IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Nato Defense Expenditures: Common Goals Or Diverging Interests? A Structural Analysis

Listed author(s):
  • Jomana Amara

By testing for structural breaks in defense expenditures, the dates of change in the pattern of defense expenditures for the NATO allies are determined. If NATO members are responding to a common threat, the breaks should be similar, in both direction and dates, for defense expenditures. The breaks should occur during major NATO strategy shifts. The results of the structural analysis tests suggest that NATO allies do not have an integrated response to NATO-specific defense issues. It appears that NATO members, in general, adjusted their defense spending according to economic imperatives, political issues, and ally-specific defense agendas.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690701823259
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Defence and Peace Economics.

Volume (Year): 19 (2008)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 449-469

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:19:y:2008:i:6:p:449-469
DOI: 10.1080/10242690701823259
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20

Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GDPE20

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Selami Sezgin & Julide Yildirim, 2002. "The Demand for Turkish Defence Expenditure," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 121-128.
  2. 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.
  3. Binyam Solomon, 2004. "Nato burden sharing revisited," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 251-258.
  4. 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.
  5. Toshihiro Ihori, 2000. "Defense Expenditures and Allied Cooperation," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-68, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
  6. Pavel Yakovlev, 2007. "Arms Trade, Military Spending, And Economic Growth," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 317-338.
  7. Todd Sandler & James C. Murdoch, 2000. "On sharing NATO defence burdens in the 1990s and beyond," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(3), pages 297-327, September.
  8. Perron, P. & Bai, J., 1995. "Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes," Cahiers de recherche 9552, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en ├ęconomie quantitative, CIREQ.
  9. Devarajan, Shantayanan & Swaroop, Vinaya & Heng-fu, Zou, 1996. "The composition of public expenditure and economic growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 313-344, April.
  10. Jurgen Brauer, 2002. "Survey and Review of the Defense Economics Literature on Greece and Turkey: What Have We Learned?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 85-107.
  11. Jyoti Khanna & Todd Sandler, 1997. "Conscription, peace-keeping, and foreign assistance: NATO burden sharing in the post-cold war era," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 101-121.
  12. Jushan Bai & Pierre Perron, 2003. "Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
  13. J Paul Dunne & Ron Smith & Dirk Willenbockel, 2004. "Models of Military Expenditure and Growth: A Critical Review," Working Papers 0408, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
  14. Donald W.K. Andrews, 1990. "Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 943, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  15. Toshihiro Ihori, 2000. "Defense Expenditures and Allied Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(6), pages 854-867, December.
  16. Christos G. Kollias, 1996. "The Greek - Turkish Conflict and Greek Military Expenditure 1960-92," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 33(2), pages 217-228, May.
  17. Sandler, Todd & Forbes, John F, 1980. "Burden Sharing, Strategy, and the Design of NATO," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(3), pages 425-444, July.
  18. John R. Oneal, 1990. "Testing the Theory of Collective Action," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 426-448, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:19:y:2008:i:6:p:449-469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.