Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. NATO's collective defense spending averaged 1.72% of GDP over roughly two and a half decades, below the alliance's agreed 2% threshold, leaving a cumulative shortfall the authors estimate at over $2tn that was not invested in force structure, modernization, and readiness. The authors argue closing the gap requires years of sustained investment beyond current commitments.

Mackenzie Eaglen and Cole Spiller American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Between 2000 and 2024, NATO’s defense spending averaged 1.72% of GDP, a cumulative $2T short of the 2% target, “funds that should have been invested…in force structure, modernization, and readiness but were instead deferred or cut.” @MEaglen

How large is NATO's cumulative defense spending shortfall?

Core argument: NATO's collective defense spending averaged 1.72% of GDP from 2000 to 2024, below the agreed 2% threshold, producing a cumulative alliance-wide defense spending deficit of more than $2 trillion.

From 2000 to 2024, NATO’s collective defense spending averaged just 1.72% of GDP, well below the agreed-upon 2% threshold. The result is a defense spending deficit totaling over $2 trillion across the alliance—funds that should have been invested under the 2% of GDP framework in force structure, modernization, and readiness but were instead deferred or cut. This deficit peaked in 2014, coinciding with Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, which prompted a renewed focus on defense investment. Closing this gap will take years of sustained investment beyond current commitments. As illustrated on the battlefield in Ukraine, modern warfare demands consistent investment in large-scale force generation, munitions stockpiles, and industrial capacity—all of which require a funding framework beyond a static percentage of GDP.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. NATO's collective defense spending averaged 1.72% of GDP from 2000 to 2024, below the agreed 2% threshold, producing a cumulative alliance-wide defense spending deficit of more than $2 trillion.
  2. The NATO defense spending deficit peaked in 2014, coinciding with Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, which prompted renewed focus on defense investment.
  3. Closing NATO's spending gap will require years of sustained investment beyond current commitments, and the war in Ukraine illustrates that large-scale force generation, munitions stockpiles, and industrial capacity need a funding framework beyond a static share of GDP.

Related Articles:

  • Germany’s Parliament Approves Friedrich Merz’s €1tn Spending Plan — Germany's parliament approved constitutional changes allowing up to €1tn for military and infrastructure spending, including unlimited borrowing for defense and a €500bn, 12-year fund to modernize hospitals, schools, roads and energy networks. The plan could revive Europe's largest economy and boost EU rearmament efforts.
  • German Army Struggles to Get Gen Z Recruits ‘Ready for War’ — Germany's armed forces commissioner warned the country is not moving closer to its target of 203,000 active troops by 2031, as the military slightly shrank amid high dropout rates, with a quarter of new recruits leaving within six months. Conscientious objector applications reached 2,998, up from 200 in 2021.
  • The Intellectual Spoils of War? Defense RD, Productivity and International Spillovers — The authors estimate that a 10% increase in government-financed R&D, largely defense, is associated with a 4.3% rise in privately funded R&D across OECD countries, indicating "crowding in" rather than "crowding out." They also find international spillovers raise private R&D abroad, though the overall effect on US productivity growth is modest.
Showing 492 database articles primarily about either Productivity, Cronyism, Incentives/Risk-Taking, Innovation/Research, Institutional Capabilities, Intangibles, Investment, Startups, or Workforce Reorganization
Currently filtering by: