Trade and Military Alliances: Evidence from NATO
-
Francisco J. Callado-Muñoz
,
Jana Hromcová
und
Natalia Utrero-González
Abstract
In this paper we analyse the effect of multilateral defence alliances in arms trade among allies. We postulate that the access to the frontier technology weaponry enabled only to military allies will intensify arms trade. The benefits of such trade are claimed to be in security and technology diffusion. We execute an empirical analysis for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Results show that being a member or partner of NATO significantly increases arm imports coming from the alliance, and that this increase cannot be attributed to economic and additional country characteristics.
Funding source: European Social Fund
Award Identifier / Grant number: ECO2016-76255-P
Funding statement: Financial support from the Ministry of Education and Science through grants RTI2018-095799-B-I00 (MINECO/FEDER), ECO2017-86305-C4-2-R, ECO2016-76255-P, the Regional Government of Aragón and the European Social Fund (S125 project: Compete), and the Centro Universitario de la Defensa Zaragoza through the 2018-12 project is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix
List of countries.
| Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, UK, USA, Ukraine, Uzbekistan |
References
Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-DSuche in Google Scholar
Bergsmann, S. (2001). The concept of military alliance, small states and alliances, 25–37. ISBN 978-3-7908-2492-6. ISBN 978-3-662-13000-1.10.1007/978-3-662-13000-1_4Suche in Google Scholar
Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, 8, 436–455.10.2307/144855Suche in Google Scholar
Blum, J. (2019). Arms production, national defense spending and arms trade: examining supply and demand. European Journal of Political Economy, in press.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.101814Suche in Google Scholar
Bove, V., Deiana, C., & Nisticò, R. (2018). Global arms trade and oil dependence. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 34, 272–299.10.1093/jleo/ewy007Suche in Google Scholar
Brauer, J. (2000). Potential and actual arms production: implications for the arms trade debate. Defence and Peace Economics, 11, 461–480.10.4324/9780203477168_chapter_3Suche in Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. (2001). “The atlantic burden-sharing debate- widening or fragmenting?” International Affairs, 77, 569–585.10.1111/1468-2346.00207Suche in Google Scholar
Flockhart, T. (2014). Introduction. In T. Flockhart (Ed.) Changing partnerships in a changing World (Vol. 1, pp. 17–34). Cooperative Security: NATO’s Partnership Policy in a Changing World. DIIS Report 2014. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.Suche in Google Scholar
García‐Alonso, M. C., & Hartley, K. (2000). Export controls, market structure and international coordination. Defence and Peace Economics, 11, 481–503.10.1080/10430710008404962Suche in Google Scholar
Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed conflict 1946–2001: a new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 615–637.10.1177/0022343302039005007Suche in Google Scholar
Gowa, J., & Mansfield, E. D. (2004). Alliances, imperfect markets, and major-power trade. International Organization, 58, 775–805.10.1017/S002081830404024XSuche in Google Scholar
Haim, D. A. (2016). Alliance networks and trade: the effect of indirect political alliances on bilateral trade flows. Journal of Peace Research, 53, 472–490.10.1177/0022343316630938Suche in Google Scholar
Hartley, K. (2000). The benefits and costs of the UK arms trade. Defence and Peace Economics, 11, 445–459.10.1080/10430710008404960Suche in Google Scholar
Long, A. G., & Leeds, B. A. (2006). Trading for security: military alliances and economic agreements. Journal of Peace Research, 43, 433–451.10.1177/0022343306065884Suche in Google Scholar
McGrattan, E., & Prescott, E. C. (2009). Openness, technology capital, and development. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 2454–2476.10.3386/w13515Suche in Google Scholar
Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14, 693–709.10.2307/2525981Suche in Google Scholar
Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to “difference” and “system” GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9, 86–136.10.1177/1536867X0900900106Suche in Google Scholar
Rynning, S. (2011). Why connect? On the conceptual foundations of NATO partnerships. In R. Alcaro & S. Lucarelli (Eds.), Managing change: NATOS’s partnerships and deterrence in a globalized World. Norfolk Virginia: NATO Allied Command Transformation.Suche in Google Scholar
Saal, D. (2001). The impact of procurement-driven technological change on US manufacturing productivity growth. Defence and Peace Economics, 12(6), 537–568.10.1080/10430710108405002Suche in Google Scholar
Sandler, T. (2000). Arms trade, arms control, and security: collective action issues. Defence and Peace Economics, 11, 533–548.10.4324/9780203477168_chapter_13Suche in Google Scholar
Schiff, M., & Wang, Y. (2003). Regional integration and technology diffusion: the case of North American free trade agreement. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3132.10.1596/1813-9450-3132Suche in Google Scholar
SIPRI. Yearbook. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2018.Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, R. P., & Tasiran, A. (2005). The demand for arms imports. Journal of Peace Research, 42, 167–181.10.1177/0022343305050689Suche in Google Scholar
Wallander, C. A. (2000). Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the cold war. International Organization, 54, 705–735.10.1162/002081800551343Suche in Google Scholar
Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 25–51.10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005Suche in Google Scholar
Yakovlev, P. (2007). Arms trade, military spending, and economic growth. Defence and Peace Economics, 18, 317–338.10.1080/10242690601099679Suche in Google Scholar
Zhu, L., & Jeon, B. N. (2007). International R&D spillovers: trade, FDI, and information technology as spillover channels. Review of International Economics, 15, 955–976.10.1111/j.1467-9396.2007.00691.xSuche in Google Scholar
Article note
We are grateful to participants at the nineteenth edition of the Conference on International Economics, the 19th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Science Conference and the editors for helpful suggestions and comments.
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Editorial
- Introduction to the Proceedings of the 19th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Science Conference
- Letters and Proceedings
- Let’s Call their Bluff: The Politics of Econometric Methodology
- Winner of the 2019 Lewis Fry Richardson Award, Jean-Paul Azam
- Introducing the “Religious Minorities at Risk” Dataset
- Introducing the Human Rights Violations Dataset for the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey, 1990–2018
- The Civilian Side of Peacekeeping: New Research Avenues
- The Security and Justice Approach in Liberia’s Peace Process: Mechanistic Evidence and Local Perception
- Violence and Avoidance Behavior: The Case of the Mexican Drug War
- Four Ways We Know the Democratic Peace Correlation Does Not Exist in the State of Knowledge
- Israel’s Foreign Aid to Africa & UN Voting: An Empirical Examination
- Could the literature on the economic determinants of sanctions be biased?
- Trade and Military Alliances: Evidence from NATO
- The United States and European Defense Cooperation European Strategic Autonomy and Fighter Aircraft Procurement Decisions
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Editorial
- Introduction to the Proceedings of the 19th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Science Conference
- Letters and Proceedings
- Let’s Call their Bluff: The Politics of Econometric Methodology
- Winner of the 2019 Lewis Fry Richardson Award, Jean-Paul Azam
- Introducing the “Religious Minorities at Risk” Dataset
- Introducing the Human Rights Violations Dataset for the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey, 1990–2018
- The Civilian Side of Peacekeeping: New Research Avenues
- The Security and Justice Approach in Liberia’s Peace Process: Mechanistic Evidence and Local Perception
- Violence and Avoidance Behavior: The Case of the Mexican Drug War
- Four Ways We Know the Democratic Peace Correlation Does Not Exist in the State of Knowledge
- Israel’s Foreign Aid to Africa & UN Voting: An Empirical Examination
- Could the literature on the economic determinants of sanctions be biased?
- Trade and Military Alliances: Evidence from NATO
- The United States and European Defense Cooperation European Strategic Autonomy and Fighter Aircraft Procurement Decisions
