Nato burden sharing revisited

Binyam Solomon

Defence and Peace Economics, 2004, vol. 15, issue 3, 251-258

Abstract: This paper revisits the NATO burden sharing debate with particular emphasis on the use of non-parametric tests that measure the equality of relative benefits and burdens. While the joint product model makes a compelling case for the equality of benefits and burdens in NATO after 1967 (as a consequence of a change in doctrine) the empirical validation of the model is not robust when using non-parametric methods. The lack of knowledge of each ally's utility function, as well as the fact that an ally may have different benefits other than the protection of its industrial base, exposed border and population to consider render the test less robust, as shown in this study. Sensitivity analysis such as the one employed in this paper should be a standard procedure when devising new proxy measures and tests for burden sharing in NATO.

Keywords: Burden sharing; Joint product model; NATO; Public goods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2004
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690320001608917 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:defpea:v:15:y:2004:i:3:p:251-258

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GDPE20

DOI: 10.1080/10242690320001608917

Access Statistics for this article

Defence and Peace Economics is currently edited by Professor Keith Hartley

More articles in Defence and Peace Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().