Wars and their consequences
Committing a war is often the result of conflict on the national level. The decision to declare war relies mostly on the approval of the “Congress” or “Parliament”, depending on the regime of the home country. Evidence has shown that wars cause immense casualties among civilians, and destroy buildings and infrastructure, resulting in mass unemployment and potential hyperinflation. (BPB, n.d.) However, national leaders have assumed that wars actually have benefits to the economy. This sounds a bit odd. Do they have any particular evidence, or are they affected by psychological traits and behavioral biases?
Are there any economic motivations for war?
British poster encouraging investment in war bonds
Throughout history, almost all conflicts have underlying economic motives. The most common one is to expand a nation’s territory by colonizing new continents, to gain access to extra natural resources such as land, oil, and precious metals. In addition, conquering other countries also means that there will be more access to a larger labor market, in which hidden talents can be found.
Furthermore, wars can occur to secure strategic trade routes, through which nations can increase their trade activities, leading to growth and establishing influence in the region. In the long run, wars can create healthy economic competition between nations, prompting the development of modern technology to increase military strength. It is no surprise that most innovative inventions in the fields of biology, physics, and chemistry were developed during war times. (Handman, 1939)
Perhaps… it’s psychology?
While it is clear that national leaders love to reap the economic benefits of colonization, it should be fair also to understand the psychological factors behind their decision-making process. Suffering from these biases may even make the country’s economic growth worse off. Firstly, overconfidence bias plays a huge role in influencing the final decision of national leaders. Specifically, this is when an individual fails to correctly assess one’s potential and skills, owing to their overly optimistic beliefs. In this case, leaders are always proud of their combat troops, hence overestimating their nation’s military strength. This may lead to excessive aggression even when the costs outweigh the benefits.
Another potential psychological cause is confirmation bias. This is when a person searches for or interprets information that confirms their existing beliefs. National leaders when declaring wars already have that thought in mind. They only need to find a trigger point and interpret it as severe enough – turning it into a cause for war. These leaders tend to ignore or eradicate evidence that contradicts their already-made decisions, persuading the general public that war is the only way to solve economic and political tensions. (Yarhi-Milo, 2018)
Future trend of wars
Although there are scopes to say that wars somewhat benefit an economy through the production and selling of armory, and weapons and gaining additional resources from abroad. Yet, the death of soldiers is inevitable. Families lose loved ones and unemployment often soars in a war, no matter if it is caused by economic motivations or psychological factors. Everyone loses in a war more or less. Therefore, in the future, governments should avoid conflict and resolve political tensions in a peaceful manner, to ensure the optimal prosperity and happiness of the country.
References
BPB (n.d.). Effects of War | War and Peace. [online] warpp.info. Available at: https://warpp.info/en/m1/articles/effects-of-war [Accessed 5 Aug. 2024].
Handman, M. (1939). War, Economic Motives, and Economic Symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 44(5), pp.629–648. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/218116.
Yarhi-Milo, K. (2018). Who Fights for Reputation. Princeton University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv69th2b.