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. 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.
    3. Chan, Kenneth S. & Laffargue, Jean-Pierre, 2016. "Plunder and tribute in a Malthusian world," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 138-150.
    4. Gautam Bose, 2023. "Contributing to Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(10), pages 1993-2027, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2018. "Political economy of dynamic resource wars," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 765-782.
    10. L. Lambertini, 2006. "Is America Unrivaled? A Repeated Game Analysis," Working Papers 563, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Michelle Garfinkel & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2022. "International Trade and Stable Resolutions of Resource Disputes," School of Economics Working Paper Series 2022-9, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University.
    12. 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.
    13. Canidio, Andrea & Karle, Heiko, 2022. "The focusing effect in negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 1-20.
    14. Muhammad Kabir, 2019. "The Role of Side Payments in the Formation of Asymmetric Alliances: Forging the US–Pakistan Alliance," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(2), pages 162-188, August.
    15. Nathan Fiala & Stergios Skaperdas, 2011. "Economic Perspectives on Civil Wars," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Garfinkel, Michelle R. & Skaperdas, Stergios, 2007. "Economics of Conflict: An Overview," Handbook of Defense Economics, in: Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler (ed.), Handbook of Defense Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 649-709, Elsevier.
    17. Baier, Alexandra & Seelos, Sophia & Rittmannsberger, Thomas, 2024. "Peace in an unequal world? Experimental evidence on the relationship between inequality and conflict in a guns-vs-butter setting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 74-87.
    18. Daron Acemoglu & Mikhail Golosov & Aleh Tsyvinski & Pierre Yared, 2012. "A Dynamic Theory of Resource Wars," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 283-331.
    19. Çağatay Bircan & Tilman Brück & Marc Vothknecht, 2017. "Violent conflict and inequality," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 125-144, April.
    20. Victor Asal & Justin Conrad & Nathan Toronto, 2017. "I Want You! The Determinants of Military Conscription," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(7), pages 1456-1481, August.
    21. Michelle R. Garfinkel & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2019. "Problems of commitment in arming and war: how insecurity and destruction matter," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 349-369, March.

    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.