‘How political systems, not spending size, determine health– defense budgets’

2026-02-27 - 05:37

By Matilda Ikediobi The funds allocated to the military and health sectors by Nigeria and Ghana have ignited conversations about whether political systems influence how countries distribute their budgets between health and security. The debate followed President Bola Tinubu’s recent presentation of the N58.47 trillion appropriation bill to the National Assembly. Vanguard observed that while the administration placed security, health and human capital development at the centre of the country’s 2026 fiscal plan, N5.41 trillion was proposed for defense and security, while N2.48 trillion was allocated to health. In Ghana, however, the reverse was the case; a larger portion of the 357.1 billion Ghana cedis appropriation bill approved for the 2026 fiscal year was allocated to health rather than security. The difference in allocations aligns with the views of political scientists, David Fidelis and Nana Baah, who argue that regime type determines how political institutions influence the nature of the fiscal tradeoff between military and health spending. Autocracies. According to them, autocracies prioritise military strength over public welfare, making them more likely to shift spending away from health even at lower levels of defense investment. While disagreeing with scholars like Fan, Li, and others, who argue that any increase in military spending automatically reduces social spending, Fidelis and Baah said political institutions shape how governments balance security and welfare, rather than the mere size of the allocations. Three-stage tradeoff The scholars, in their work titled: ‘Rethinking the guns vs. butter tradeoff: a Nonlinear and Regime-conditioned Approach in the Military and Health Spending’ published in the Defence and Peace Economics, stated: “An increase in defense spending does not immediately cause a decrease in health spending. Instead, we observe a three-stage pattern: At low levels of defense expenditure, health spending remains stable. “As military spending increases, fiscal space tightens, but a direct tradeoff is not yet fully realised. Once military spending surpasses a critical threshold, health expenditure declines sharply; this is where the ‘guns vs. butter’ tradeoff becomes conspicuous.” Budgetary logic On how political systems determine these allocations, the scholars explained that democracies spend proportionally more on health, even when military expenditures are high. In contrast, autocracies experience tradeoffs much earlier because regime survival depends on military priority. Based on their research, Nigeria’s current trajectory reflects a hybrid regime, combining democratic and autocratic elements, which often results in less predictable budgetary behaviour. Meanwhile, established democracies like Germany and the UK, as well as developing democracies like Ghana, tend to prioritise welfare spending.