Abstract
ABSTRACTThe research programme on NATO burden sharing is heavily influenced by quantitative political economists who are interested in testing theories with statistical inferences and regression analysis. It uses predominantly rationalist, deductive reasonings and is informed by methodological individualism. However, there are significant theoretical and methodological limitations with such an approach, above all in understanding burden sharing as a social practice rather than a static outcome. This contribution offers suggestions for a post-positivist turn of NATO’s burden sharing research programme, especially those that highlight the importance of intersubjective meanings and the role of social forces, norms, beliefs, and values in burden sharing decisions that are not derived from material interests and reflexively inform behaviour. Such a post-positivist turn, we charge, would help us to explain how collective burdens are constructed and perceived by the member states. We also offer suggestions on how to operationalize this turn in the research programme.
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.
