Budget Restraint and Military Expenditures in NATO Countries: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad purpose of this report is to review the academic and scientific literature on the factors affecting the quantity and quality of expenditures on defence by members of a military alliance. The motivation for the study is the expectation that countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will be facing budget constraints that will impinge on their contributions to collective security. In addition there has been an increasing tendency to rely on “coalitions of the willing” as the dominant organizing framework for recent military missions undertaken by several NATO members outside the European theatre. This evolving strategic environment suggests that NATO member countries may face pressures to rebalance military force structure and procurement in order to meet changing priorities. Specifically, some countries may potentially wish to alter the relative emphasis that they place on national (“private”) and alliance (“public”) military objectives. In addition, engagement in relatively more offensive missions out of the traditional NATO theatres of operation may also generate pressure to rebalance military forces accordingly. \n \nThis literature review is structured in the following manner. Section 2 will examine the literature on military alliances and identity insights relevant for the current review. Section 3 will examine more specific examinations of the production and supply of military goods, while a fourth section focuses on the demand side. A concluding section will identify the key lessons that emerge from the review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".