Dividing Labor: Wartime Coalitions and Burden Sharing

• In Event: Alliance Politics

Abstract

How do wartime coalitions share burdens? Coalitions are wartime organizations created by belligerent states to maintain their self-interest while working towards defeating a common enemy. Coalitions are different than alliances in that alliances often predate the conflict and are characterized by antebellum planning. The lack of prewar planning and differing interests can create friction while determining how the wartime burden is shared between coalition members and, thus, what objectives to prioritize. A classic example of this tension is with the Allies during the Second World War when the British often proposed operations that would have aided in the postwar restoration of parts of the British Empire, even at the expense of the speedy defeat of the Third Reich. These operations are something their American (and Soviet) allies were reluctant to support.
The burden to be shared is determining the overall operational objectives during the conflict and matching available means to the objectives. This conceptualization departs from existing theories of alliance burden sharing, which view the burden to be shared regarding troop contributions or the percentage of GDP contributed to defense. This coalition theory rests on a "division of labor" view of coalition burden sharing. In this view, what is important is how much of the military "bundle of tasks" required for military success is handled by each member. It is important to note that this study's analysis level is at the operational level. This study assumes a high level of strategic concordance between the coalition members, and the friction is due to members disagreeing on how to achieve their shared strategic goals. Members perceived as taking a larger share of the burden will have more of a say in the postwar political order and have their unique demands added as part of the peace agreement.

Author

• Robert Maxwell, University of Washington