Budget Breaker? The Financial Cost of US Military Alliances

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Security Studies Pub Date : 2021-10-20 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2021.2021280

J. Alley, M. Fuhrmann

{"title":"Budget Breaker? The Financial Cost of US Military Alliances","authors":"J. Alley, M. Fuhrmann","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2021.2021280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do alliance commitments affect US military spending? This question is at the heart of debates about the value of alliances and the future of US grand strategy. One perspective, which we call the budget hawk view, asserts that alliances are exorbitantly expensive, as they require military investments to deter third-party adversaries and reassure allies, encourage free riding, and facilitate reckless allied behavior. A competing view, which we label the bargain hunter perspective, claims that US alliance commitments are relatively cheap and might even reduce military spending. Allies provide key military capabilities, reassurance and extended deterrence are cheaper than they might initially seem, and alliances reduce the need for costly military interventions by promoting peace. Despite the importance of this debate, few studies have attempted to determine how alliance commitments affect US military spending. We use over-time variation in the number of US alliance commitments to estimate their financial toll. A statistical model of US defense expenditures from 1947 to 2019 shows that one new alliance commitment has a large positive association with defense budget levels in subsequent years. Military alliances benefit the United States in many ways but, consistent with the budget hawk view, they are expensive.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"30 1","pages":"661 - 690"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.2021280","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract How do alliance commitments affect US military spending? This question is at the heart of debates about the value of alliances and the future of US grand strategy. One perspective, which we call the budget hawk view, asserts that alliances are exorbitantly expensive, as they require military investments to deter third-party adversaries and reassure allies, encourage free riding, and facilitate reckless allied behavior. A competing view, which we label the bargain hunter perspective, claims that US alliance commitments are relatively cheap and might even reduce military spending. Allies provide key military capabilities, reassurance and extended deterrence are cheaper than they might initially seem, and alliances reduce the need for costly military interventions by promoting peace. Despite the importance of this debate, few studies have attempted to determine how alliance commitments affect US military spending. We use over-time variation in the number of US alliance commitments to estimate their financial toll. A statistical model of US defense expenditures from 1947 to 2019 shows that one new alliance commitment has a large positive association with defense budget levels in subsequent years. Military alliances benefit the United States in many ways but, consistent with the budget hawk view, they are expensive.

查看原文本刊更多论文

预算断路器?美国军事联盟的财政成本

摘要联盟承诺如何影响美国军费开支？这个问题是关于联盟价值和美国大战略未来的争论的核心。一种观点，我们称之为预算鹰派观点，认为联盟的成本过高，因为它们需要军事投资来威慑第三方对手和安抚盟友，鼓励搭便车，并为鲁莽的联盟行为提供便利。一种相互竞争的观点，我们称之为讨价还价的观点，声称美国的联盟承诺相对便宜，甚至可能减少军费开支。盟友提供了关键的军事能力，保证和扩大威慑比最初看起来更便宜，联盟通过促进和平减少了对昂贵军事干预的需求。尽管这场辩论很重要，但很少有研究试图确定联盟承诺如何影响美国军费开支。我们使用美国联盟承诺数量随时间的变化来估计其财务损失。1947年至2019年美国国防支出的统计模型显示，一项新的联盟承诺与随后几年的国防预算水平有很大的正相关。军事联盟在很多方面对美国有利，但与预算鹰派的观点一致，它们的成本很高。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.