Conclusion

The existing theory regarding the impact of militarization on democracy and economic growth in Latin America, which counters the argument of the modernization school, states that “militarization is inversely related to political development, social spending, citizen well-being and social development, democracy, and food consumption” (Bowman, 2002, 183). However, data on militarization, democracy, and economic growth in Colombia shows that the country challenges the accepted theory. In order to address this puzzling situation, this chapter has tried to explain why the

158 militarization process in Colombia appears to have had a positive effect on democracy and economic growth.

The privatization of security that took place between 1990 and 2010 – the same period in which militarization intensified in the country – proves a likely answer to the stated question. In order to test this assertion, the first part of the chapter focused on establishing a strong argument relating the private security industry with the evolution of democracy and economic growth ratings on the basis of qualitative and contextual analysis. The second part of the chapter presented a quantitative analysis to support that argument with statistical evidence. The overall analysis broadened the scope of existing research on the concept of militarization and echoed the proposal for a wider theoretical notion of militarization put forward by Jacklyn Cock.

The qualitative analysis conducted in the study reveals that the inclusion of the privatization of security variable as part of the wider notion of militarization provides at least four elements that help explain the positive impact of militarization on democracy and economic growth in Colombia: first, the complementarity of the services security services provided by the national armed forces and the private security companies;

second, the reduction of additional security threats posed by the urbanization of the internal armed conflict in the 1990s by private security providers; third, the provision of more secure environments for national and foreign companies (and their investments) due to the presence of private security; and fourth, the creation of additional jobs in the private security sector that helped to reduce the national unemployment rate.

159 The single-country regression model tailored to the Colombian context complemented those findings. The results of the regression analysis proved that in fact, an increase in MPR generates a robust and positive change in economic growth, and a positive, although not so robust change in the levels of democracy. This outcome, together with the strong, positive, and significant correlation between MPR and PrivateMPR demonstrated in Chapter 4, suggest that the strengthening of PrivateMPR directly supports the country’s militarization process while motivating a positive impact on democracy and economic growth.

The regression analysis also shows that military expenditure in Colombia presents a strong, negative, and significant effect on democracy and economic growth.

However, the close link between the private security industry and the militarization process in the country and the benefits that this industry offers to individuals, private commercial companies, and other non-governmental organizations, mitigates the negative impact of militarization on democracy and economic. Very probably, the inclusion of the privatization of security variable in the regression analysis would have generated a different set of findings, but the lack of available data prevented that from happening. Yet, it has been made clear that a larger amount of security providers created a safer environment for national and foreign private investment and private businesses had the possibility to hire private security companies or constitute security departments that, along with the national armed forces, protected them from any security threats. Furthermore, as the personnel of the national armed forces increased

160 and the private security industry raised its hiring rates, the employment levels improved and the national economy received another boost.

Although the analysis conducted in this chapter put forward that the privatization of security mitigates the negative effects of militarization, it would be very risky and dangerous to believe that private security is the ultimate solution to have stable political regimes and successful economies. Luckily for Colombia, the threats posed by the private security industry have been adequately handled until now, but when the internal security challenges vary or the demand for security declines, those risks might flourish and get out of hand.

The findings of this research have established that the nature of the militarization process in Colombia is, in fact, not incompatible with improvements in the indicators of democracy and economic growth. However, it is important to emphasize that the militarization process should not be considered the only reason behind the behavior of democracy and economic growth in the country: other elements aside from militarization that may also have some degree of influence.

161 6. Conclusion

This dissertation examines the private security industry that arose in Colombia at the end of the twentieth century and studies the role it played in the country’s militarization process that took place between 1990 and 2010. The research analyzes in detail the relationships among militarization, democracy, and economic growth based on the general theoretical literature on the subject. This literature, led by the work of Kirk Bowman, argues that large militaries and increasing military expenditures have a significant negative impact on political and economic development. However, this study shows that the privatization of security in the country has complemented the tasks traditionally assigned to the national armed forces and at the same time has mitigated the negative effects of militarization on democracy and economic growth.