on a society with pervasive dividing factor6. But essentlally, military outlayaar€ generally considered as necessary to the Eocial weLfare of the State nherebyIts role ls to adil to the civilian output an inmeasurable variable, narnely,security. The last narEd is wiilely believed to be so crucial to the social nelfarerole of the State that, at least according to sme, its clain on national resources have to be rEt regardless of coEt. But even those rrho believe ao do not insistthat nili.tary outlays are a costlesE activlty. t{or do t}rey deny that the fulllmplications of its socio-econonic costs rnay not become evident for several yeara, tthether they be in terna of finances. manpower, rninerals, R and D or for thattuatter, the political structures rrhich they expected to utlhold against a variety ofinternal and external threats. 106. h the three decades and a half since the Second ltor Id War, global nilitaryoutlays have increased their claims on human, naterial and natural resources by afactor of 4 to 10 tlmes. As long as high nilitary outlays co-existed with high rates of econornic growth in the developed rcrld, they were perhaps not altrays seenaa an enormous economic burden. &rt the 1970s have brought a weakenlng in the process of economlc Arowth and the social tolerance of mllitary outlays ls gettingircreasing low. The emphasis on econonic arowth has been supptenented by warningsatout nistaking the economic neans for the social ends. 107. Inst itutional izatlon of niLitary outlays has gone hand in hand lrith socialtension and any benefils of their cohesive effect on fragmented structures have proved largely illusory. In nDst caaea, one may assune that the militaryinstitution and the arr€d forces have a double role. They are at once an ultinaterecourse in external affalrs and an ultimate arbiter ln internal affairs. Theseroles are not always unrelated. In an environment of external confrontation, thelinits of tolerated dissension get narrowed down and a reat or Eupposed externalthreat could becone an argurnent for lncreased repression. Conversely, utleninternal dissension transgresses theae llnits, and shen means for satisfying basic
**Analysis**
The text discusses the societal impact of military outlays, highlighting the tension between military spending and economic growth, as well as the social costs of military institutions. The author argues that military spending has increased significantly over the past few decades, putting pressure on national resources, and that the benefits of military spending are not always evident. The text also touches on the role of military institutions in internal and external affairs, suggesting that they can be used to repress dissent or justify increased repression.

**Category**
Economic development, Employment