’No security without development, and no development without security.’

AWE: Mr von Boemcken, few topics are the focus of such intense discussion right now as the question of bringing stability to the global security situation. This is also a major talking point for export-oriented German companies, since trade wars and geopolitical conflicts slow the economy and make cross-border cooperation more difficult. How can international development cooperation contribute to making the world safer again?

Von Boemcken: We know from research that investments in sustainable economic and social development have a positive impact on the security situation. For many years, there has been a mantra in international cooperation that there can be no security without development, and no development without security. This is also set down in the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and can be interpreted to mean that a thriving economy requires a stable and secure society. Conversely, a thriving economy also contributes to a stable and secure society. It’s important to say, however, that economic growth alone is by no means a guarantee of peace and security.

AWE: What does it take for economic development to have a positive impact on the security situation?

Von Boemcken: There needs to be income equality, including between genders, and access to education and health care for all sections of the population. Ultimately, it’s a balancing act between economic growth at any cost and environmental sustainability – and this has to be taken into account when promoting economic development.

The gap is widening again

AWE: Attentive observers will have noted that more money is currently being spent on expanding defence capabilities, while investment in international cooperation and development is declining...

Von Boemcken: That’s true. If we look at the current situation, we can indeed see that the gap between defence spending and expenditure on international cooperation is widening. The combined expenditure on development cooperation (ODA) for all 38 OECD countries amounted to approximately USD 208 billion in 2024 (source). By way of comparison, the same 38 countries invested USD 1,680 billion in their military over the same period. For every dollar spent on development, OECD countries are currently spending eight dollars on their armed forces.

AWE: With many countries now cutting development spending, the gap is widening.

Von Boemcken: It is. But we should also note that this is a relatively recent trend. Historically, the tendency over recent decades was in the opposite direction. In 2000, for example, for every dollar spent on development aid, 12 dollars were spent on the military. In 1965 – a few years after the OECD was founded and at the height of the Cold War – that figure was significantly higher at 15 dollars. So in the intervening decades, the gap between development and defence spending has tended to narrow. Now it’s widening again. But despite all the current cuts in development spending, we’re still a long way from Cold War levels.

Partner countries and the economy – both stand to benefit from sound development policy

AWE: What consequences will it have for the economy if the focus shifts away from international cooperation? What conclusions does peace research draw here?

Von Boemcken: We know that sound development policy not only promotes economic growth in partner countries, but is also – for this very reason – of benefit to Germany’s export-oriented economy. Cuts in development cooperation are therefore not good news for the economy, whether in partner countries or in donor countries.

AWE: Nevertheless, the simultaneous increase in investment in the defence industry might also stimulate the economy – so could rising defence spending potentially offset the dampening effect of development cooperation cuts on the economy?

Von Boemcken: That’s a trickier question to answer, as research findings are not consistent here. Some studies suggest a causal link between increased military spending and higher economic growth. Domestic defence industries, for example, benefit directly from these investments. Innovations in military research and development may also ‘spill over’ into the civilian sector and generate new economic momentum. Other scientific studies show the opposite, however – particularly for the economies of developing countries. In a recently published study, we at bicc evaluated 134 current empirical quantitative analyses on the social effects of increased military spending. Our findings showed that in the vast majority of scientific studies, an increase in military spending was found to have a negative impact on economic growth in developing countries. 

Military spending increases foreign debt or reduces investment

AWE: What is the reason for this negative impact on economic growth in developing countries?

Von Boemcken: Money spent on the military could have been spent on civilian projects – there’s now a shortage of funds in those areas. Instead, these countries spend it on new weapons systems, which they generally have to purchase abroad. As a rule, they can only finance these systems by increasing foreign debt or reducing investment in other public sectors such as education or health.

AWE: And what about the studies that come to the opposite conclusion? What do they say?

Von Boemcken: In the few studies that showed that an increase in military spending also led to greater economic growth in poorer countries, the explanation was almost always that the increase in military spending contributed to greater security in the country in question, which in turn benefited economic development.

AWE: So the links between security, development and prosperity are complex. What can companies with international operations do to promote economic development and security in equal measure – and in so doing strengthen the foundations of their own business?

Von Boemcken: When companies take their operations to developing countries – including to countries with a history of conflict – they can have a peace-promoting effect. This happens, for example, by creating new income opportunities for local people or investing in the development of a country’s economic infrastructure. However, it’s important first to examine the conflict structures in the country in question and to be aware of what’s needed to create a truly sustainable and stable local economy. Otherwise, companies could unwittingly contribute to a further escalation of conflicts – for example, by contributing to growing inequality in the country. 

What companies should bear in mind

AWE: What sort of action can a company take in specific terms?

Von Boemcken: Companies should be creating fair working conditions in partner countries, for example, or enabling trade union participation. They can also proactively build good relationships with nearby local communities and support them in areas such as recruiting staff, expanding local infrastructure or working on local peace projects. It’s often beneficial for private companies to collaborate with experienced development cooperation actors who are familiar with local conflict structures and know where investments can genuinely contribute to security and stability. This also enables companies to protect their own investments locally and contributes to their long-term success.