Skip to main content

Good for Democracy? Evidence from the 2004 NATO Expansion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluating NATO Enlargement

Abstract

Democracy is more central to NATO’s identity now than ever. President Joseph Biden has referred to the war in Ukraine as part of ‘a battle between democracy and autocracy’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Another recent example of applying counterfactual reasoning to the legacy of NATO expansion is Marten (2018). Marten uses qualitative counterfactual analysis to consider whether Russia’s aggressive behavior toward countries in its ‘near abroad’ can be attributed to NATO expansion (or whether such behavior would have occurred even without NATO expansion).

  2. 2.

    Gunitsky (2015) offers a critique of Polity as a measure of democratic development in Eastern Europe.

  3. 3.

    Dahl referred to these as contestation and inclusion.

  4. 4.

    We do not include Croatia because, although it joined NATO in 2009, it was not a member of the 1999 MAP group. It joined the MAP in 2002.

  5. 5.

    This is setting aside the possibility that a state that is an EU applicant will expect to eventually become a NATO applicant. This is not unreasonable, as US officials viewed EU expansion as creating security obligations for the USA that would be more easily handled within NATO (Sayle 2019, 238).

  6. 6.

    The difference in means is statistically significant at the 0.99 confidence level.

  7. 7.

    Similar regression results are obtained using Polity2 as the dependent variable and estimating the model using ordered probit (as the Polity2 score is not a continuous variable, but an ordered categorical variable). The coefficients on EU Applicant Only and NATO and EU Member are positive and statistically significant, thereby suggesting that both are associated with higher Polity2 scores. Also, the coefficient on NATO and EU Member is substantially larger (1.65) than the coefficient on EU Applicant Only (0.47). The coefficients on NATO Member Only and Border with Russia are both negative and statistically significant, with the coefficient on Border with Russia (−1.45) being substantially larger than the coefficient on NATO Member Only (−1.01). The results can be reproduced using the replication materials.

  8. 8.

    Because of the panel structure of the data set, we also attempt to rerun our analysis by including a lagged dependent variable (to account for time dependencies) and including fixed effects for each country. The latter model is unidentified, as the fixed effects are colinear with the Border Mainland Russia variable. The former model is identified, and the coefficient values are consistent with those reported in Fig. 11.2. The main difference is that all of the coefficient values are reduced in magnitude and are rendered statistically insignificant (which is not unusual when including a lagged dependent variable). The other notable difference is that the sign on the NATO and EU Member variable’s coefficient flips to negative.

References

  • Adcock, R., and D. Collier. 2001. Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A.V. 1997. A Theory of Misgovernance. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1289–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S.R., K.C. Clay, and C. Martinez Machain. 2017. The Effect of US Troop Deployments on Human Rights. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (10): 2020–2042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K.A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T.A., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2017. Coming Together or Drifting Apart? The EU’s Political Integration Capacity in Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (2): 278–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borzyskowski, I., and F. Vabulas. 2019. Credible Commitments? Explaining IGO Suspensions to Sanction Political Backsliding. International Studies Quarterly 63 (1): 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno De Mesquita, B., J.D. Morrow, R.M. Siverson, and A. Smith. 1999. An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 93 (4): 791–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., A. Smith, R.M. Siverson, and J.D. Morrow. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, G.H.W. 1989. Remarks to the Citizens of Mainz, Federal Republic of Germany, May 31. Available at https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga6-890531.htm.

  • Bush, G.H.W., and B. Scowcroft. 1999. A World Transformed. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie, A., and N. Marinov. 2017. Foreign Aid, Human Rights, and Democracy Promotion: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. American Journal of Political Science 61 (3): 671–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie, A., and C. Samii. 2019. International Institutions and Political Liberalization: Evidence from the World Bank Loans Program. British Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 1357–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cathcart, W. 2022. “Georgia’s Ruling Party Is Tanking Its Own NATO Bid.” Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/08/georgia-nato-eu-russia/

  • Chinchilla, A. 2022. “Security Assistance Worked in Ukraine.” The Defense Post. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/14/security-assistance-ukraine/

  • Coakley, A. 2022. “Putin’s Trojan Horse Inside the European Union.” Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/03/hungary-orban-russia-conservative-politics/

  • Cooley, A. 2012. Base Politics: Democratic Change and the US Military Overseas. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S.I., Skaaning, S.E., and Teorell, J. 2015. “Measuring High Level Democratic Principles Using the V-Dem Data.” V-Dem Working Paper Series 2015:6. Gothenburg, Sweden: V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/b5/b8/b5b8a046-eb68-4a24–8a1f-771c57e34d03/v-dem_working_paper_2015_6.pdf .

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donno, D. 2010. Who Is Punished? Regional Intergovernmental Organizations and the Enforcement of Democratic Norms. International Organization 64 (4): 593–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R.A. 2005. NATO Enlargement and the Spread of Democracy: Evidence and Expectations. Security Studies 14 (1): 63–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. When Legacies Meet Policies: NATO and the Refashioning of Polish Military Tradition. East European Politics and Societies 20 (2): 254–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazal, T. 2007. State Death: The Politics and Geography of Conquest, Annexation, and Occupation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flockhart, T. 2004. “Masters and Novices”: Socialization and Social Learning through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. International Relations 18 (3): 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, Freedom. 2022. Freedom in the World 2022. Washington, DC: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2022b. “Ukraine: Country Profile.” Washington, DC: Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukraine/nations-transit/2022.

  • Freeman, A. 1997. “NATO Expansion a Numbers game.” Globe and Mail, 4 July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyburg, T., S. Lavenex, F. Schimmelfennig, T. Skripka, and A. Wetzel. 2016. Democracy Promotion by Functional Cooperation: The European Union and Its Neighbourhood. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallis, P.E., et al. 2018. Enlargement Issues at NATO’s Bucharest Summit. Report for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34415.pdf.

  • George C. Marshall Center. 2019. “The Marshall Center Mission.” https://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/en/nav-main-wwd-mission- vision-en.html.

  • Gheciu, A.I. 2005a. NATO in the New Europe: The Politics of International Socialization after the Cold War. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005b. Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe.” International Organization 59 (4): 973–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibler, D.M., and J.A. Sewell. 2006. External Threat and Democracy: The Role of NATO Revisited. Journal of Peace Research 43 (4): 413–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, K.S., and M.D. Ward. 1997. Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Polities. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (3): 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunitsky, S. 2015. Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics. In Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance, ed. A. Cooley and J. Snyder, 112–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S., and R.R. Kaufman. 1997. The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions. Comparative Politics 29 (3): 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W.J. 2002. The Institutional Environment for Infrastructure Investment. INdustrial and Corporate Change 11 (2): 355–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, H.B. 2006. The US Role in Korean Democracy and Security Since Cold War Era. International relations of the Asia-Pacific 6 (2): 157–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, P. 2013. Baltic Military Cooperative Projects: A Record of Success. Lawrence and Jermalavičius 2013: 246–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggers, K., and T.R. Gurr. 1995. Tracking Democracy’s Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4): 469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasekamp, A., and V. Veebel. 2007. “The Baltic States and ESDP.” In: The North and ESDP: The Baltic States, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, ed. K. Brummer, 9–22. Gütersloh: Beterlsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S.D., and J.M. Weinstein. 2014. Improving Governance from the Outside In. Annual Review of Political Science 17: 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuisz, J. and K. Wigura. 2022. “Will the Ukraine War Return Poland to Europe’s Democratic Fold?.” Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/11/poland-democracy-illiberalism-europe-ukraine-russia-war-eu-nato/

  • Lai, B., and D. Reiter. 2000. Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816–1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (2): 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepik, L. 2004. “Stability in the Neighborhood—a Challenge for the New EU and NATO Members.” EuroJournal. org-Journal of Foreign Policy of Moldova (02).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, S.I., M. Coppedge, J. Gerring, and J. Teorell. 2014. V-Dem: A New Way to Measure Democracy. Journal of Democracy 25 (3): 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loader, I., and N. Walker. 2007. Civilizing Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E.D., and J.C. Pevehouse. 2006. Democratization and International Organizations. International Organization 60 (1): 137–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E.D., and J.C. Pevehouse. 2008. Democratization and the Varieties of International Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (2): 269–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M.G., Jaggers, K., and Gurr, T.R. 2010. “Polity IV Data Series Version 2010.” College Park: Center for Systemic Peace, University of Maryland, pp. 1– 16. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.

  • Marten, K. 2018. Reconsidering NATO Expansion: A Counterfactual Analysis of Russia and the West in the 1990s. European Journal of International Security 3 (2): 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2014. Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs 93 (5): 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. “Getting Ukraine Wrong.” The New York Times, 13 March 2014. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html.

  • NATO. 1995. The Alliance’s Strategic Concept. In NATO Handbook, 40–42. Brussels: NATO.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995b. Study on Enlargement. 3 September 1995. Available at https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/ official_texts_24733.htm.

  • NATO. 2018a. “Air Policing: Securing NATO Airspace.” 16 May 2018, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_132685.htm.

  • ———. 2018b. “NATO Starts Montenegro Air Patrols.” 5 June 2018, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/ news_154999.htm.

  • ———. 2018c. Strategic Concepts. Updated 12 June 2018. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_56626.htm. Accessed 5 July 2019.

  • ———. 2022. Strategic Concept. Available at https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/

  • PBS News Hour. 2022. European Union Puts Ukraine on a Path Toward EU Membership. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/european-union-makes-ukraine-a-candidate-for-eu-membership.

  • Pevehouse, J.C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poast, P., and J. Urpelainen. 2018. Organizing Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, D. 2001. Why NATO Enlargement Does Not Spread Democracy. International Security 25 (4): 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudzīte-Stejskala, K. 2013. Financing Defence. In Apprenticeship, Partnership, Membership: Twenty Years of Defence Development in the Baltic States, ed. T. Lawrence and T. Jermalavičius, 168–201. Talinn: International Centre for Defence Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayle, T.A. 2019. Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, S.B. 2010. “Jerry, Don’t Go”: Domestic Opposition to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Journal of American Studies 44 (1): 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875809991332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spike, J. 2022. “Hungary’s pro-Putin PM Orban claims victory in national vote.” Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-viktor-orban-europe-nato-budapest-e29b5d42a86086bb65b413e2b6d1c2bc

  • Talbott, S. 1999. “America’s Stake in a Strong Europe.” Speech to Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 7 October 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDeveer, S.D., and G.D. Dabelko. 2001. It’s Capacity, Stupid: International Assistance and National Implementation. Global Environmental Politics 1 (2): 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhanen, T. 2000. A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998. Journal of Peace Research 37 (2): 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Borzyskowski, I., and F. Vabulas. 2019. Hello, Goodbye: When do States Withdraw from International Organizations? The Review of International Organizations 14 (2): 335–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • White House. 2022a. Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s Unprovoked and Unjustified Attack on Ukraine, February 24. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022a/02/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-on-ukraine/.

  • ———. 2022b. Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine. Warsaw, Poland, March 26. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022b/03/26/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-united-efforts-of-the-free-world-to-support-the-people-of-ukraine/.

  • Wiens, D., P. Poast, and W.R. Clark. 2014. The Political Resource Curse: An Empirical Re-evaluation. Political Research Quarterly 67 (4): 783–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wintrobe, R. 1998. The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zalkans, G. 1999. The Development of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Latvia. BAltic Defence Review 1: 8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Poast .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Poast, P., Chinchilla, A. (2023). Good for Democracy? Evidence from the 2004 NATO Expansion. In: Goldgeier, J., Shifrinson, J.R.I. (eds) Evaluating NATO Enlargement. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23364-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics