A growing body of global evidence suggests that rising military spending, while often justified by security concerns, can quietly weaken public health systems when it expands beyond sustainable limits.

A recent international study showed that although governments can initially increase defence budgets without harming healthcare funding, this balance breaks down once military expenditure reaches a critical threshold, forcing difficult fiscal tradeoffs that leave health systems exposed.

The study, which analysed spending patterns across countries over two decades, found that excessive defence spending eventually crowds out health investment, particularly in countries with weak accountability structures.

This warning carries special significance for Nigeria, where federal allocations to military and security have continued to outpace health sector funding, widening the gap between the two and raising concerns about the long-term implications for access to care, health infrastructure, and population wellbeing.

The study, published in Defence and Peace Economics by David Fidelis and Nana Baah, analysed data from 155 countries between 2000 and 2020 to understand how military spending affects government health expenditure. Contrary to the long-standing belief that defence and health spending are always in direct competition, the researchers found that the relationship is more complex and depends on both spending levels and political systems.

According to the study, governments can increase military spending without harming health budgets at lower levels of defence expenditure. During this phase, health spending tends to remain stable and may even increase.

However, this balance collapses once military spending exceeds a fiscal tipping point.

The researchers identified this threshold at approximately 4.48 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Beyond this point, further increases in military spending begin to significantly reduce health funding, as governments face tighter fiscal space and competing demands.

This is when the classic “guns versus butter” tradeoff becomes unavoidable.

Health spending, the authors emphasised, is not just another budget line. It determines access to hospitals, medicines, healthcare workers, and disease prevention programmes. When health budgets are squeezed, the effects are often felt quickly through deteriorating infrastructure, shortages of essential supplies, and poorer health outcomes.

Nigeria’s recent federal budgets closely reflect the risks highlighted by the study. Between 2023 and 2026, allocations to the military and security have consistently exceeded health sector spending, with the gap widening each year. In 2023, the approved military and security budget stood at N2.47 trillion, compared to N1.08 trillion for health. By 2024, this gap had widened further, with N3.25 trillion allocated to defence and security, against N1.33 trillion for health.

The trend continues in the proposed budgets for 2025 and 2026. For 2025, military and security spending was projected at N4.91 trillion, while the health budget remained at N2.48 trillion. In 2026, the proposed military and security allocation rose again to N5.41 trillion, more than double the health sector’s N2.48 trillion allocation.

This growing imbalance mirrors what the study describes as the danger zone for health systems. While rising security spending may be justified by insecurity concerns, the evidence suggests that sustained expansion of defence budgets eventually comes at a cost to public health, especially when health allocations stagnate.

Nigeria’s health funding also falls well short of international commitments. As a signatory to the 2001 Abuja Declaration, Nigeria pledged to allocate at least 15 per cent of its national budget to health. Yet in the proposed 2026 budget of N58.47 trillion, health spending accounts for only about 4.2 per cent, far below the agreed benchmark. This gap highlights what the study refers to as a shift in fiscal priorities away from human development.

The study further shows that political systems influence how severely health budgets are affected. Democracies, according to the authors, are better able to protect health spending even as military budgets grow. Electoral pressure, public accountability, and stronger institutions make it harder for governments to cut health funding without political consequences.

Autocratic systems, by contrast, reach the trade-off point much earlier. Military spending in such regimes is often prioritised for regime survival, crowding out social services like healthcare once fiscal pressure increases. Hybrid systems, those combining democratic and authoritarian features, show inconsistent patterns, with weak institutional safeguards for health spending.

Nigeria, which displays characteristics of a hybrid political system, reflects some of these vulnerabilities. While health allocations have increased nominally over time, the study’s warning goes beyond headline figures to how budgets are prioritised and executed.

Recently, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Ali Pate, during the Ministry’s 2026 budget defence before the House of Representatives Committee on Healthcare Services, disclosed that only N36 million had been released from the N218 billion appropriated for health capital projects in the 2025 budget. This sharp disconnect between approved allocations and actual releases underscores how health funding can be undermined even when budget figures appear stable.

According to Pate, while the ministry’s entire personnel budget was released and fully utilised, the capital component told a different story, largely because of the bottom-up cash planning system operated by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

The study suggested that such execution gaps deepen the real impact of the military–health trade-off. When security spending rises rapidly and health funds are either stagnant or poorly released, health systems bear a double burden; insufficient funding on paper and even less in practice.

The study also noted that once defence spending expands beyond sustainable limits, social sectors become increasingly vulnerable. The authors warn that ignoring these dynamics has long-term consequences. Reduced health investment weakens disease surveillance, slows progress toward universal health coverage, and increases vulnerability to public health emergencies. Over time, this undermines population well-being and economic productivity.

Ultimately, the team reframed the guns-versus-butter debate as a question of thresholds and choices, rather than an automatic trade-off. Military spending does not immediately damage health systems, but excessive and sustained defence expansion, especially in countries with weak accountability, poses serious risks to public health.