Toward Measuring Free-Riding: Counterfactuals, Alliances, and US–Philippine Relations

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Global Security Studies Pub Date : 2022-12-19 DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogac033
Xinru Ma, David C. Kang
{"title":"Toward Measuring Free-Riding: Counterfactuals, Alliances, and US–Philippine Relations","authors":"Xinru Ma, David C. Kang","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogac033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Do allies free ride? Although plausible, the concept of free riding relies upon a counterfactual: if the ally did not have a powerful patron, then it would invest more in its own defense. However, these claims are often asserted, not shown. The concept of free riding, although influential in the field of security studies, is almost unfalsifiable. In this article, we show logically how difficult it is to ascertain actual free riding. Rather than dismiss the entire concept, however, we attempt to provide two hypotheses and one scope condition that moves closer to a direct assessment of claims of free riding: first, if the ally is free riding, as the patron's commitment decreases, the ally should spend more on its own defense; second, all things being equal, a state with a powerful patron should spend less than one without. The key scope condition is whether the ally cares sufficiently about the issue to fight. We use the case of East Asia—and in particular the Philippines—to illustrate these dynamics. We conclude that the low defense spending of US allies and non-allies in East Asia is not free riding but rather a reflection of their low threat perceptions.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogac033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Do allies free ride? Although plausible, the concept of free riding relies upon a counterfactual: if the ally did not have a powerful patron, then it would invest more in its own defense. However, these claims are often asserted, not shown. The concept of free riding, although influential in the field of security studies, is almost unfalsifiable. In this article, we show logically how difficult it is to ascertain actual free riding. Rather than dismiss the entire concept, however, we attempt to provide two hypotheses and one scope condition that moves closer to a direct assessment of claims of free riding: first, if the ally is free riding, as the patron's commitment decreases, the ally should spend more on its own defense; second, all things being equal, a state with a powerful patron should spend less than one without. The key scope condition is whether the ally cares sufficiently about the issue to fight. We use the case of East Asia—and in particular the Philippines—to illustrate these dynamics. We conclude that the low defense spending of US allies and non-allies in East Asia is not free riding but rather a reflection of their low threat perceptions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量搭便车:反事实,联盟和美国-菲律宾关系
盟友们会搭便车吗?尽管看似合理,但搭便车的概念依赖于一个反事实:如果盟友没有一个强大的赞助人,那么它就会在自己的防御上投入更多。然而,这些主张往往是断言的,而不是表现出来的。搭便车的概念虽然在安全研究领域很有影响力,但几乎是不可证伪的。在本文中,我们从逻辑上说明确定实际的搭便车是多么困难。然而,我们并没有否定整个概念,而是试图提供两个假设和一个更接近于直接评估免费搭便车主张的范围条件:首先,如果盟国是免费搭便车,随着赞助人的承诺减少,盟国应该在自己的防御上花费更多;其次,在所有条件都相同的情况下,拥有强大靠山的国家应该比没有靠山的国家花费更少。关键的范围条件是盟国是否足够关心这个问题。我们以东亚,特别是菲律宾为例来说明这些动态。我们的结论是,美国在东亚的盟友和非盟友的低国防开支不是搭便车,而是反映了他们对低威胁的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Global Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Multilateral Maritime Exercises, Grand Strategy, and Strategic Change: The American Case and Beyond Trust at Risk: The Effect of Proximity to Cyberattacks Do States Really Sink Costs to Signal Resolve? Geopolitics and Genocide: Patron Interests, Client Crises, and Realpolitik Digital Rights and the State of Exception. Internet Shutdowns from the Perspective of Just Securitization Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1