Gunboats and butter: The two percent guideline and NATO burden shifting in the maritime domain

Reference list

• Alozious, J. (2022). NATO’s two percent guideline: A demand for military expenditure perspective. Defence and Peace Economics, 33(4), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2021.1940649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J. (2019). Accidental rivals? EU fiscal rules, NATO, and transatlantic burden-sharing. Journal of Peace Research, 56(5), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319829690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J. (2021). Rusty guns and buttery soldiers: Unemployment and the domestic origins of defense spending. European Political Science Review, 13(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773921000102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J., & Bell, R. (2020). Defense planning in the fog of peace: The transatlantic currency conversion conundrum. European Security, 29(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2020.1716337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J., Kreps, S. E., Poast, P., & Terman, R. (2023). Transatlantic shakedown: Presidential shaming and NATO burden sharing. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 68(2-3), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027231167840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J., & Malesky, E. (2017). The continent or the “Grand Large”? Strategic culture and operational burden-sharing in NATO. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqw039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckley, M. (2015). The myth of entangling alliances: Reassessing the security risks of U.S. defense pacts. International Security, 39(4), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellais, R. (2017). Against the odds: The evolution of the European naval shipbuilding industry. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 12(1), 5–11.
   Google Scholar
• Blankenship, B. (2020). Promises under pressure: Statements of reassurance in US alliances. International Studies Quarterly, 64(4), 1017–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaa071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankenship, B. (2021). The price of protection: Explaining success and failure of US alliance burden-sharing pressure. Security Studies, 30(5), 691–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.2018624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankenship, B., & Lin-Greenberg, E. (2022). Trivial tripwires?: Military capabilities and alliance reassurance. Security Studies, 31(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2038662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blum, J., & Potrafke, N. (2020). Does a change of government influence compliance with international agreements? Empirical evidence for the NATO two percent target. Defence and Peace Economics, 31(7), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2019.1575141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueger, C., & Edmunds, T. (2023). The European Union’s quest to become a global maritime-security provider. Naval War College Review, 76(2), 67–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueger, C., & Mallin, F. (2023). Blue paradigms: Understanding the intellectual revolution in global ocean politics. International Affairs, 99(4), 1719–1739. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavatorta, E., & Smith, R. P. (2017). Factor models in panels with cross-sectional dependence: An application to the extended SIPRI military expenditure data. Defence and Peace Economics, 28(4), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2016.1261428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caverley, J. D., & Dombrowski, P. (2020). Too important to be left to the admirals: The need to study maritime great-power competition. Security Studies, 29(4), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1811448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CIA. (2023). The World Factbook.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, S., & Stiles, K. W. (2021). Who commits the most to NATO? It depends on how we measure commitment. Journal of Peace Research, 58(6), 1194–1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320980820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1984). Easy riders, joint production, and public goods. The Economic Journal, 94(375), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, T. W. (2003). Pivotal deterrence: Third-party statecraft and the pursuit of peace. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crisher, B. B. (2017). Naval power, endogeneity, and long-distance disputes. Research & Politics, 4(1), 205316801769170. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017691700
   Google Scholar
• Crisher, B. B., & Souva, M. (2014). Power at sea: A naval power dataset, 1865–2011. International Interactions, 40(4), 602–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.918039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deni, J. R. (2020). Security threats, American pressure, and the role of key personnel: How NATO’s defence planning is alleviating the burden-sharing dilemma. (Monograph No. 919). Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College Press. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/919.
   Google Scholar
• European Union Global Strategy. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, N., Eiran, E., & Rubin, A. (2021). Naval power and effects of third-party trade on conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 65(2–3), 342–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720958180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, N., & Shipton, M. (2022). Naval power, merchant fleets, and the impact of conflict on trade. Security Studies, 31(5), 857–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2153732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• France’s humiliation by America will have lasting effects. (2021, September 23). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/09/23/frances-humiliation-by-america-will-have-lasting-effects.
   Google Scholar
• Gannon, J. A. (2021). Use their force: Interstate security alignments and the distribution of military capabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Gannon, J. A., & Kent, D. (2021). Keeping your friends close, but acquaintances closer: Why weakly allied states make committed coalition partners. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 65(5), 889–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720978800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gartzke, E., & Lindsay, J. R. (2020). The influence of sea power on politics: Domain- and platform-specific attributes of material capabilities. Security Studies, 29(4), 601–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2020.1811450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, J., & Sandler, T. (2018). Demand for military spending in NATO, 1968–2015: A spatial panel approach. European Journal of Political Economy, 53, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2017.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerzhoy, G. (2015). Alliance coercion and nuclear restraint: How the United States thwarted west Germany’s nuclear ambitions. International Security, 39(4), 91–129. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janes. (2008–2020 additions). Janes fighting ships yearbook. Jane’s Group.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, W., & Sandler, T. (2020). NATO at 70: Pledges, free riding, and benefit-burden concordance. Defence and Peace Economics, 31(4), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2019.1640937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinne, B., & Kang, S. (2023). Free riding, network effects, and burden sharing in defense cooperation networks. International Organization, 77(2), 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818322000315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Balancing on land and at sea: Do states ally against the leading global power? International Security, 35(1), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machain, C. M., & Morgan, T. C. (2013). The effect of US troop deployment on host states’ foreign policy. Armed Forces & Society, 39(1), 102–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X12442306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, J., & Fariss, C. (2018). Power, proximity, and democracy. Journal of Peace Research, 55(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317727328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz, J., Fariss, C., & McMahon, R. B. (2019). Producing goods and projecting power: How what You make influences what you take. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(6), 1368–1402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002718789735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattelaer, A. (2016). Revisiting the principles of NATO burden-sharing. Parameters, 46(1), 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2022). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (1949). The North Atlantic Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2011). Alliance Maritime Strategy. NATO—Official text: Alliance Maritime Strategy, 18-Mar.-2011.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2015). The Secretary General’s annual report 2014. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_01/20150130_SG_AnnualReport_2014_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2023a). The Secretary General’s annual report 2022. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/sgar22-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2023b). NATO's maritime activities. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/70759.htm.
   Google Scholar
• NATO. (2024). The Secretary General’s annual report 2023. nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/3/pdf/sgar23-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, M., & Zeckhauser, R. (1966). An economic theory of alliances. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plümper, T., & Neumayer, E. (2015). Free-riding in alliances: Testing an old theory with a new method. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32(3), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214522916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posen, B. R. (2003). Command of the commons: The military foundation of U.S. Hegemony. International Security, 28(1), 5–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228803322427965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressman, J. (2008). Warring friends: Alliance restraint in international politics. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, R., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2022). Energy. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/energy.
   Google Scholar
• Sandler, T. (2015). Collective action: Fifty years later. Public Choice, 164(3–4), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-015-0252-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SIPRI. (2023). SIPRI military expenditure database. https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, G. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, G. H. (1997). Alliance politics. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stöhs, J. (2024). European naval power: From cold war to hybrid wars. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tallis, J. (2022, December). NATO’s maritime vigilance: Optimizing the standing naval force for the future. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2022/12/natos-maritime-vigilance-optimizing-the-standing-naval-force-for-the-future/.
   Google Scholar
• The Federal Government. (2022, February 27). Policy statement by Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and Member of the German Bundestag, 27 February 2022 in Berlin. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/policy-statement-by-olaf-scholz-chancellor-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-and-member-of-the-german-bundestag-27-february-2022-in-berlin-2008378.
   Google Scholar
• The Military Balance. (2023). Chapter four: Europe. The Military Balance, 123(1), 50–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2023). UNCTADstat database. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre.
   Google Scholar
• Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar