IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v32y1994i4p525-42.html

Alternative Collective-Goods Models of Military Alliances: Theory and Empirics

Author

Listed:
  • Conybeare, John A C
  • Murdoch, James C
  • Sandler, Todd

Abstract

How should the defense activities of allies be aggregated to determine the alliance-wide level of defense? Two alternative models--best shot and weakest link--are contrasted with simple summation of defense spending or manpower for aggregating allies' defense efforts. The authors extend the joint product model to include these methods of aggregation and devise an empirical procedure to test between best-shot and weakest-link models. They apply this test to four alliances: Triple Alliance (1880-1914), Triple Entente (1880-1914), Warsaw Pact (1963-87), and NATO (1961-87). The testing procedure can be applied to other collective choice situations. Copyright 1994 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Conybeare, John A C & Murdoch, James C & Sandler, Todd, 1994. "Alternative Collective-Goods Models of Military Alliances: Theory and Empirics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(4), pages 525-542, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:32:y:1994:i:4:p:525-42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Iryna Topolyan, 2013. "The Attack-and-Defence Group Contests," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 049, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Yukihiro Nishimura & Kimiko Terai, 2017. "Strategic delegation when public inputs for a global good are imperfect substitutes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 96-111, February.
    3. Hirshleifer,Jack, 2001. "The Dark Side of the Force," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009171, January.
    4. Todd Sandler, 2006. "Hirshleifer'S Social Composition Function In Defense Economics," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 645-655.
    5. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    6. Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler, 2001. "Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for Collective Action," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 869-896, September.
    7. Hausken, Kjell, 2006. "Jack Hirshleifer: A Nobel Prize left unbestowed," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 251-276, June.
    8. Maria del Carmen Garcia-Alonso & Keith Hartley, 2000. "Export controls, market structure and international coordination," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 481-503.
    9. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Lee, Dongryul & Sheremeta, Roman M., 2013. "Top guns may not fire: Best-shot group contests with group-specific public good prizes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 94-103.
    10. Ghislain Dutheil de la Roch�re & Jean-Michel Josselin & Yvon Rocaboy, 2014. "SDI, NATO, and the Social Composition Function," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 85-95, April.
    11. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Iryna Topolyan, 2015. "The Group All-Pay Auction with Heterogeneous Impact Functions," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 069, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    12. Stefano Barbieri & David Malueg, 2014. "Group efforts when performance is determined by the “best shot”," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 333-373, June.
    13. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Dongryul Lee & Iryna Topolyan, 2013. "The Max-Min Group Contest," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 050, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    14. Burnett, Kimberly M., 2006. "Introductions of Invasive Species: Failure of the Weaker Link," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 21-28, April.
    15. Binyam Solomon, 2005. "The demand for Canadian defence expenditures," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 171-189.
    16. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Iryna Topolyan, 2016. "Best-shot versus weakest-link in political lobbying: an application of group all-pay auction," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 959-971, December.
    17. Hubert Van Tuyll & Jurgen Brauer, 2003. "Colonizing military history: A millennial view on the economics of war," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 155-173.
    18. Rupayan Gupta, 2014. "Changing threat perceptions and the efficient provisioning of international security," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1312-1341, November.
    19. Fabio Padovano & Yvon Rocaboy, 2018. "How defense shapes the institutional organization of states," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 111-134, April.
    20. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Iryna Topolyan, 2016. "The Attack-And-Defense Group Contests: Best Shot Versus Weakest Link," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 548-557, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:32:y:1994:i:4:p:525-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.