Citation

Solomon B. Def. Peace Econ. 2004; 15(3): 251-258.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/10242690320001608917

PMID

unavailable

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.