IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v4y2018i1d10.1057_s41599-018-0204-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the 2% fetishism: studying the practice of collective action in transatlantic affairs

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Zyla

    (University of Ottawa
    Universität)

Abstract

NATO burden sharing is currently hotly contested. While it has been measured at the political, economic, and military levels and being looked at from the input and output side, the most commonly used variable to measure NATO BS is considering the percentage of GDP that a country spends on defense, which NATO agreed upon in 2014 should be 2%. The aim of this article is twofold. First, we review the most commonly used system- and state-level variables to explain burden sharing behavior and to carve out their explanatory limitations due to their strong rationality assumptions, positivist epistemologies, deductive, hypothesis testing research designs, and methodological individualism. The gap in the burden sharing literature currently is that it is unable to explain why a particular burden sharing behavior exists (i.e., free-riding) and why it occurred (or not) at a particular point in time. Our second aim is to make suggestions on how to fill these gaps by offering a selective number of post-positivist theories to study NATO burden sharing. We argue that we need to unravel the BS logics and social mechanisms that underpin BS decisions and behaviors, and hypothesize that states may, for example, not exclusively be informed in their burden sharing behavior by a logic of consequentiality but one of appropriateness. However, in order to gain access to this logic and social mechanisms, we need to employ post-positivist theories (and thus methodologies).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0204-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0204-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-018-0204-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-018-0204-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandler,Todd & Hartley,Keith, 1999. "The Political Economy of NATO," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521630931, January.
    2. Dessler, David, 1989. "What's at stake in the agent-structure debate?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 441-473, July.
    3. Johan P. Olsen & James G. March, 2004. "The logic of appropriateness," ARENA Working Papers 9, ARENA.
    4. Sandler, Todd & Hartley, Keith, 1999. "The Political Economy of Nato: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1441, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Oneal, John R., 1990. "The theory of collective action and burden sharing in NATO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 379-402, July.
    6. Wendt, Alexander, 1994. "Collective Identity Formation and the International State," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(2), pages 384-396, June.
    7. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    8. Grieco, Joseph M., 1988. "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 485-507, July.
    9. Weingast, Barry R. & Wittman, Donald, 2008. "The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199548477.
    10. Anessa L. Kimball, 2010. "Political survival, policy distribution, and alliance formation," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(4), pages 407-419, July.
    11. Kupchan, Charles A., 1988. "NATO and the Persian Gulf: examining intra-alliance behavior," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 317-346, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1998. "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 855-885, October.
    14. Snidal, Duncan, 1985. "The limits of hegemonic stability theory," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 579-614, October.
    15. Kratochwil, Friedrich & Ruggie, John Gerard, 1986. "International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 753-775, October.
    16. Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, 1984. "The theory of public goods: non-nash behaviour," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-379, April.
    17. Barnett, Michael N. & Levy, Jack S., 1991. "Domestic sources of alliances and alignments: the case of Egypt, 1962–73," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 369-395, July.
    18. Sandler,Todd & Hartley,Keith, 1995. "The Economics of Defense," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447287, January.
    19. Dorussen, Han & Kirchner, Emil J. & Sperling, James, 2009. "Sharing the Burden of Collective Security in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(4), pages 789-810, October.
    20. Finnemore, Martha & Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998. "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 887-917, October.
    21. Snidal, Duncan, 1991. "Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 701-726, September.
    22. Powell, Robert, 1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1303-1320, December.
    23. Bennett, Andrew & Lepgold, Joseph & Unger, Danny, 1994. "Burden-sharing in the Persian Gulf War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 39-75, January.
    24. Adler, Emanuel & Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 367-390, January.
    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. Remi Maier-Rigaud, 2008. "International Organizations as Corporate Actors: Agency and Emergence in Theories of International Relations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. James Ashley Morrison & Avery F. White, 2011. "International Regimes and War," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. 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.
    4. Shenkar Oded & Arikan Ilgaz, 2010. "Business as International Politics: Drawing Insights from Nation-State to Inter-Firm Alliances," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Hamanaka, Shintaro, 2018. "Theorizing regional group formation : anatomy of regional institutions from a membership perspective," IDE Discussion Papers 683, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    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. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Marc L. Busch & Eric R. Reinhardt, 1993. "Nice Strategies in a World of Relative Gains," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 427-445, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. James S. Mosher, 2003. "Relative Gains Concerns when the Number of States in the International System Increases," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(5), pages 642-668, October.
    13. Jason Blazevic, 2010. "The Taiwan Dilemma: China, Japan, and the Strait Dynamic," Journal of Current Chinese Affairs - China aktuell, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 39(4), pages 143-173.
    14. Hoyoon Jung, 2019. "The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    15. Margit Bussmann & John R. Oneal, 2007. "Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 88-111, February.
    16. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:46:y:2008:i::p:195-218 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Eloranta, Jari, 2004. "WARFARE AND WELFARE? Understanding 19th and 20th Century Central Government Spending," Economic Research Papers 269593, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    18. Raphael Bossong, 2011. "Public Good Theory and the 'Added Value' of the EU's Counterterrorism Policy," Economics of Security Working Paper Series 42, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Robert J. Hanlon, 2017. "Thinking about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Can a China-Led Development Bank Improve Sustainability in Asia?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 541-554, September.
    20. Tanja E. Aalberts, 2005. "Sovereignty Reloaded? A Constructivist Perspective on European Research," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0010, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    21. Mohammed Nuruzzaman, 2008. "Liberal Institutionalism and International Cooperation after 11 September 2001," International Studies, , vol. 45(3), pages 193-213, July.

    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:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0204-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.