Abstract
This article reviews the state of literature relevant to states’ burden-sharing behaviour within NATO. The purpose is two-fold: first, to delineate the different dependent variables and evaluate whether important questions have been left untreated, and, second, to assess strengths and weaknesses of the explanations that have been proffered. It is argued that while the system-level explanations capture major incentives to contribute, the domestic-level explanations are necessary in understanding specific decision-outcomes. The existing integrative models are superior to each explanation or level of analysis individually but tend to portrait domestic leaders as rather passive registers of international and domestic pressures. Empirically speaking, it is argued that more studies of contributions to distinct events, i.e. NATO operations, are needed, particularly focusing on cases of small states. The dependent variable of form of contributions is seemingly the least explored and may require incorporation of other theoretical arguments than utilized in existing works.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
