Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who is keeping the peace and who is free-riding? NATO middle powers and Burden Sharing, 1995–2001

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this article is to test the free-riding hypothesis submitted by collective action theorists, and to ask the following research questions: What slice of the military burden did middle powers share in NATO’s first out-of-area operations in the Balkans between 1995 and2001? And what, if anything, can we infer from this? We concentrate on NATO’s Implementation Force (IFOR), Stabilization Force (SFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) operations and show that based on a so-called relative force share index middle powers shouldered a disproportionately high relative share in those peace operations. From this finding we draw a number of inferences for burden sharing studies and show avenues of future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a definition of middle powers see (Chapnick, 2005).

  2. The middle power concept has gone through distinct cycles of popularity (c.f. Ravenhill, 1998) and refers to a group of states that rank below the great powers in terms of their material capabilities and ability to project power internationally. They have an impact either in specific regions or issue areas, as well as the ‘tendency to pursue multilateral solutions to international problems’, ‘to embrace compromise positions in international disputes’, and ‘to embrace notions of ‘good international citizenship’ to guide diplomacy’ through international institutions (Keohane, 1969, p. 298; Holbraad, 1984; Cooper et al, 1993, p. 19).

  3. ‘The Alliance’s New Strategic Concept’, 7–8 November 1991, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23847.htm.

  4. I thank Todd Sandler for encouraging me to make this point stronger.

  5. To be clear, this article does not contribute to the literature on international political economy as it does not employ economic theories of burden sharing, and thus does not speak the language of economists. For a discussion of economic theories applied to NATO burden sharing see (Sandler and Hartley, 1999).

  6. The primary data of NATO’s defense spending is published in various reports and press releases, for example, by the Defense Planning Committee. A full list of the available data could be found here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49198.htm, accessed 8 April 2010.

  7. Domestic politics could also be a factor that may lead states to free ride despite being dependent on the alliance for delivering a public good (Bennett et al, 1994, p. 70; Bennett et al, 1997).

  8. Olson calls this the ‘privileged group’. For a recent application of Olson see (Ringsmose, 2010).

  9. Here the burden sharing literature intersects with that on international regimes, which for purposes of space cannot be discussed here further. See (Zyla, 2015) for an introduction.

  10. A good overview of this variant of collective action theory can be found in (Hartley and Sandler, 1999; Betts, 2003).

  11. To be sure, I am not suggesting that collective action theorists have not used relative indicators. They have by calculating defense spending as a share of GDP.

  12. The peace agreement was formally signed during an official ceremony in Paris on 14 December 1995.

  13. The list of non-NATO countries participating in the IFOR mission include states from the NATO’s Partnership for Peace program: Albania, Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Sweden and the Ukraine. Of particular note is that IFOR ground troops were augmented by a 2200-strong Russian contingent serving under a NATO command. IFOR AFSOUTH Fact Sheet, 1 March 1996.

  14. The period this study concentrates on is from 1995–2001, which excludes the years for SFOR after 2001. This also applies to the KFOR operation in the sections below.

  15. To be sure, the purpose here is to summarize rather than discuss the history of the Kosovo war in detail, which can be found in (Judah, 2002; Judah, 2005–2006). Also, the limitations expressed in Note 13 apply.

  16. While Sandler and Hartley (2001) point out that a joint products model exists when defense provision gives rise of multiple outputs, Boyer goes further and emphasizes that trading of these private benefits is possible.

  17. For example, Auerswald and Saideman (2014) as well as Williams (2013) have produced some interesting work on burden sharing in Afghanistan that could be further built upon.

  18. See, for example, Kay Bailey Hutchingson’s speech to the US Senate on 15 June 2011.

References

  • Asmus, R.D., Kugler, R.L. and Larrabee, F.S. (1993) Building a new NATO. Foreign Affairs 72 (4): 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, D. P. and Saideman, S. M. (2014) NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A., Lepgold, J. and Unger, D. (1994) Burden-Sharing in the Persian Gulf war. International Organization 48 (1): 39–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A., Lepgold, J. and Unger, D. (1997) Friends in Need: Burden Sharing in the Persian Gulf War, 1st edn. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, A. (2003) Public goods theory and the provision of refugee protection: The role of the joint-product model in Burden-Sharing theory. Journal of Refugee Studies 16 (3): 273–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, K. (2005) Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, M.A. (1993) International Cooperation and Public Goods: Opportunities for the Western Alliance. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S.G. and Wohlforth, C.W. (2008) World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. and Hynek, N. (2010) Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations. Abingdon, UK; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapnick, A. (2005) The Middle Power Project: Canada and the Founding of the United Nations. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T., Knud, E.J. and Wiener, A. (2001) The Social Construction of Europe. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coker, C. (1990) Shifting into Neutral?: Burden Sharing in the Western Alliance in the 1990’s, 1st edn. London; Washington DC: Brassey’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service (2003) Kosovo and Macedonia: US and Allied Military Operations. In Issue Brief for Congress. Washington DC: 8 July.

  • Cooper, A., Fenton, R., Higgott, A. and Nossal, K.R. (1993) Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, G. (2013) Player, partner and friend: Canada’s Africa policy since 1945. International Politics 50 (3): 412–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiscarelli, R. (1990) Europe Is Grabbing the Spoils of Peace. The New York Times 9 March: A35.

  • Forster, P.K. and Cimbala, S.J. (2005) The US, NATO and Military Burden-Sharing. London, New York: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. (2005) The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, R.M. (2011) The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO). A Speech Delivered by Secretary of Defense, Brussels, Belgium,10 June, 2011. Brussels: U.S. Department of Defense.

  • Gheciu, A. (2005) NATO in the ‘New Europe’: The Politics of International Socialization after the Cold War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, R. and Gilpin, J.M. (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glasius, M. and Kaldor, M. (2005) A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: Project, Principles, Possibilities, 1st edn. New York: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnesotto, N. (2004) European Defence: A Proposal for a White Paper. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M.R. (1989) U.S. War Game in West Germany to Be Cut Back. The New York Times 14 December: A23.

  • Hansen, L., James, C.M. and Sandler, T. (1990) On distinguishing the behaviour of nuclear and non-nuclear allies in NATO. Defence Economics 1 (1): 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, K. and Sandler, T. (1999) NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and future. Journal of Peace Research 36 (6): 665–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, G. and Kernic, F. (2006) European Security in Transition. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, R.C. (2006) Diplomacy and War at NATO: The Secretary General and Military Action after the Cold War. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henius, J. and MacDonald, J.L. (2012) Smart Defence: A Critical Appraisal. Rome: NATO Defence College. NDC FOrum Paper.

  • Holbraad, C. (1984) Middle Powers in International Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, J. (1987) The Limited Partnership: Europe, the United States, and the Burdens of Alliance. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, J. (1992) Collective security and the future of Europe: Failed dreams and dead ends. Survival 34 (1): 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judah, T. (2002) Kosovo: War and Revenge, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judah, T. (2005–2006) Kosovo’s moment of truth. Survival 47 (4): 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, L.S. (2004) NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashmeri, S.A. (2011) NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete? Washington DC: Potomac Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S.J., Little, R. and Wohlforth, W.C. (2007) The Balance of Power in World History. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. (1969) Lilliputians’ dilemmas: Small states in international politics. International Organization 23 (2): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. and Martin, L.L. (1995) The promise of institutional theory. International Security 20 (1): 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, V.M. (2010) The Globalization of NATO: Intervention, Security and Identity. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmidt, H. (2006) Migration, Regional Integration and Human Security: The Formation and Maintenance of Transnational Spaces. Aldershot, UK; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. (1988) NATO and the Persian Gulf: Examining intra-alliance behavior. International Organization 42: 317–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. and Kupchan, C.A. (1991) Concerts, collective security, and the future of Europe. International Security 16: 114–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. and Kupchan, C.A. (1995) The promise of collective security. International Security 20 (1): 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, D.A. (2001) The Balkan limits to power and principle. Orbis 45 (1): 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. and Olson, J. P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, J.M. (20 July, 1989) For Europe, a New Look: Bush Fixes U.S. Role as More Modest One. The New York Times: A9.

  • Marsh, S. (2006) The United States and the common European security and defence policy. In: J. Baylis and J. Roper (eds.) The United States and Europe: Beyond the Neo-Conservative Divide? New York: Routledge, pp. 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. and Kaldor, M. (2009) The European Union and Human Security: External Interventions and Missions. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (1995) A realist reply. International Security 20 (1): 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, R.L. and Zinnes, D.A. (1988) Validity of power indices. International Interactions 14 (2): 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J.C. and Sandler, T. (1982) A theoretical and empirical analysis of NATO. Journal of Conflict Resolution 26 (2): 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New York Times (1988) Sharing (Which?) NATO Burdens. 16 June: A26.

  • Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. and Zeckhauser, R. (1966) An economic theory of alliances. Review of Economics and Statistics 48 (3): 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, J.R. (1990a) Testing the theory of collective action: NATO defense burdens, 1950–1984. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (3): 426–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, J.R. (1990b) The theory of collective action and Burden Sharing in NATO. International Organization 44 (3): 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, J.R. and Elrod, M.A. (1989) NATO Burden Sharing and the forces of change. International Studies Quarterly 33 (4): 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, G. (1991) Deterrence, defense spending, and elasticity: Alliance contributions to the public good. International Interactions 7 (2): 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, M.V. (1970) Optimality, ‘public’ goods, and local governments: A general theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy 78 (3): 572–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2008) The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization 62 (2): 257–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A. F. (2011) Building security in an age of austerity, Keynote speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the 2011 Munich Security Conference, 4 February, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_70400.htm.

  • Ravenhill, J. (1998) Cycles of middle power activism: Constraint and choice in Australian and Canadian foreign policies. Australian Journal of International Affairs 52 (3): 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remarks by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at Carnegie Europe (2011) Brussels, October 5, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/10/20111005144250su0.9669001.html#axzz1n1Bt6i2O.

  • Ringsmose, J. (2010) NATO Burden-Sharing redux: Continuity and change after the cold war. Contemporary Security Policy 31 (2): 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, J. (1999) NATO’s new role in crisis management. The International Spectator 34 (2): 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B.M. (1970) What Price Vigilance?: The Burdens of National Defense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. (1977) Impurity of defense: An Application to the economics of alliances. Kyklos 30 (3): 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Cauley, J. (1975) On the economic theory of alliances. Journal of Conflict Resolution 19 (2): 330–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T., Cauley, J. and Forbes, J.F. (1980) In defence of a collective goods theory of alliances. Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 (3): 537–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Forbes, J.F. (1980) Burden-Sharing, strategy, and the design of NATO. Economic Inquiry 18: 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Hartley, K. (1995) The Economics of Defense. Cambridge, US: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Hartley, K. (1999) The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Hartley, K. (2001) Economics of alliances: The lessons for collective action. Journal of Economic Literature XXXIX: 869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Shimizu, H. (2002) Peacekeeping and Burden-Sharing, 1994–2000. Journal of Peace Research 39 (6): 651–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. and Shimizu, H. (2014) NATO Burden Sharing 1999–2010: An Altered Alliance. Foreign Policy Analysis 10 (1): 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelpfennig, F. (1999) NATO enlargement: A constructivist explanation. Security Studies 8 (2): 198–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. and Zyla, B. (2012) European Security Policy and Strategic Culture. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreer, B. and Noetzel, T. (2009) Does a multi-tier NATO matter? The Atlantic alliance and the process of strategic change. International Affairs 85 (2): 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. (2002) NATO – Upholding ethics in international security policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 15 (1): 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. and Sherwen, N. (1990) NATO 2000: A Political Agenda for a Political Alliance, 1st edn. London; Washington DC: Brassey’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J.D. (1988) Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions 14 (2): 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, D. (1991) Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation. American Political Science Review 85: 701–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, G. (1997) Alliance Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, B.E. (1988) Sharing the Defence Burden: Allies Are Listening. The New York Times, 6 September: B8.

  • United States, Deparmment of Defense (2000) Report to Congress: Kosovo/Operation Allied Force after Action Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Defense.

  • Walt, S.M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. and Shils, E. (1949) Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences, 1st edn. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. J. (2013) Enduring, but Irrelevant? Britain, NATO and the future of the Atlantic alliance. International Politics 50 (3): 360–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winess, M. (1991) Report on NATO Calls on U.S. To Cut Its Forces by Two-Thirds. The New York Times, 2 March: 3.

  • Wohlforth, W.C. (1993) The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers, A. (1962) Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yost, D. (1998) The new NATO and collective security. Survival 40 (2): 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyla, B. (2009) NATO and post-cold war Burden-Sharing: Canada the laggard? International Journal 64 (2): 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyla, B. (2015) Sharing the Burden? NATO and Its Second-Tier Powers. Toronto; New York: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, 120 University, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Ontario, Canada

    Benjamin Zyla

Authors
  1. Benjamin Zyla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zyla, B. Who is keeping the peace and who is free-riding? NATO middle powers and Burden Sharing, 1995–2001. Int Polit 53, 303–323 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2016.2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2016.2

Keywords

Search

Navigation