Introduction
Development ranks among the fundamental objectives of modern states. In the Brazilian case, this centrality is enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which, in its Article 3, lists ensuring national development among the fundamental objectives of the Republic (Brasil, 1988). The pathways to achieve it, however, are multiple and the subject of long-standing debate. Broadly speaking, part of the literature emphasizes factors such as economic growth, industrialization, technological innovation, and the role of institutions as determinants of development (Acemoglu; Robinson, 2012).
Other authors further highlight the role of the state as a strategic agent in coordinating investments and building the capabilities necessary to foster development (Mazzucato, 2014). In this plural context, development ceases to be understood merely as economic expansion and comes to incorporate social, institutional, and political dimensions, demanding consideration of the structural conditions that make its realization possible.
The debate surrounding this theme, however, exhibits a dominant tendency to prioritize the more visible dimensions of development, such as income, employment, infrastructure, education, and health, to the detriment of less apparent yet equally decisive factors for those dimensions to be realized. Prominent among these factors are public security and national defense, topics recurringly decoupled from the development agenda and treated as domains divorced from economic and social life.
Nevertheless, institutional stability, territorial protection, and the maintenance of domestic order constitute indispensable conditions for the operation of markets, the realization of investments, and the implementation of public policies (Acemoglu; Robinson, 2012; Jerab, 2024). In this sense, public security and national defense should not be understood merely as responses to threats, but as structural dimensions of state development, the absence of which compromises the very possibility of sustainable growth and social welfare.
Proceeding from this perspective, this article proposes to analyze the relationship between national defense, public security, and development, understanding these dimensions in an integrated manner. It argues that state investment in these fields does not represent a cost detached from economic dynamics, but rather a foundational investment in building state capacity. To this end, the text is organized into three main sections: first, the concepts of public security and national defense are discussed, highlighting their complementarity; next, the impact of investment in these areas on development is analyzed; finally, the role of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) is examined as the productive and technological materialization of these capabilities, highlighting its function in integrating security, sovereignty, and economic growth.
National Defense and Public Security: Distinct Concepts, Complementary Objectives
Upon initial examination, Security (external link) can be understood as a desired state of protection against threats that may affect various entities, such as individuals, social groups, or the state itself. From this perspective, it constitutes a condition that enables the maintenance of social order, the physical integrity of individuals, and the regular functioning of institutions. On the other hand, there is the notion that security encompasses not only practical dimensions, but also subjective ones, given that perceptions regarding the issue vary according to the temporal, spatial, political, social, and economic circumstances of the actors involved. In this view, Rudzit and Nogami (2009) broaden the meaning of security in the state sphere, asserting its diverse character, dependent on the conditions and situations of each state in which the concept is applied. Thus, the security issues concerning a developed country will differ from those of a developing country, for example.
In this way, so-called national security relies on understanding the “nature of a threat and the vulnerabilities of the object at which the threats are directed” (Rudzit and Nogami, 2009, p. 6). In other words, when defining threats to its national security, a state may focus on either the internal or external realm. Thus, from such an analysis, public security and national defense emerge as fields addressed to each of these security spheres.
The function of public security consists of protecting citizens, preserving order, and preventing and suppressing crime through the action of specific state institutions, such as police forces and other social control agencies. The Brazilian legal framework, through Article 144 of the Federal Constitution, defines it as the “duty of the State, right and responsibility of all,” aimed at “the preservation of public order and the safety of persons and property.” To this end, it is exercised through bodies such as the Federal Police, the Federal Highway Police, the Federal Railway Police, civil police forces, military police forces, and military fire brigades, as well as federal, state, and district penal police forces (Brasil, 1988). Its scope, therefore, lies at the direct interface between state and society, whose horizon is everyday life, social coexistence, and the establishment of order, being characterized as an activity inherent to police agencies. Additionally, in the face of the growing complexity of the domestic security scenario, public security is increasingly integrated into other state activities, such as the economy, education, health, and other dimensions of Brazilian social organization (Santos et al., 2025).
National defense, in turn, has as its objects state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the protection of national interests. It is, therefore, the “set of attitudes, measures, and actions of the State, with an emphasis on military expression, aimed at defending national territory, sovereignty, and national interests against external threats, whether potential or manifest” (Brasil, 2025). Its primary instrument is the Armed Forces, comprising the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, with its logic being essentially strategic, geared toward the long term, the international environment, and the state’s capacity to resist external pressures and protect its resources and decisions. In this sense, the planning of actions directed toward the defense sphere is conditioned by the National Defense Policy (PND), which unfolds into the National Defense Strategy (END) and the Defense White Paper (LBDN) (Brasil, 2025).
National security, therefore, exhibits a dual nature that, while conceptually distinguishing public security—directed toward the domestic sphere—from national defense—focused on external threats—manifests itself, in practice, in a deeply interconnected manner. This can be observed both in the legal framework of the PND, which presents coordination with other existing national policies as one of its cornerstones (Brasil, 2025), and in the use of instruments that demonstrate, in practice, the overlap between the two fields.
The Guarantee of Law and Order (GLO) mechanism constitutes an emblematic example of this coordination. Provided for in the Federal Constitution and regulated by Complementary Law No. 97/1999 and Decree No. 3,897/2001, the GLO authorizes the deployment of the Armed Forces within national territory, under the express and exclusive order of the President of the Republic, in exceptional situations of serious impairment of public order, when traditional public security agencies have exhausted their capacity to contain the situation or restore normality (Brasil, 2026). It is, therefore, an instrument that mobilizes national defense capabilities to respond to public security demands. Examples of the use of this legal mechanism include the deployment of troops in pacification operations in Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, and Espírito Santo, as well as federal action during events such as the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20) in 2012; the FIFA Confederations Cup and Pope Francis’s visit to Aparecida (SP) and Rio de Janeiro during World Youth Day in 2013; the 2014 World Cup; and the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Brasil, 2026).
Another relevant example is the Armed Forces' operations in the Amazon, a region where state presence is crucial for national sovereignty and internal security. This is because issues such as illegal mining, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and the predatory exploitation of natural resources pose threats that challenge both public order and the country's territorial integrity. Security in the Amazon region, therefore, does not stem from a single scale or institutional domain, given that it involves local criminal dynamics articulated with transnational networks, placing simultaneous pressure on police forces and the Armed Forces. In this context, military presence in the border strip, beyond being an expression of national defense, is a condition for the state to perform basic public security functions (Nascimento et al, 2024).
Thus, these examples reveal that the boundary between public security and national defense is more porous than formal definitions suggest. In light of this understanding, it can be inferred that a state that invests in defense capacity not only protects its external sovereignty, but also builds the institutional, logistical, and human infrastructure that sustains state responses to internal crises.
The Impact of Investment in Security and Defense on Development
In a complementary manner, investment in these strategic areas has concrete effects on a state's development, as it contributes to fostering stability in the domestic environment. In this regard, Jerab (2024) demonstrates that national security and economic stability exert mutual and continuous influence. Just as military capability relies on economic processes and development to sustain itself, the economy depends on security and defense to operate under conditions of predictability and institutional confidence. The author asserts that achieving the core purpose of national security depends on maintaining a functioning economy capable of sustaining military, intelligence, and development activities—and that, conversely, an exploited or weakened economy tends toward strategic decline (Jerab, 2024). This structural interdependence is reinforced by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), who understand the capacity of state institutions to maintain order, enforce contracts, and uphold rights as a key element for the prosperity, or lack thereof, of a nation. In other words, without the state's capacity to guarantee internal security and territorial integrity, these institutions cannot be sustained. Investors, businesses, and markets depend on predictability to make long-term decisions, whereas insecurity increases transaction costs, discourages investment, undermines market functioning, and drives productive capital away from the most vulnerable regions. In this way, stability is seen as a direct product of investment in security and defense, with its absence constituting a substantial hindrance to a country's social and economic development.
At the domestic level, the costs of such neglect are measurable: estimates from the Atlas da Violência, prepared by the Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública, indicate that violence consumes about 11% of Brazilian GDP, representing over R$ 1 trillion annually in losses spread across curtailed investments, health and security expenditures, and lost productivity (FBSP, 2026). As Mazzucato (2014) argues, a state that fails to make strategic, long-term investments in the sectors that underpin its capacity to act—which include defense and security—abdicates its entrepreneurial function and compromises the very conditions that make development possible. Security and defense are, therefore, structural investments in the national project, without which the environment necessary for economic and social development cannot be sustained.
The Defense Industrial Base as the Material Structure of Strategic Development
The analysis of the impact of investment in public security and national defense on development demonstrates that the effectiveness of these policies depends on the existence of state capacities that are not confined to the institutional or normative sphere, but materialize in productive, technological, and organizational infrastructure (Mazzucato, 2014).
It is in this context that the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) emerges as a central element, constituting the material foundation that sustains and enables state action across internal and external dimensions of security, through the coordination of technological, industrial, and institutional capacities oriented toward defense and security (Brasil, 2025).
The DIB is defined as the set of enterprises, scientific and technological institutions, and state structures responsible for the development, production, and maintenance of defense-related goods and services, including research, development, and innovation activities, as well as logistical support for strategic systems (Brasil, 2025). Its role, however, extends beyond direct support to the Armed Forces, encompassing the provision of capabilities that are also mobilized in the sphere of public security. This occurs because, in practice, national defense and internal security share common instruments and technologies, particularly in a context where threats increasingly assume a hybrid, diffuse, and transnational character (Vergueiro, 2023).
In this sense, the relevance of the DIB becomes particularly evident in the development of dual-use technologies, understood as those suitable for simultaneous applications in the civilian, military, and public security fields. As Vergueiro (2023) argues, these technologies are defined by their end use rather than their development process. In this way, they can simultaneously meet the demands of the Armed Forces, internal security agencies, and the civilian sector. Furthermore, the author emphasizes that adopting this model optimizes the allocation of research and development (R&D) resources, especially in contexts of budgetary constraint, thereby enhancing the efficiency of public investment and its effects on the economy.
Within this scope, the interdependence between these dimensions reveals that the DIB acts as an integrating link between national defense and public security, particularly through the development of dual-use technologies capable of simultaneously meeting civilian, military, and security demands (Vergueiro, 2023). In border regions, where illicit dynamics frequently involve transnational networks, the use of surveillance and intelligence systems becomes essential both for safeguarding sovereignty and for confronting criminal activities (Santos et al., 2025). Thus, the distinction between internal and external security tends to lose practical centrality, being replaced by a logic of integrated security.
Another relevant aspect concerns strategic autonomy. Dependence on external suppliers in sensitive areas can compromise the state's capacity to respond to crises and limit its room for decision-making in contexts of international instability. In this regard, the defense literature indicates that mastering critical technologies and maintaining a domestic industrial base are central elements in ensuring states' sovereign decision-making capacity and strategic freedom of action (Saint-Pierre; Assis, 2025). Strengthening the DIB, therefore, reduces external vulnerabilities and ensures greater predictability in long-term planning, particularly in an international landscape marked by growing geopolitical competition and technological disputes.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the consolidation of the Defense Industrial Base relies on continuous investment and long-term public policies. Funding discontinuity and fluctuations in public investment jeopardize not only the sector's development, but also the state's very capacity to perform its security functions (Vergueiro, 2023). In this sense, investment in the DIB must be understood as an integral part of a national development strategy in which security, sovereignty, and economic growth are inseparable dimensions.
In this way, the Defense Industrial Base materializes, at the productive and technological levels, the capabilities whose importance was highlighted in the preceding section. By integrating national defense and public security through the same set of resources, technologies, and structures, the DIB establishes itself as one of the fundamental pillars of state development, while reinforcing the centrality of the state in building an environment of stability, innovation, and prosperity.
Conclusion
The analysis developed throughout this article has demonstrated that public security, national defense, and development do not constitute isolated spheres, but rather deeply interdependent dimensions within state action. Contrary to approaches that treat security and defense as secondary fields on the development agenda, it has become evident that these areas play a structural role in creating the conditions that make economic and social development possible.
Initially, it was found that the conceptual distinction between public security—focused on the domestic sphere—and national defense—directed toward external threats—does not hold rigidly in practice. Contemporary threat dynamics, marked by their transnational and complex nature, require integrated responses in which instruments, institutions, and capabilities are shared between these two spheres.
Subsequently, it was shown that investment in security and defense produces direct effects on development by promoting institutional stability, reducing uncertainties, and enabling the functioning of markets and institutions. The absence of these conditions imposes significant economic costs and compromises the state's capacity to sustain growth trajectories.
Finally, it was shown that the realization of these capabilities depends on the existence of a productive and technological base capable of sustaining them continuously. In this context, the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) emerges as a central element, integrating national defense and public security through the development of technologies, infrastructure, and strategic knowledge. Thus, the DIB not only strengthens the state's capacity to respond to threats, but also acts as a driver of innovation, value generation, and strategic autonomy.
Thus, it is concluded that investment in public security, national defense, and the Defense Industrial Base constitutes a fundamental component of a country's development strategy. These are structural investments that ensure order and sovereignty and, additionally, create the necessary conditions for the functioning of the economy and for social development. Disregarding this dimension compromises the material and institutional foundations that sustain development; recognizing it, in turn, makes it possible to integrate security, growth, and sovereignty into a long-term strategic project.