Abstract
Editors' note. In Volume 33, Number 4, of ISQ an article appeared entitled Burden Sharing and the Forces of Change. In this article, authors John Oneal and Mark Elrod challenged collective goods interpretations of alliances, especially of NATO. Oneal and Elrod put forward an alternative model based on hegemonic stability theory. In the following exchange, James C. Murdoch and Todd Sandler, major contributors to the collective goods approach to alliance studies, defend this school and contrast it on substantive and methodological grounds to Oneal and Elrod's alternative. John Oneal then offers a brief rebuttal in which the challenge to the collective goods interpretation of NATO is reasserted.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
