NATO BENEFITS, BURDENS AND BORDERS: COMMENT

Abstract

This note refutes criticism raised by Solomon about past tests used to ascertain the concordance between NATO benefits and burdens. In so doing, a case is made for keeping the benefit proxy based on exposed borders. Moreover, a truer sensitivity analysis than that offered by Solomon is suggested.

Keywords:

• Burden sharing
• Joint product model
• NATO
• Public goods
• Exposed borders

Notes

† Todd Sandler is the Robert R. and Katheryn A. Dockson Professor of International Relations and Economics. E‐mail: [email protected]

¹ On the relevant literature, see the recent survey by Sandler and Hartley (2001).

² Also see the development of the joint product model in Murdoch and Sandler (1982, 1984) and Sandler and Murdoch (1990).

³ The GDP share represents the industrial base protected; the population share indicates lives protected; and the exposed border share proxies resources and territory protected from threats beyond NATO.

⁴ For details of the pure public deterrence and joint product models, see Sandler and Hartley (1999, 2001).

⁵ See, for example, the Congressional Budget Office (1996) report.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Todd Sandler†

† Todd Sandler is the Robert R. and Katheryn A. Dockson Professor of International Relations and Economics. E‐mail: [email protected]