Follow the Money: Burden-Sharing in Transatlantic Relations

Much has been written on transatlantic burden-sharing, focusing almost exclusively on relative levels of military spending. This article aims to provide, for the first time, a comprehensive, multi-dimensional estimate of the major costs and benefits of policy convergence on both sides. It has four analytic goals. First, it roughly estimates the net costs/benefits, quantitative and qualitative, of military spending on NATO priorities, in-kind provision, foreign aid, energy flows, arms sales, trade and investment flows, sanctions on such flows, regulatory convergence—issue by issue and across the board. Second, it traces how these costs/benefits has evolved since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, with special attention to changes since the beginning of President Trump’s first term in 2017. Third, it analyzes the extent to which observed patterns across different forms of commitment conform to logics of economic, bureaucratic, political, or comparative advantage? In other words, to what extent is this distribution more efficient at producing collective goods (security, wealth, etc.) than proposed alternatives, and to what extent is it the function of one-sided distributional benefits? Fourth, it interprets the data to assess the extent to which this multi-dimensional distribution of costs and benefits is politically sustainable and normatively fair, given current trends. Should those who seek to promote the deeper goals transatlantic cooperation welcome or criticize recent actions, or proposals for future action, to alter the terms of burden-sharing?