By Adem Yavuz Elveren
Abstract: Entropy economics conceptualizes military spending as a self-perpetuating force of systemic disorder, where resource depletion, technological obsolescence, and geopolitical instability reinforce cycles of militarization. Unlike traditional equilibrium-based critiques, this framework highlights how military expenditures drive economic inefficiencies, environmental degradation, and gendered inequalities, ultimately destabilizing societies rather than securing long-term stability.
Introduction
Global military spending rose by 6.8% in 2023, marking the highest annual increase since 2009 and reaching record levels according to SIPRI. This increase is driven largely by the ongoing war in Ukraine, along with escalating tensions in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. This upward trend is projected to continue, underscoring the growing importance of analyzing the drivers and implications of military spending amid intensifying geopolitical tensions worldwide.
Entropy economics refers to the movement of systems toward disorder, inefficiency, and instability, encompassing the irreversible depletion of resources, systemic inequalities, and environmental degradation. Entropy economics conceptualizes militarization as a driver of systemic disorder, depleting resources, reinforcing inequalities, and perpetuating instability within global power dynamics. It also highlights the gendered and environmental dimensions of militarization, illustrating their role in amplifying entropy. Military spending mirrors thermodynamic entropy, irreversibly consuming resources. Weapons degrade through obsolescence, technological shifts, and arms races, making them economically wasteful. These expenditures divert funds from productive sectors, increasing systemic entropy by fostering instability, conflicts, and resource misallocation.
Applying entropy economics to military spending provides a distinct perspective from traditional analyses of the military-industrial complex (MIC), which often focus on political and economic drivers, leading to a narrow—and sometimes flawed—understanding of its impact. For instance, some critics naively assume that powerful interest groups can be effectively controlled, implying that an optimal (i.e., equilibrium) level of military spending is attainable. Also, while critiques emphasize the significant opportunity cost of military spending and acknowledge environmental costs, they fail to fully capture the interconnected and irreversible depletion of resources, systemic inequalities, and environmental degradation driven by militarization. Entropy economics highlights how military spending acts as a force of systemic entropy, underscoring its inherent inefficiency and self-perpetuating instability. Unlike traditional critiques that inherently rely on equilibrium frameworks, entropy economics suggest that military spending is best understood in the context of disequilibrium. Thus, entropy economics contributes to a deeper understanding of the MIC’s role in global instability, revealing the self-reinforcing cycles of insecurity and environmental harm perpetuated by militarization.
Entropy of Military Spending
Military spending functions as a fixed investment, similar to infrastructure or industrial capital, requiring continuous maintenance and modernization regardless of active conflict. This aligns with entropy economics, emphasizing its role in economic inefficiencies, systemic disorder, and resource depletion. Unlike consumable goods, military assets—such as naval fleets, fighter jets, and missile defense systems—represent long-term capital investments aimed at national defense and, historically, at wealth extraction through conquest. However, these assets degrade over time, necessitating constant refurbishment and operational testing. This ongoing maintenance creates an economic sinkhole, where resources are continually allocated to sustain outdated investments rather than fostering new productive activities.
One of the greatest vulnerabilities of military spending as fixed investment is technological obsolescence. As warfare evolves, older military technologies quickly lose their effectiveness. For instance, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 is a remarkable example. The Byzantine Empire relied on formidable defensive walls that had protected it for centuries, but the advent of gunpowder artillery rendered them obsolete. The British Royal Navy’s introduction of the HMS Dreadnought in 1906 revolutionized naval warfare with its advanced armament and propulsion system, rendering all previous battleships obsolete. During the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. and Soviet Union invested heavily in strategic bombers, only for intercontinental ballistic missiles to quickly render them less critical for nuclear deterrence. Finally, in the Russia-Ukraine War, the extensive use of low-cost drones has rendered traditional high-cost military assets, such as tanks and aircraft, obsolete.
Resources are poured into defense systems that are progressively degraded by time, technological disruption, and evolving strategic realities. Paradoxically, such vulnerability of military investment creates powerful vested interests, making it politically difficult to reduce spending even when military threats decline. In other words, military spending aims to enhance national security and promote global order. However, its consequences often contradict these objectives. The arms race dynamic undermines national security by escalating threats rather than neutralizing them. Similarly, at the global level, the concentration of power among superpowers enforcing a particular “global order” often destabilizes rather than stabilizes regions. The inherent lack of “equilibrium” in military spending, driven by its competitive and asymmetrical nature, prevents stability, making it better suited to entropy economics than mainstream economic models that rely on an illusory equilibrium.
The global MIC is the key element of the entropy economics of military spending. Wealthy nations derive economic benefits from arms production, exporting weapons to poorer, conflict-prone regions. This strengthens their economies while fueling instability elsewhere. Poor nations allocate limited funds to military expenditures, often at the expense of social development. The research shows that while arms-exporting countries are likely to enjoy higher profit rates, the association is negative in arms-importing countries. These nations face disproportionate costs due to weak governance structures, making them susceptible to arms deals. Low levels of democracy prevent oversight and accountability in military budgets. Existing instability justifies higher military spending. In developed nations, the private sector can exploit instability and the perceived need for “national security” by investing in the military sector. This dynamic reflects how the global MIC operates: core countries enable semi-peripheral nations to develop their own smaller-scale MICs. These smaller complexes do not conflict with the interests of the core but instead intensify global conflicts, ultimately boosting the profitability of the MICs in core countries.
Conflicts increase demand for weapons, leading to greater spending and dependence on arms imports. Militarization exacerbates inequality and environmental degradation, further destabilizing societies and creating conditions for future conflicts. The competitive nature of militarization prevents any equilibrium or lasting stability, as the pursuit of security paradoxically generates further insecurity.
In addition to perpetuating systemic instability, militarization has significant gendered consequences. Militarization reinforces patriarchal norms by prioritizing aggression, dominance, and control, attributes often associated with hegemonic masculinity. The militarized masculine predator state is closely tied to military production, forming a symbiotic relationship that drives private sector expansion and encourages financial sector involvement in military projects. In essence, “the predator state is gendered; it embodies a militarized masculine identity and operates within the home of the (global) Military-Industrial Complex, relying on unpaid labor of women.” Empirical evidence shows that militarization deepens gender inequality. Elveren and Moghadam (2022) utilize various panel data methods to analyze 133 countries over the period 1990–2017 to show a highly significant correlation between different indicators of militarization and gender inequality. Building on this analysis and using the OECD’s Social Institutions and Gender Index, Elveren et al. (2022) showed that militarization is associated with lower female labor force participation rates. Additionally, Elveren (2024), showed that militarization increases female labor income share.
Militarized societies often exhibit higher rates of gender-based violence, reinforcing social instability. Women are frequently excluded from decision-making processes in militarized societies, limiting the potential for inclusive and equitable governance. In fact, substantial literature shows women’s representative in legislative bodies is associated with higher social spending and/or lower military budgets. In other words, patriarchy itself becomes a source of entropy, as its exclusionary practices and systemic violence destabilize societies. This instability justifies further militarization, reinforcing the cycle of systemic entropy.
Militaries, often exempt from environmental regulations under the guise of “national security” and masculine privilege, are significant contributors to pollution. Military activities deplete natural resources, impeding ecosystems and accelerating environmental entropy. Empirical studies suggest that the defense sector is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating climate change, becoming a barrier to sustainable development. Environmental degradation due to militarization intensifies resource scarcity, leading to conflicts over water, arable land, and other essential resources.
Conclusion
Entropy economics highlights the irreversible and disorder-generating effects of military spending. Unlike mainstream economic frameworks, which often assume that systems naturally strive for equilibrium and optimal resource allocation, entropy economics recognizes that economic processes inherently degrade resources, create inefficiencies, and reinforce systemic instabilities. Military spending embodies multidimensional entropy, encompassing economic, systemic, environmental, and social dimensions. Economic entropy includes opportunity costs, arms obsolescence, and resource misallocation. Systemic entropy involves consistent conflicts across the globe, arms races between certain nations or allied organizations, and dependency on arms imports of poor countries. Environmental entropy refers to the impact of military activities on carbon emissions, deforestation rates, and ecological damage. Social entropy includes persistent income inequality and gender inequality. Furthermore, the post-Keynesian models show that higher military spending impedes economic growth through income inequality and through gender inequality.
