IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v36y1999i6p665-680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and Future

Author

Listed:
  • Keith Hartley

    (Centre for Defence Economics, University of York)

  • Todd Sandler

    (Department of Economics, Iowa State University)

Abstract

NATO is facing major changes and challenges: enlargement, new threats, new missions, new technology, and declining defence budgets. These developments raise the question of who will pay for the changes and hence the possibility of new burden-sharing debates. burden-sharing was a focus of controversy in the past and it could re-emerge in the future. A variety of burden-sharing measures are reviewed. These range from such traditional indicators as the share of defence in GDP to a range of alternative military measures as well as civil indicators, such as contributions to UN humanitarian operations and economic aid. Burden-sharing debates are affected by choice of indicator. Different indicators give different rankings and results. Nations will select the indicator(s) which show that they are bearing an `unfairly' high burden of the collective defence effort. The final part of the article examines the likely developments in burden-sharing over the next decade (e.g. new missions, new technology, enlargement). On enlargement, emphasis is placed on the need to assess both the benefits and costs of NATO expansion and the conclusion focuses on the optimal size of NATO.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler, 1999. "NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and Future," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 36(6), pages 665-680, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:36:y:1999:i:6:p:665-680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/36/6/665.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Bogers Marion & Beeres Robert, 2013. "Mission Afghanistan: Who Bears the Heaviest Burden," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 32-55, April.
    2. Becker Jordan & Kuokštytė Ringailė & Kuokštis Vytautas, 2023. "The Political Economy of Transatlantic Security – A Policy Perspective," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 55-77, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Todd Sandler, 1999. "Alliance Formation, Alliance Expansion, and the Core," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 727-747, December.
    5. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    6. Benjamin Zyla, 2018. "Beyond the 2% fetishism: studying the practice of collective action in transatlantic affairs," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Johannes Blum & Niklas Potrafke, 2019. "Internationale Abkommen und Regierungswechsel: Evidenz zum NATO-Zwei-Prozent-Ziel," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(03), pages 18-21, February.
    8. Tony Addison & Mark McGillivray & Matthew Odedokun, 2004. "Donor Funding of Multilateral Aid Agencies: Determining Factors and Revealed Burden Sharing," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 173-191, February.
    9. Bernhard Klingen, 2011. "A Public Choice Perspective on Defense and Alliance Policy," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Kozłowski Grzegorz, 2019. "The Position of Burden Sharing in Current US Security Policy Vis-à-vis European Allies," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 108-126, December.
    11. Jomana Amara, 2008. "Nato Defense Expenditures: Common Goals Or Diverging Interests? A Structural Analysis," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 449-469.
    12. Anessa L. Kimball, 2019. "Knocking NATO: Strategic and institutional challenges risk the future of Europe’s seven-decade long cold peace," SPP Briefing Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 12(36), October.
    13. William Gates & Katsuaki Terasawa, 2003. "Reconsidering publicness in alliance defence expenditures: NATO expansion and burden sharing," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 369-383.
    14. Weber, Shlomo & Weber, Yuval & Wiesmeth, Hans, 2019. "Hierarchy of Membership and Burden Sharing in a Military Alliance," CEPR Discussion Papers 13965, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:sae:joupea:v:36:y:1999:i:6:p:665-680. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    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.