Security spending across OECD countries has become increasingly one-dimensional. In response to great-power rivalry and acute conflicts - from Ukraine and Gaza to Sudan - governments have sharply expanded military budgets while scaling back the very investments that help prevent crises from emerging in the first place. ONE Germany’s report “The Security Paradox: More Defense, Less Stability?” shows that heavily prioritizing defense spending while underfunding development and diplomacy is not only insufficient, but it also actively undermines long-term security.
Defense: rising spending, shrinking stability
In 2024, the top 10 OECD defense spenders allocated over 85% of security-related spending to the military, with total defense budgets rising nearly 30% since 2015, largely driven by the US, which accounted for almost two-thirds of the total. Smaller countries such as Poland and Israel showed the sharpest increases relative to GDP, reflecting growing security pressures and NATO commitments, with most NATO members now meeting the 2% target and a new 5% goal set to further boost spending.
At the same time, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 emphasizes that while state‑based armed conflict ranks among the top short‑term threats, none of the top 10 risks over a 10‑year horizon are military in nature. Instead, extreme weather, environmental degradation, large‑scale forced migration, and technological disruption dominate the long‑term risk profile.
Development: when defense becomes the default
In 2024, the top 10 OECD defense spenders spent $9 on defense for every $1 on development. While headline ODA figures have appeared to rise in some countries, including Poland and Germany, much of this increase is driven by in-donor refugee costs, which made up 20% of total ODA that year and did not reach partner countries. Adjusted for these factors, core ODA has remained broadly flat since 2015, showing that external development spending is largely stagnating or declining.
At the same time, the share of ODA directed to fragile and conflict-affected states by the top 10 OECD defense spenders has declined over the past decade, falling from 40% in 2015 to just over 25% in 2024. This signals a retreat from prevention precisely where instability and need are most acute.
Diplomacy: declining investment, diminished influence
In 2024, the top 10 OECD defense spenders allocated $42 to defense for every $1 spent on diplomacy, while diplomatic spending stayed flat at just under 0.1% of GDP from 2015 to 2024. With diplomatic institutions expected to do more with stagnant or shrinking resources, countries face growing limits in sustaining partnerships, shaping global agendas, engaging civil society, and preventing crises, making responses increasingly reactive and less effective over time.
Cuts to global health spending are undermining security
Strong global health investment is one of the most effective non-military tools for preventing crises, yet spending trends show a clear shift away from prevention toward short-term response. In 2024, the top 10 OECD defense spenders allocated $65 to defense for every $1 to global health, with health funding falling sharply since the pandemic. As basic services weaken, health shocks are more likely to become security crises, deferring costs that later reappear in higher defense and humanitarian spending.
Policy recommendations
A security strategy dominated by defense spending can deter immediate threats but cannot prevent the cascading crises that ultimately create new security risks. As countries scale back development and diplomacy, they risk losing influence compared to competitors investing across all three pillars. Sustainable security therefore requires rebalancing defense with stronger investments in development and diplomacy to build resilience and prevent future crises.
Against this backdrop, ONE Germany urges national governments to...
-
Expand security policy funding beyond defense spending
1.1. Additional defense spending must be proportionally matched by investments in development and diplomacy.
1.2. Trigger early, collective action.
-
Leverage development and diplomacy to prevent crises and enhance soft power.
2.1. Allocate humanitarian aid and development funds based on risk.
2.2. Fund diplomacy based on strategic need and capacity gaps.
2.3. Move from fragmented projects to long-term funding.
-
Recognize Health as a Security Factor.
3.1. Stabilize health ODA.
3.2. Use debt2health as a budget-friendly instrument.
Read the full report produced by ONE Germany.