IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/bny96.html

Public Perceptions of NATO: US Leadership and Defense Spending

Author

Listed:
  • Fay, Erik

Abstract

This study examines the factors that influence public opinion on the topic of international security and foreign policy preferences in 13 NATO member countries between 2004-2012. Specifically, I focus on how individual foreign policy preferences (i.e. support for strong U.S leadership) drive public perceptions of NATO as being essential for security. I then explore if there is divergence within NATO in the form of differences in public opinion due the level of military spending within each country. These questions fill an important gap in the literature by tying individual level public opinion to questions of burden sharing and free riding within NATO, with the goal of explaining how citizens’ preferences are influenced by their domestic environment. Empirical evidence from a multilevel model suggest that individuals who prefer strong US leadership are more likely to perceive NATO as essential for security unless they are in a country that met the 2% defense spending criteria established by the alliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Fay, Erik, 2020. "Public Perceptions of NATO: US Leadership and Defense Spending," SocArXiv bny96, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:bny96
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/bny96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/600ee168b6416f020db04cbb/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/bny96?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Collier, Paul & Hoeffler, Anke, 2002. "Military expenditure - threats, aid, and arms races," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2927, The World Bank.
    2. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard J. Stoll, 2017. "The Acceptability of War and Support for Defense Spending," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(4), pages 788-813, April.
    3. Powell, Robert, 1993. "Guns, Butter, and Anarchy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 115-132, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:osf:socarx:bny96_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. J. Paul Dunne & Sam Perlo-Freeman & Ron Smith, 2008. "The Demand For Military Expenditure In Developing Countries: Hostility Versus Capability," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 293-302.
    3. James D. Morrow, 1997. "When Do “Relative Gains†Impede Trade?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 12-37, February.
    4. Maxwell, John W. & Reuveny, Rafael, 2005. "Continuing conflict," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 30-52, September.
      • John W. Maxwell & Rafael Reuveny, 2004. "Continuing Conflict," Working Papers 2004-27, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    5. Chan, Kenneth S. & Laffargue, Jean-Pierre, 2016. "Plunder and tribute in a Malthusian world," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 138-150.
    6. Gautam Bose, 2023. "Contributing to Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(10), pages 1993-2027, November.
    7. Hirshleifer, Jack, 1995. "Theorizing about conflict," Handbook of Defense Economics, in: Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler (ed.), Handbook of Defense Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 165-189, Elsevier.
    8. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Laughren, Kevin & Sheremeta, Roman, 2020. "War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 998-1013.
    9. Javadbay Khalilzada, 2024. "Does the Offence– Defence Theory Explain War Onset Between Small States? Causes and Consequences of the 2020–2023 Armenia–Azerbaijan War," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 11(2), pages 190-213, June.
    10. Martin Mcguire, 2002. "Property distribution and configurations of sovereign states: A rational economic model," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 251-270.
    11. Maximilian Andres, 2023. "Communication in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: Theory and Experiments," Papers 2304.12297, arXiv.org.
    12. Joseph Warren, 2024. "How the structure of legal authority affects political inequality," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 151-173, June.
    13. Mr. Benedict J. Clements & Mr. Sanjeev Gupta & Saida Khamidova, 2019. "Is Military Spending Converging Across Countries? An Examination of Trends and Key Determinants," IMF Working Papers 2019/196, International Monetary Fund.
    14. Seitz, Michael & Tarasov, Alexander & Zakharenko, Roman, 2015. "Trade costs, conflicts, and defense spending," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 305-318.
    15. Garfinkel, Michelle R. & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2021. "Self-enforcing peace agreements that preserve the status quo," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 148-178.
    16. Herschel I. Grossman, 2003. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!," NBER Working Papers 9635, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.
    18. Kazuhiro Obayashi, 2014. "Information, rebel organization and civil war escalation: The case of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 21-40, March.
    19. Alptekin, Aynur & Levine, Paul, 2012. "Military expenditure and economic growth: A meta-analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 636-650.
    20. Will Kielm, 2024. "A contest model of balancing," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 195-221, April.
    21. M. Christian Lehmann, 2020. "Aiding refugees, aiding peace?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1687-1704, September.

    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:osf:socarx:bny96. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.