Zyla, Benjamin
Eclecticism and the future of the Burden-sharing research programme: Why Trump is wrong - International Political Science Review - 41(4), Sep, 2020: p.507-521
Since the birth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Europeans and the Americans have disagreed about who should share how much of the collective security burden. The input side of alliance burden sharing – that is, how many troops a member state contributes to the alliance – has been the privileged variable, both at the political as well as the academic levels. Other output variables (e.g. numbers of troops deployed to a particular mission) are highly contested. This article offers an analytically eclecticist framework for studying Atlantic burden sharing that allows combining variables on the input and output sides of the alliance burden sharing debate with those that consider it a social practice. – Reproduced
Collective action, Post-positivism, Institutionalism, International organizations, Burden sharing
Eclecticism and the future of the Burden-sharing research programme: Why Trump is wrong - International Political Science Review - 41(4), Sep, 2020: p.507-521
Since the birth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Europeans and the Americans have disagreed about who should share how much of the collective security burden. The input side of alliance burden sharing – that is, how many troops a member state contributes to the alliance – has been the privileged variable, both at the political as well as the academic levels. Other output variables (e.g. numbers of troops deployed to a particular mission) are highly contested. This article offers an analytically eclecticist framework for studying Atlantic burden sharing that allows combining variables on the input and output sides of the alliance burden sharing debate with those that consider it a social practice. – Reproduced
Collective action, Post-positivism, Institutionalism, International organizations, Burden sharing