The overlooked importance of economics: why the Bush Administration wanted NATO enlargement

Bibliography

• Asmus, Ronald D., Opening NATO’s Door (New York: Columbia University Press 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Baker, James A. and DeFrank Thomas, The Politics of Diplomacy (New York: Putnam 1995).
   Google Scholar
• Ball, Christopher L., ‘Nattering NATO Negativism? Reasons Why Expansion May Be a Good Thing’, Review of International Studies 24/1 (1998), 43–67. doi:10.1017/S0260210598000436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergsten, C. Fred, ‘The Primacy of Economics’, Foreign Policy 87/87 ( Summer 1992), 3–24. doi:10.2307/1149158
   Google Scholar
• Blackwill, Robert D. and Jennifer M. Harris, War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Bozo, Frédéric, ‘‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’: France, the United States, and the End of the Cold War’, Diplomatic History 33/5 (November 2009), 927–56. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00818.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brands, Hal., ‘Choosing Primacy: US Strategy and Global Order at the Dawn of the Post-Cold War Era’, Texas National Security Review 1/2 (February (2018), 8–33.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, William J., The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal (New York: Random House 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Bush, George H. W., All the Best: My Life in Letters and Other Writings (New York: Scribner 1999).
   Google Scholar
• Copeland, Dale C., Economic Interdependence and War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Drozdiak, William., ‘NATO and former enemies sign pact slashing arms’, Boston Globe, 6 June 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Engel, Jeffrey A., When the World Seemed New: George H. W. Bush and the End of the Cold War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, Francis. ‘The End of History?’ The National Interest, 16 ( Summer 1989): 3–18.
   Google Scholar
• Gavin, Francis J., ‘Ideas, Power, and the Politics of U.S. Monetary Policy during the 1960s’, in Jonathan Kirshner (ed.), Monetary Orders: Ambiguous Economics, Ubiquitous Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 2003), 195–217.
   Google Scholar
• Gheciu, Alexandra, ‘Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe’’, International Organization 59/4 (2005), 973–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldgeier, James M., Not whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press 1999).
   Google Scholar
• Goldgeier, James M. and Joshua R. Shifrinson, ‘Evaluating NATO Enlargement: Scholarly Debates, Policy Implications, and Roads Not Taken’, International Politics 57/3 (2020), 291–321. doi:10.1057/s41311-020-00243-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horovitz, Liviu, ‘The George H.W. Bush Administration’s Policies Vis-à-Vis Central Europe: From Cautious Encouragement to Cracking Open NATO’s Door’, in Daniel S. Hamilton and Kristina Spohr (eds.), Open Door: NATO and Euro-Atlantic Security after the Cold War (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press 2019), 71–92.
   Google Scholar
• Kirshner, Jonathan, ‘Globalization, American Power, and International Security’, Political Science Quarterly 123/3 ( Spring 2008), 363–89. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00628.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, Mark, ‘The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia’, The Washington Quarterly 32/2 (April 2009), 39–61. doi:10.1080/01636600902773248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake, David A., ‘Economic Openness and Great Power Competition: Lessons for China and the United States’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11/3 (2018), 237–70. doi:10.1093/cjip/poy010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leffler, Melvyn, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1993).
   Google Scholar
• Mastanduno, Michael, ‘System Maker and Privilege Taker’, World Politics 61/1 (January 2009), 121–54. doi:10.1017/S0043887109000057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, Gideon, ‘The Fourth Founding: The United States and the Liberal Order’, Foreign Affairs 98/1 (February 2019), 10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarotte, Mary E., ‘Not One Inch Eastward?’, Diplomatic History 34/1 (January 2010), 119–40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00835.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarotte, Mary E., ‘Perpetuating U.S. Preeminence: The 1990 Deals to ‘Bribe the Soviets Out’ and Move NATO In’, International Security 35/1 ( Summer 2010), 110–37. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarotte, Mary E., ‘How to Enlarge NATO: The Debate inside the Clinton Administration, 1993–95’, International Security 44/1 ( Summer 2019), 7–41. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayle, Timothy Andrews, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Schake, Kori, ‘NATO after the Cold War, 1991–1995: Institutional Competition and the Collapse of the French Alternative’, Contemporary European History 7/3 (November 1998), 379–407. doi:10.1017/S0960777300004306
   Google Scholar
• Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation’, Security Studies 8/2–3 (1998), 198–234. doi:10.1080/09636419808429378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shifrinson, Joshua R., ‘Deal or No Deal? the End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion’, International Security 40/4 ( Spring 2016), 7–44. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shifrinson, Joshua R., ‘NATO Enlargement and US Foreign Policy: The Origins, Durability, and Impact of an Idea’, International Politics 57/3 (2020), 342–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shifrinson, Joshua R., ‘Eastbound and Down: The United States, NATO Enlargement, and Suppressing the Soviet and Western European Alternatives, 1990–1992’, Journal of Strategic Studies (forthcoming).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spohr, Kristina, Germany and the Baltic Problem after the Cold War: The Development of a New Ostpolitik, 1989-2000 (London: Taylor & Francis 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Spohr, Kristina, ‘Precluded or Precedent-Setting? The ‘NATO Enlargement Question’ in the Triangular Bonn-Washington-Moscow Diplomacy of 1990–1991’, Journal of Cold War Studies 14/4 ( Fall 2012), 4–54. doi:10.1162/JCWS_a_00275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spohr, Kristina, Post Wall, Post Square: Rebuilding the World after 1989 (New York: Harper Collins 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Trampusch, Christine and Bruno Palier, ‘Between X and Y: How Process Tracing Contributes to Opening the Black Box of Causality’, New Political Economy 21/5 (2016), 437–54. doi:10.1080/13563467.2015.1134465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, Michael C. and Iver B. Neumann, ‘From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity’, Millennium 29/2 (2000), 357–87. doi:10.1177/03058298000290020801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaks, Sherry, ‘Relationships among Rivals (RAR): A Framework for Analyzing Contending Hypotheses in Process Tracing’, Political Analysis 25/3 (July 2017), 344–62. doi:10.1017/pan.2017.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelikow, Philip and Condoleezza Rice, To Build a Better World: Choices to End the Cold War and Create a Global Commonwealth (New York: Twelve 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Zielinski, Cappella, Kaija Schilde Rosella, and Norrin Ripsman, ‘A Political Economy of Global Security Approach’, Journal of Global Security Studies (forthcoming).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar