Tendances Des Dépenses Militaires
Tendances Des Dépenses Militaires
Tendances Des Dépenses Militaires
April 2015
2000
1500
1000
500
0
19
1988
8
19 9
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2099
2000
2001
2002
2 00 3
20 04
20 05
2006
2007
2 00 8
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14
1Unless otherwise stated, dollar gures for national, regional or global military spending in 2014
refer to spending at current prices and exchange ratesi.e. converted from national currency to
US dollars at the average market or official exchange rate for 2014. Figures for percentage changes
between 2 years, unless otherwise stated, are given in real termsi.e. adjusted for ination. The
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database includes gures for each country and region in constant (2011)
US dollars, which is the basis for the real-terms calculations. This means that local currency gures
have rst been adjusted for ination in each country to express them in 2011 prices, then converted
into US dollars at the average market or official exchange rate for 2011. Figures or rates of change
in nominal terms (US dollars or local currency) indicate gures that are not adjusted for ination.
KEY FACTS
w Global military expenditure
was $1776 billion in 2014.
w Total spending fell by 0.4 per
cent in real terms between 2013
and 2014, the third consecutive
year of falling global spending.
w Overall military spending
decreased in North America,
Western and Central Europe,
and Latin America and the
Caribbean, but rose in Asia and
Oceania, the Middle East,
Eastern Europe and Africa.
w The five biggest spenders in
2014 were the USA, China,
Russia, Saudi Arabia and
France.
w Military expenditure in the
USA fell by 6.5 per cent, to
$610 billion, as part of ongoing
deficit reduction measures
required by the US Budget
Control Act of 2011.
w China, Russia and Saudi
Arabia continued to make
substantial increases in
military expenditure. Saudi
Arabias 17 per cent increase
was the highest of any country
in the top 15 military spenders
in 2014.
w A total of 20 countries
concentrated in Africa, Eastern
Europe and the Middle East
spent more than 4 per cent of
their GDP on the military in
2014, compared to 15 in 2013.
Only 3 of the 20 countries are
functioning democracies, and
the majority were involved in
armed conflict in 201314 or had
a recent history of armed
conflict.
Rank
2014
2013a
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5
6
9
8
7
10
12
11
13
14
15
Country
USA
China
Russia
Saudi
Arabia
France
UK
India
Germany
Japan
South Korea
Brazil
Italy
Australia
UAE
Turkey
Spending,
2014 ($b.)
Change,
200514
(%)
Spending as a
share of GDP
(%)b
2014
2005
610
[216]
[84.5]
80.8
-0.4
167
97
112
3.5
[2.1]
[4.5]
10.4
3.8
[2.0]
[3.6]
7.7
62.3
60.5
50.0
[46.5]
45.8
36.7
31.7
30.9
25.4
[22.8]
22.6
-3.2
-5.5
39
-0.8
-3.7
34
41
-27
27
135
15
2.2
2.2
2.4
[1.2]
1.0
2.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
[5.1]
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.8
1.4
1.0
2.5
1.5
1.9
1.8
[3.7]
2.5
until late 2014. The drastic fall in oil prices in the latter part
of 2014 may affect Saudi Arabias ability to maintain these
USA, 34%
expenditure levels in the medium term. In the short term, howChina,
Russia, 4.8%
12%
ever, Saudi Arabia can rely on its very large nancial reserves
Saudi Arabia, 4.5%
to fund further spending. Meanwhile, Russia has already cut
France, 3.5%
its planned military spending in 2015 by 5 per cent as a result
UK, 3.4%
of falling oil revenues, despite its involvement in the conict in
India, 2.8%
Ukraine and increasingly hostile relationship with the West.
Germany, 2.6%
Others,
Russias military budget for 2015 is nonetheless still around
Japan, 2.6%
20%
South Korea, 2.1%
15 per cent higher in real terms than spending in 2014.
Brazil, 1.8%
Among other countries in the top 15, Australia also made
Italy, 1.7%
a substantial increase in spending of 6.8 per cent, following
Australia, 1.4%
three years of cuts, and there were small increases by India
UAE, 1.3%
Turkey, 1.3%
(1.8 per cent) and South Korea (2.3 per cent). Meanwhile, Italys
expenditure fell by 8.8 per cent; as Italy is one of the European
Figure 2. The share of world military
countries experiencing economic difficulties due to the global
expenditure of the 15states with the highest
nancial crisis, its spending has now decreased by 25 per cent
expenditure in 2014
since the crisis began in 2008. There were smaller falls in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE, 5.5 per cent), Germany (3.3 per cent) and Brazil
(1.7 per cent), with very little change in France, the United Kingdom, Japan
and Turkey.
REGIONAL TRENDS
Asia and Oceania
Military spending in Asia and Oceania increased by 5 per cent in 2014 and by
62 per cent between 2005 and 2014, reaching $439 billion in 2014 at current
prices and exchange rates (see table 2). In 2014 the growth of 9.7 per cent in
Chinas expenditure dominated the regional trend, with the overall increase
in the rest of the region standing at just 1.2 per cent.
Viet Nam also continued its rapid rise in military spending, with an increase
of 9.6 per cent in 2014, reaching $4.3 billion. Since 2005 Viet Nams spending
has risen by 128 per cent, reecting tensions with China over
Table 2. Military expenditure in Asia and Oceania
territorial disputes in the South China Sea. However, IndoneChange (%)a
sia, another South China Sea littoral state, decreased its spendSpending,
ing by 10 per cent in 2014a reversal of recent trends, which
2014 ($b.) 201314 200514
may prove to be only temporary, given Indonesias ambitious
Asia and Oceania 439
5.0
62
military modernization plans.
Central and South 65.9
2.0
41
Although military spending in Asia and Oceania remains
Asia
on an upward trendwith all states in the region except Fiji,
East Asia
309
6.2
76
Japan and Laos increasing their spending since 2005the
Oceania
28.0
6.9
26
South East Asia
35.9
-0.4
45
growth rate for most states has been substantially lower since
2009, when the effects of the global nancial crisis began to Major changes, 201314
be felt. For example, while Chinas military expenditure douMajor increases
%
Major decreases %
bled in real terms between 20042009, it increased by only
Brunei
29
Indonesia
-10
48 per cent between 200914. Likewise, while Indias military
Afghanistan
20
Philippines
-2.4
expenditure increased by 45 per cent between 20042009, it
Cambodia
14
Sri Lanka
-2.0
has remained essentially at since then, increasing by just 2 per
Kyrgyzstan
10
Taiwan
-1.9
a
Changes are in real terms.
cent. Overall, since 2009, three times as many countries in Asia
(196)
Change (%)a
201314
5.2
200514
57
Major decreases
Saudi Arabia
17
Oman
Lebanon
15
UAE
Iraq
15
Yemen
( ) = uncertain estimate.
a Changes are in real terms.
%
-20
-5.5
-4.6
Change (%)a
201314
200514
705
10.4
-5.7
9.1
4.0
90
627
67.3
-6.4
-1.3
-0.3
48
Paraguay
13
Mexico
11
Argentina
8.5
Dominican Republic 8.1
a Changes are in real terms.
Major decreases
Venezuela
Uruguay
USA
Jamaica
-34
-11
-6.5
-5.1
World
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
North America
Latin America
Central and South Asia
East Asia
South East Asia
Oceania
Eastern Europe
Western and Central Europe
Middle East
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Change in military expenditure (%)
(50.2)
20.1
(30.1)
Change (%)a
201314
200514
5.9
7.6
4.8
91
144
66
Major decreases
Congo, Rep.
88
Malawi
Namibia
47
Nigeria
Zambia
23
Ghana
Guinea
22
Burundi
( ) = uncertain estimate.
a Changes are in real terms.
%
-27
-9.3
-5.8
-5.0
ing in real terms since 2005, and both now spend more than
5 per cent of their GDP on the military. It remains to be seen
whether the crash in oil prices in late 2014 will halt this trend.
Nigerias budgeted military expenditure fell in 2014 for the
third year running, by 9.3 per cent, to $2.3 billion. Nonetheless,
the total is still 79 per cent higher than in 2005, and the budgeted gure does not include a $1 billion loan approved by the
Nigerian Congress in October 2014 for military hardware and
training to ght the militant group Boko Haram. However, it
is debatable whether extra funding for the military on its own
will prove effective, given the rampant corruption in the Nigerian armed forces and alleged human rights abuses by Nigerian
soldiers that have alienated much of the local population. Such
factors have severely impeded the ght against Boko Haram so
far.
A common feature of the great majority of the countries in the list is a lack
of effective democracy. The Polity IV dataset, produced by the Center for
Systemic Peace, is one of the most widely used academic datasets for measuring levels of democracy and autocracy in different states since the early
19th century. Of the 20 countries in gure 4, only 3 (Israel, Lebanon and
Namibia) were classed as democracies in 2013 by Polity IV, although
56 per cent of countries worldwide were classed as such. Conversely, 6 out of
the 20, or 30 per cent, were classed as autocracies, compared to 13 per cent
worldwide. Of the remaining 11, 2 (Libya and South Sudan) were classed as
failed states, while 9 had a rating between democracy and autocracy (compared to 29 per cent of states worldwide).
Of the 20 countries, 11 were engaged in war or minor armed conict in 2013
or 2014. Thus, while conict was a common feature, it was not ubiquitous.
However, several of the other countries have a recent history of conict,
often with continuing high tensions.
One country, Namibia, stands out as being a functioning democracy that
has not suffered armed conict since 1990, yet still has a military burden of
4.6 per cent. Namibia made a 66 per cent increase in its defence budget in
2014 to improve living conditions for its soldiers. Namibias large geographical size and small population, which increases the relative cost of defending
the countrys long borders and coastline, may partly explain its relatively
high military spending in the longer term.
12%
10%
2014
2005
8%
6%
4%
2%
Sa Om
ud an
So i Ar
ut ab
ia
h
Su
da
na
Ch
ad
Re
b
pu
bl Lib
ic
y
of a c
Co
ng
Al o
ge
ria
Is
ra
el d
An
go
la
U
Az AE
er
ba
ij
Na an
m
ib
ia
Ru
ss
i
Le a
ba
M non
ya
nm
Ar ar c
m
en
ia
Ira
Ba q
hr
ai
n
Ye
m
en
Sy
ria
b
0%
Figure 4. Countries with a military burden over 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 or in year of most
recent available data
a The earlier gure for South Sudan
b The most recent available gures for Chad and Syria are from 2011.
c
Data for Libya and Myanmar are available for 2005 but come from a different source of military expenditure data that is not
directly comparable with the gures for 2014.
d The gures for Israel for 2014 may not fully include the cost of the war in Gaza.
Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.
SIPRI is an independent
international institute
dedicated to research into
conict, armaments, arms
control and disarmament.
Established in 1966, SIPRI
provides data, analysis and
recommendations, based on
open sources, to policymakers,
researchers, media and the
interested public.
GOVERNING BOARD
Sven-Olof Petersson, Chairman
(Sweden)
Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar
(Indonesia)
Dr Vladimir Baranovsky
(Russia)
Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi
(Algeria)
Jayantha Dhanapala
(SriLanka)
Ambassador Wolfgang
Ischinger (Germany)
Professor Mary Kaldor
(UnitedKingdom)
The Director
Where possible, SIPRI military expenditure data includes all current and
capital expenditure on
the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces,
defence ministries and other government agencies engaged in defence
projects,
paramilitary forces, when judged to be trained and equipped for military
operations, and
military space activities.
Such expenditure should include
DIRECTOR
Dr Ian Anthony (United
Kingdom)
Siemon T. Wezeman (Netherlands) is a Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and
Military Expenditure Programme.
SIPRI 2015