viewed as a tool for the welfare of the people. It is assumed that it has no role in national security and is at trade-off with military expenditures for national security. What is ignored is the role of social sector development in the national security of a country in the long run. Social sector development is directly linked to economic development and helps to preserve a country` s national security in many ways. Role of social sector spending in preserving external security: First of all it needs to be understood that social sector spending on education is not just the welfare of the people. It has manifold utilities other than increased productivity. Modern liberal education leads to the rise of democratic values which ultimately lead to democratic stability and a better functioning democracy and so promotion of political power. Secondly, in the perspective of democracy, it also gives rise to educated voters who know the importance of voting and implications of wrong voting so they try to select the best people available leading to best political parties in power and consequently a better functioning democracy evolved. Thirdly, it gives rise to a national identity; a phenomenon which has to be socially constructed. Fourthly, it inculcates modern values and attitudes which are necessary for a competitive economy. All these things help to produce an environment which is necessary to maintain national security. Apart from other benefits of education, its most important utility from the perspective of butter is that education increases the productivity of people to a greater extent, which lead to increased incomes and individual increased incomes, means greater aggregate national income/GDP. Higher educational levels also helps to bring foreign investment in the country, bring modern technology and helps in research and development; a prerequisite for innovation. All these factors combined, greatly enhance the productive capacity of the economy and its GDP/national income. A higher GDP and a greater per capita income, along with equal development through education, means that the economy is much stronger than before and stronger economy means that the state is now much less vulnerable to external threats than before. A stronger and an ever expanding economy also means that there are more resources available for military expenditure or the guns so spending on butter first would considerably improve the military security as well. It also means increased economic independence and less dependency on foreign military aid or loans which would cut the economic ties of the foreign imperialist powers and financial institutions to pressurize one` s state and undermine its national interests and

security. Along with these benefits, it would also mean more influence and more importance in the global order thus leading to a new status and building new spheres of influence in international politics. All these factors will reduce external threats to a minimum level. Role of social sector spending in preserving internal security: The social sector development would also help to undermine the internal threat in the form of class uprisings, ethnic or religious conflict caused mainly because of unequal economic development, economic exploitation, increased income inequality and poverty as providing education to all would mean that the state is providing equal opportunities to all for development. Foreign and local investment would be probably attracted to all areas equally leading to equal development. Although, in the case of internal threat to the state, many others factors like state hegemony over some areas, unequal political rights, economic exploitation by the state, and human rights violation by the state are also involved but the main factor behind is economic and the resulting lack of opportunities to progress. In order to secure the state from an internal threat, providing equal butter or social sector development is very important as that would, to much extent, eliminate the root cause of the uprisings. In fact, this is a foremost part of any solution to undercut the internal threat. However, the conventional paradigm of national security assumes that the threat is only from external sources or the major threat is from external sources. But past 30 years show a different trend. Past 30 years have shown that the major threat to any state especially developing countries is from with in itself rather from outside. In Africa alone, there have been 30 civil wars within countries during past 30 years. The examples of Bosnia, Afghan civil war, the case of East Timor in Indonesia are in front of us. In fact, in our own country, the case of Balochistan, the swat uprising, the Mohajir violence in Karachi, and the unrest in rural sindh are very evident examples of this phenomenon. Conclusion: National Security is a dynamic concept and should not be left on old premises. The contemporary situation requires that we should spend equally on military expenditures and social sector development. The concept of social sector development should not be viewed as just for the development of the people, it should be viewed as an essential tool of national security without which it cannot be maintained. Keeping this new concept in mind, developing countries should understand that there is no necessary trade-off involved between Guns and Butters; the only trade-off involved is between the current requirements and the long run requirements of national security. So, developing countries should spend even more on social sector development particularly education; as

compared to military expenditures, as a contemporary requirement of their national security. The whole complex of internal security also requires equal democratic rights for all, efforts to reduce poverty and inequality, efficient and effective implementation of the rule of law, reducing un employment, provision of basic human rights to all regard less of cast, creed, ethnicity or religion. Without it, it is difficult for a developing country, especially a country facing peculiar geo-political situation like Pakistan, to maintain its national security in the midst of two emerging world powers; India and China.

Statistics about world military spending and social spending:

In 2004, world military expenditures reached $1 trillion; an average of $162 per person. The United States accounted for nearly half, 47%, of the total. There was a reduction in military spending at the end of the Cold War and the total downward trend culminated in 1998. Since then, there has been an increasing trend; from 2002 to 2004 there was an annual average increase of about 6% in real terms (adjusted for inflation).While there was a significant reduction in world military expenditures at the end of the Cold War, a large part of that decline came from the sharp drop in spending by the former Warsaw Pact nations. The reduction in other developed countries was less notable only 10% less in 1993 than in 1987. The recent increase is undoing the progress made - the world military expenditures in 2004 were only 6% lower in real terms than at the peak of the Cold War. The biggest factor in the subsequent upward trend has been spending in the United States. Particularly, there has been a rapid increase since 2002 due mainly to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Figure 1 shows the pie chart of the world military expenditures between 1995 and 2004.

Figure 1

(Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Data)

Figure 2

(Source: SIPRI Data)

Figure 2 which shows world military expenditures divided in region and among developing and developed nations, tells that the share of developing countries has also doubled between 1989 and 1999. Regarding South Asia, its share has increased 1.2 percentage points from 0.8 % to 2.00 % which can be claimed as extra ordinary. The next figure shows the real growth rate of military expenditures from 1995 to 1999:

Figure 3

(Source: SIPRI Data)

The real growth rate of military Expenditures from 1995 to 1999 shows an extremely depressing situation for the developing countries which have experienced an increase of 5.0 % as compared to 0.6 % of developed countries keeping in view that majority of the armed internal conflicts have taken place within the borders of the developing countries. In africas, which is engaged in civil war , this increase is enormous depicting an increase 18.2 % in Central Africa and 16.2 % in Southern Africa. The next figure shows the graph of regional averages of defense spending compared to education and health spending.

Figure 4

(Source: SIPRI Data)

The figure shows a surprising trend, that Middle East in aggregate terms, is the highest military spender of the world but it also spends more on education than the whole Asia and Oceania. After that, comes the most poverty stricken region of the world, the Africas. Africa spends least on health but to much surprise, it is one of the high spenders in education. These regional estimates conceal many facts as they have represented the average of a region. In a single region a country might be the highest spender of defense or education and vice versa. Figure 5 shows the percentage of GDP spent on public expenditures of all the world countries, taken from IMF data.

Figure 5

(Source: World Military Expenditures (2005), World council of Churches, Switzerland)

Although, the list is exhaustive but one common trend can be observed, that those countries whose military spending was high, their social sector spending on education and health was quite low. This thing proves that the fact the military spending has a trade off in terms of cut offs in social spending.

U.S government expenditures:

The United States is the foremost contributor of global military expenditures. The US Governments WMEAT report found that the US accounted for a third of the world total and outspent the next ranking country by more than threefold in 1999. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated the percentage in 2004 as 47% with 455.3 billion US dollars, far and away more than the amount spent by the next largest spender, the UK, at 47.4 billion. An important fact related to U.S world military spending is:
The government of the United States spends approximately $ 1 Million every minute on military and war related costs.

From 2002 2004, US military spending increased dramatically. While there has been an increase in regular military spending, the majority of the increase has been for these military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq which are funded through supplemental appropriations. These supplemental appropriations to the Department of Defense between 2003 and 2005 exceeded the military spending of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia (including China but excluding Japan) combined. US spends a high proportion of its government on defense and defense related items. Sources vary significantly in describing what percentage of total US government spending per year goes toward the military, primarily because of various definitions of the category military spending which include different expenditures. For instance, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) attributes 51% of federal spending to the military, whereas the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) estimates 42%. Unlike the international sources on military expenditures such as SIPRI, US based groups like the War Resisters League and Friends Committee on National Legislation use a fairly broad definitions of military spending, including some or all of expenditures on foreign military aid, space programs, and domestic security programs such as the coast guard. Having a rough estimate one can say that US spends approximately 40-50 % of its budget on defense and defense related equipments. The pie chart below, created by the War Resisters League for the projected budget for fiscal year 2006, includes the following categories: Current military, including the Dept. of Defense Military portion from other departments Anticipated supplemental allowance Unbudgeted estimate of supplemental appropriations Past military, including veterans benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.

Figure 6

(Source: World Military Expenditures (2005), World council of Churches, Switzerland)

The United States first emerged as a military superpower with World War II. The number of men in the armed forces went from 334,000 to 12,123,000. When the war was over, the forces were demobilized, but budget levels never returned to their post war levels. Many see the United States as having acted as a military superpower out of proportion both with its own resources and the potential external threats. Looking at a more broad category of security spending, the US also favours military spending over non-military aspects of security. The National Priorities Project estimates that 91% of security spending goes to the military, while the rest of 9 % goes to other security measures like homeland security etc.

Why the US spends so much on its military?

The questions relates to the political economy of the U.S. According to an estimate 33 % of US GDP depends on war related industry whose interest is that war should be continued any where in the world so that our weapons could be sold. Unfortunately, this mafia which the president Eisenhower termed as MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is in power like the oil mafia of U.S. Their interest is to keep United States engaged in war in any part of the world so that their arms could be sold and their industries maximize their profit and grow more and more. It is one of the principle reasons why America doesnt want peace in the world. Because of America` s exploitations, non-state actors like al-Qaeda emerge to combat its atrocities and a new arms race at the cost of people` s empowerment begins. If there is no threat, such like there was no threat after cold war America invents new threats like Taliban as a new threat were invented.

The possible costs of this high military expenditure in terms of human poverty for the world are following:
Reality of Aid, an international non-governmental initiative focused on aid related lobbying and analysis, estimates that one quarter of what the USA, UK, France, Germany, and Japan spend annually on arms would be enough funding for aid to do its part in meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty by 2015. According to UNICEF, as of 2000 the world could have meet basic human needs for everyone on earth if $70 to $80 billion- 10% of the worlds military spending were redirected towards that purpose. Oxfam estimates that to insure that every child could go to school, it would take an additional $5.4 billion in aid this is about two days global military spending, and less that $1 dollar for each child under 18 in the developing world. Each year, G7 and other rich countries and multilateral donors give a total of only $1.7 billion.

GUNS Vs BUTTER IN Pakistan:

Existence of this trade-off; empirical evidence:
Guns Vs butter trade off exists strongly in Pakistan as has been proved strongly by empirical research. Some authors like, Brzoska (1983), have pointed to military expenditure as being an important variable in explaining the rise of foreign debt in a number of developing countries. In Pakistan debt repayment and debt servicing has increased the non-development spending. According to one study, "Defence expenditure in Pakistan has a negative impact on GDP growth when it increases to over 6.5 per cent of the GDP for a decade and/or more. During the 1978-88 decade, this threshold had been crossed with defense expenditures averaging 6.8 per cent." The study, which covered a period of over a quarter century since 1960, concluded, "An examination of a budgetary trade-off found that economic services as a whole were adversely affected by military expenditures."

History of Pakistan` s defense expenditures; an overview:

The historical trends of defense expenditures showed that during early years of independence, the shares of defense and development expenditures in overall budgetary outlay were 17.7 per cent and 3.5 per cent respectively. From 1958 until 1973, the published defense budget accounted for between 50 and 60 percent of total government expenditures. After that time, the proportions were much lower, falling to 40 and even 30 percent levels and ranging between 5 and 7 percent of GNP. At the same time, however, because of an expanding economy, actual expenditures--even allowing for inflation--

showed considerable increases. The defense budget for fiscal year 1993 was set at Rs94 billion, or US$3.3 billion, which represented 27 percent of government spending and almost 9 percent of the gross domestic product. The published budget understated expenditures by excluding procurement and defense-related research and development as well as funds spent on such activities as intelligence and the nuclear program. (Wirsing 94; Rizvi 124,205,244; Janes; SIPRI). The next figure shows a comparison of the defense expenditure of Pakistan Vs social sector expenditures.

Figure 7
Pakistan: Defense versus Development
FY 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Health* 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% Educati on+ 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% Defence 5.7% 6.4% 6.4% 6.7% 6.9% 7.2% 7.0% 6.6% 6.8% 6.3% 6.3% 6.0% 5.6% 5.5% 6.2% 6.5% 6.9% 7.1%

(Source: economic survey of Pakistan, various surveys)

The table shows the defense expenditures for Pakistan compared to health and education. It shows that historically Pakistan has been spending as high as three to four times of education expenditure on defense. While for the years presented in the table, Pakistan never spent more than 0.7 % on health, it spent 7.2 % of GDP on defense which is an alarmingly high rate. Education which could be a potential source of high GDP growth for Pakistan, and consequent greater resources available for defense and self-dependency in defense, got a maximum of only 2.4 % of GDP during the given years. It not only shows the priorities but the short-sighted ness of Pakistani decision makers.

Pakistan` s Defense burden compared to its regional counterparts:

Taking a glance at the situation of South Asia, one can get quite disappointed by the level of military expenditures. Figure 8 represents the military expenditure as a percentage of total central government` s expenditure in South Asia for the years 1988-2001 i.e. after the end of afghan war.

Figure 8

(Source:HDRSA,2005)

As is evident by defense expenditure as a percentage of GDP figures, the military expenditure as a percentage of total central government expenditure in South Asia is Highest for Pakistan but there is also a promising trend that it is decreasing and has decreased to now a days by around 17 %. India and SriLanka are also spending high percentages of their central government expenditures as military expenditures but still then, their defense burden is less than Pakistan. Figure 9 confirms the preceding fact.

Figure 9

(Source: HDRSA, 2005)

The figure shows that Pakistan is spending the highest percentage on military expenditure as a percentage of GDP in South Asia. All other countries range between 1-2% of their GDP but Pakistan is spending a massive 4.1 % of GDP on its military. By 2003, Pakistan was still the highest spender of military expenditure both in terms of percentage of central government expenditure, which was a colossal 27 %, and as a percentage of GDP (4.1%). Its counterpart, India is 10 % percentage points below her in central govt. expenditures for military expenditure. The next figure compares the cost of this High military expenditure in terms of per capita expenditure.

Figure 10

(Source:HDRSA,2005)

Although, other countries especially Srilanka and India are also spending highly on defense, but both of them are also spending highly on education and health as well.

Pakistan seems to be the country in SouthAsia which bears the highest cost of its huge military expenditure. The resulting cost which Pakistan has to pay is that Pakistan is spending only 10 $ per person on education and only 6$ per person per annum on health while it is spending 21$ per person on defense which is twice the spending on education and three times greater than the spending on health. Presently, Pakistan ranks 9th among 117 market economies in terms of governments expenditure on defence as percentage of total expenditure. Pakistan ranks 17th in education and 34th in health per capita expenditure in the 34 poorest economies. The negative effect of defence spending is an under-developed social sector.

Reasons of high military spending in Pakistan:

There have been two main reasons for Pakistan` s such high military expenditures. The first reason is the Indian fear factor. From the very first day of the inception of Pakistan, the Indian establishment didnt accept Pakistan and tried to create problems for Pakistan. The canal water dispute, the Kashmir war fought in 1948 and most importantly India` s attempts to stop the transfer of financial assets to Pakistan; all such events created an Indian fear phobia in Pakistani establishment that India wants to destabilize and destroy Pakistan and for that we need to make our external defense as strong as possible to combat India. The peculiar nature of US-Pak relationships and the Pakistani attempts for American military and economic aid also have roots in that fear. The second main reason was that after the demise of Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistani political process got de railed and power got transferred to bureaucracy and ultimately to military which then implemented martial laws. With the strengthening of military as an institution and its involvement in politics, it wanted to divert more and more resources to its institution so because of that, a bigger share of the economic pie was devoted to the military. Both of these factors are interlinked, in the sense, that for the military to keep getting a bigger share it had to present some reason for justification of high military expenditures and that reason was the Indian fear factor. Although real, but sometimes this fear was exaggerated by the military to get bigger share from the economic resources and to have a justification for maintaining such a huge number. Some analysts also say that it is the military which doesnt wants to solve the Kashmir dispute which is the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan because if it got resolved there will be no justification for maintaining such a huge military and for high spending on military which would be against the institutional interests of the military.

The possible costs of prioritizing military against social sector expenditure:

Pakistan is a classical example for the justification of the new national security paradigm which is in favour of high social sector spending for social sector development. Pakistan concentrated mainly on the external threat and in order to counter it, built a huge military, but, in the meanwhile, it ignored the internal security which could arise from unequal development, regional inequality and poverty. Pakistan got dismembered because of ignoring the social sector development or equal butter for all. The Pakistani policy makers concentrated on external threat but in the mean while just forgot about internal threat which could possible arise because weak economy or regional inequality. Ultimately, a new state called Bangladesh was formed out of the old Pakistan because of ignoring the internal threat. The problem of Bangladesh formerly East Pakistan was also mainly economic or of regional inequality. Sheikh Mujib-ur-rehman once said I smell Jute (the main agricultural product of East Bengal) from the roads of Islamabad. Had if the social sector been equally developed in Bangladesh and if political arrangements made to give them maximum self-rule, it would never have dismembered. That is an example of the past but the more recent examples are of Balochistan and of Swat Uprising. Balochistan has been burning since 1970 and the main reason is economic, not political. The reason stated by Baloch separatists the state` s hegemony on their economic resources through political arrangements. Similarly, uprising in Swat which based on the issue of implementation of Shariah was also termed as a class uprising in the name of religion. They demanded shariah because they felt that the present socio-economic system had been unable to provide justice to them, be it economic justice, political or the rule of law. If they had been given opportunities to prosper in this profane world by getting quality education and health, no such political unrest would have created chaos in the country. The opportunity cost of high military expenditure which the country had to bear in terms of dismemberment of the country, continued political unrest, lack of education facilities and the resulting slow economic growth and development, is extremely high.

Conclusion and policy recommendations:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Former U.S. President, April 16, 1953

The world overall and the developing countries in particular; and their masses in particular, which are the real capital and wealth of a nation, had to suffer a lot because of high military expenditures and the consequent lack of social sector development. It also resulted in aggravated internal threat in the form of civil wars. Therefore, it is recommended that: 1. Developing countries should spend equally on guns and butter or preferably more on butter for long term security; both military security and economic security as well. 2. Internal threat is the bigger threat to national security than the external threat so states should try to eliminate the root causes like illiteracy, unequal development, poverty, human rights violation, undemocratic practices, and law only for rich and powerful instead of building huge militaries and high spending on military defense. 3. The Developed countries should stop their imperialist ventures and if they perceive a real threat they should try to counter it with peaceful means instead of military means. 4. The imperialist powers should stop un justices in the world and should stop favoring tyrant states in the world like Israel or India; which is the root cause of unending military expenditures by the oppressed and the oppressor and unending violence. 5. Pakistan in its contemporary situation should come out of the war on terror which cost it in 40 billion dollars or 6 Kharab R.s and after curbing the present insurgency, should spend more on social sector development particularly on education. This is the only way it can counter its internal threat posed by a civil war like situation. 6. It should develop its economy in the modern knowledge based world, which could then help its military expenditures to boost without becoming a burden on the economy.