FAS | Military Analysis | GAO |||| Index | Search |


NATO: History of Common Budget Cost Shares

(Letter Report, 05/22/98,
GAO/NSIAD-98-172).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization's (NATO) apportionment of cost shares has changed
over the years and how NATO determines what the members' cost shares
will be for its three common budgets.

GAO noted that: (1) NATO does not routinely evaluate members' cost
shares for any of its three commonly funded budgets; (2) rather, NATO
has adjusted the shares based on comprehensive reviews occurring at no
specific interval and in response to discrete events, such as entry of a
new member; (3) cost shares for the NATO Security Investment Program
(NSIP) budget, most recently reviewed in 1990, have been subject to
comprehensive reviews more frequently than the civil budget--last
reviewed in 1955, or the military budget--last reviewed in 1966; (4)
NATO has adjusted cost shares due to discrete events infrequently--in
1966, when France withdrew from NATO's military structure; in 1982, when
Spain joined NATO; and in 1994, when Canada sought to decrease its NSIP
share; (5) NATO has used various methods to adjust cost shares; (6) for
example, in 1955, NATO used expenditures to comprehensively review and
adjust shares for its civil and military budgets; (7) in contrast,
changes to NSIP cost shares in 1990 were based on negotiations among
members that considered factors such as each nation's capacity to pay
and the expected benefits from NSIP-funded projects; (8) NATO has also
relied on negotiations to adjust cost shares in response to discrete
events; (9) for example, when Spain joined NATO in 1982, its share was
determined through high-level negotiations and the other members' shares
were adjusted on a prorated basis; and (10) in 1997, the United States'
actual cost-share across all the common budgets was 28.45 percent.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-98-172
     TITLE:  NATO: History of Common Budget Cost Shares
      DATE:  05/22/98
   SUBJECT:  International relations
             Foreign policies
             Cost sharing (finance)
             Military budgets
             International organizations
IDENTIFIER:  NATO Security Investment Program
             France
             Spain
             Canada
             NATO
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                    <[email protected]>                        **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

May 1998

NATO - HISTORY OF COMMON BUDGET
COST SHARES

GAO/NSIAD-98-172

NATO

(711332)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
  PPP - purchasing power parity
  AWACS - Airborne Warning and Control System
  NSIP - NATO Security Investment Program
  GDP - gross domestic product
  GNP - gross national product

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279904

May 22, 1998

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K.  Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The debate regarding the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) raised questions about how NATO apportions costs
among its members for expenditures the organization has agreed to
commonly fund.  This report responds to your request that we provide
information on how the apportionment of those shares has changed over
the years and identify how NATO determines what the members' cost
shares will be for its three common budgets. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

NATO member states provide resources to support the alliance in two
ways.  First, countries, at their own expense, maintain forces and
assets that they pledge to NATO through a defense planning process. 
Second, countries make contributions to NATO's three commonly funded
budgets.  These three budgets are the civil budget, which primarily
funds the civilian headquarters and personnel in Brussels, Belgium,
for NATO's political structure (about $164 million planned for 1999);
NATO's military budget, which primarily funds operations and
maintenance for its military headquarters and activities (about $720
million planned for 1999); and the NATO Security Investment Program
(NSIP) budget,\1 which primarily funds infrastructure improvements
(about $734 million planned for 1999).  Each member contributes an
established percentage of each budget.  Changes to the cost share
require alliance consensus, as do all decisions in NATO.  Appendix I
identifies the apportionment of current cost shares to NATO members
for each of the common budgets. 


--------------------
\1 Prior to December 1994, the NSIP budget was known as the Common
Infrastructure Program.  For ease of publication, this report will
refer to the NSIP and its predecessor programs as the NSIP or
infrastructure budget. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

NATO does not routinely evaluate members' cost shares for any of its
three commonly funded budgets.  Rather, NATO has adjusted the shares
based on comprehensive reviews occurring at no specific interval
and/or in response to discrete events, such as entry of a new member. 
Cost shares for the NSIP budget, most recently reviewed in 1990, have
been subject to comprehensive reviews more frequently than the civil
budget--last reviewed in 1955, or the military budget--last reviewed
in 1966.  NATO has adjusted cost shares due to discrete events
infrequently--in 1966, when France withdrew from NATO's military
structure; in 1982, when Spain joined NATO; and in 1994, when Canada
sought to decrease its NSIP share. 

NATO has used various methods to adjust cost shares.  For example, in
1955, NATO used expenditures to comprehensively review and adjust
shares for its civil and military budgets.  In contrast, changes to
NSIP cost shares in 1990 were based on negotiations among members
that considered factors such as each nation's capacity to pay and the
expected benefits from NSIP-funded projects.  NATO has also relied on
negotiations to adjust cost shares in response to discrete events. 
For example, when Spain joined NATO in 1982, its share was determined
through high-level negotiations and the other members' shares were
adjusted on a prorated basis.  In 1997, the United States' actual
cost-share across all the common budgets was 28.45 percent.\2


--------------------
\2 Effective U.S.  cost shares for each commonly funded budget are
shown in detail in appendix I. 


   COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS OF COST
   SHARES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

NATO's review of cost shares related to the civil and military
budgets have similar histories from 1950 to 1965.\3 In 1951, NATO
used a grouping method whereby countries of similar economic strength
or potential were assigned identical cost shares derived from country
contributions to the United Nations and the predecessor to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  When the
budget shares were reexamined in 1952, the three largest countries
(the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) remained grouped
and were assigned identical cost shares of 22.5 percent.  However,
the other countries' cost shares were based on their capacity to pay,
that is, the relative size of their gross national products (GNP). 
When NATO adjusted civil and military budget cost shares in 1955, it
used an expenditure-based method and agreed not to continue reviewing
cost shares annually.  Under the expenditure method, NATO determined
each country's actual expenditures for civil and military budget
expenses from 1950 to 1955 and then assigned each country a cost
share equal to its percentage of NATO's total expenditures.  Since
1955, the civil budget has not been comprehensively reviewed and has
remained essentially unchanged; the military budget cost shares have
been modified once since then. 

At the request of the United Kingdom, in 1965, NATO reviewed the cost
shares for the military budget.  The United Kingdom believed that
economic changes in member countries in the previous decade,
particularly the uneven growth of GNP, would for reasons of equity
warrant a review of cost shares.  Further, the United Kingdom asked
that NATO take into account member countries' per capita GNP trends
and global defense efforts that could be regarded as serving the
general interest of the alliance.  This review and the resulting
negotiations were concluded in January 1966, but very few changes in
cost shares were made; for example, the United Kingdom's share was
reduced by 1.28 percentage points, from 19.5 percent to 18.22
percent.  To allow for this change, smaller adjustments were made in
other countries' shares.  ( See app.  II for historic cost-share
tables for the civil and military budgets.)

While the members' cost shares for NATO's civil and military budgets
were infrequently reexamined, the shares for its infrastructure
budget were looked at more often.  The actual changes in cost shares
resulting from these reviews are documented, but the reasoning behind
them is not. 

In the early 1950s, sharing the costs of NATO's infrastructure
requirements was the subject of annual negotiations; however, to
avoid overly frequent discussions of cost shares, NATO opted to
review cost shares every few years.  According to officials at NATO,
the last review of the infrastructure cost shares occurred about
1990. 

From NATO's inception, the basic principle applied to infrastructure
cost sharing was to achieve as equitable a distribution as possible
of the entire NATO defense burden--including commonly funded
infrastructure--among members of the alliance.  The main factors that
underlie the negotiations for an infrastructure cost-sharing
arrangement are:  (1) the capacity of the member countries to
contribute, (2) the advantage each country would gain as a user of
the facilities to be financed, (3) the net economic benefits that
would accrue to a host country from the construction of the
facilities on its soil, (4) the services each country renders to the
common defense interests of the alliance in ways other than
infrastructure, and (5) various political and economic factors. 
Since these guidelines for cost sharing are broad and subject to wide
interpretation, the setting of cost shares is essentially
accomplished through negotiations.  Attempts have been made from time
to time to determine a cost-sharing formula on the basis of an
objective factor such as GNP or a combination of several such
factors.  However, NATO has been unable to develop consensus on this
issue.  (See app.  III for historic information on the NSIP and app. 
IV for current gross domestic products (GDP) of alliance members.)


--------------------
\3 Originally the civil budget had operating and capital elements
with differing cost shares.  The 1955 review resulted in assigning a
single cost share per country for all elements of this budget. 


   EVENT-DRIVEN COST-SHARE CHANGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Members' cost shares for all of NATO's common budgets have been
affected by specific events.  For example, in 1966, France withdrew
from the alliance's military structure; in 1982, Spain joined NATO;\4
in 1994, Canada unilaterally decided to reduce its participation in
the NSIP by 50 percent; and in 1999, the Czech Republic, Poland, and
Hungary are expected to join NATO. 

Cost shares for the NATO budgets were adjusted in different ways in
response to these events.  For example, when the French withdrew from
the military structure, France's shares in the military and
infrastructure budgets were prorated among the remaining 14
nations.\5 When Spain joined the alliance in 1982, other members
wanted to base Spain's contribution on GDP and capacity to pay, which
would have made its cost share about 5 percent, more than the shares
of Belgium or the Netherlands.  Spain believed, however, that since
its GDP per capita was lower than that of Belgium or the Netherlands,
it should pay less than 5 percent.  Through negotiations, it was
determined that Spain's share of the civil and military budgets would
be 3.5 percent. 

In 1994, Canada unilaterally decided to reduce its contribution to
the NSIP budget by 50 percent.  Canada did not formally request a
renegotiation of its cost share but, instead, negotiated separately
with other members\6 to assume a portion of its share and presented
the results to the alliance.  NATO officials noted, however, that had
Canada not been successful in convincing other countries to assume
that portion of Canada's cost share, Canada would have had to either
maintain its contribution level or withdraw from the alliance.  No
agreement has yet been reached on how cost shares for existing
members will change with the anticipated accession of the Czech
Republic, Hungary, and Poland to NATO in 1999.  These countries have
agreed to cost shares of 0.9 percent, 0.65 percent, and 2.48 percent,
respectively. 


--------------------
\4 Spain's participation in the common budgets has evolved since
joining the alliance in 1982.  It has always participated fully in
the civil budget, and partially in the military budget.  It had no
participation in the infrastructure program until 1994, and has
indicated it will fully participate in the NSIP in 1999. 

\5 France did not withdraw from the alliance, and it continues to
share in NATO's civil budget.  It also continues to participate in
some infrastructure projects and part of the military structure
funded by the military budget. 

\6 The United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany were not among
these countries. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

To obtain information about how NATO member costs shares have changed
over the years, we interviewed officials from the Department of
State; the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and the U.S.  Mission
to NATO in Brussels, Belgium.  We also interviewed NATO international
staff and reviewed NATO documents.  We collected and analyzed
historical U.S.  and NATO documents and tables related to cost shares
for each of the three commonly funded budgets from 1951 to the
present.  We examined the effects of various events, such as new
accessions, on members' cost shares to explain these changes where
possible.  We reviewed Department of State and U.S.  Mission to NATO
reporting cables, program and briefing documents, and correspondence. 

To identify how NATO determines what the members' cost shares will be
for its three commonly funded budgets, we interviewed officials from
the Department of State, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and
the U.S.  Mission to NATO.  We reviewed the various methods used to
determine cost shares from the inception of the alliance to the
present and were briefed by NATO international staff on the history
and logic of those methods.  We collected and analyzed data on member
countries economic indicators, such as GDP and per capita GDP as
expressed by purchasing power parity, to understand the basis for
some cost-share methods.  We reviewed State Department and U.S. 
Mission to NATO reporting cables that detailed the negotiations for
the invitation and accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
Poland.  In addition, this work built upon our prior work on NATO
enlargement issues. 

We conducted our review between March and April 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The Departments of State and Defense provided oral comments on a
draft of this report and concurred with our findings and conclusions. 
Department officials indicated that the report provides a documented
record of the changes that occurred in how NATO costs have been
shared over the years, a history that had not been previously
compiled. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
its issue date.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretaries of State and Defense and appropriate congressional
committees.  Copies will be made available to other interested
parties upon request. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report.  The major contributors to this
report were Jim Shafer, Muriel Forster, and Hynek Kalkus. 

Harold J.  Johnson, Associate Director
International Relations and Trade Issues


CURRENT NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION COMMON BUDGET COST
SHARES
=========================================================== Appendix I

Not all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members participate
in all aspects of the commonly funded budgets.\1 Although all 16
members participate fully in the civil budget, Spain and France do
not participate in all aspects of the military budget or the NATO
Security Investment Program (NSIP).  Further, the NATO Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS) program, funded through the
military budget but with its own negotiated cost shares, does not
include France, Spain, and Iceland, and the United Kingdom only
partially participates in it.  Finally, although Iceland is counted
as a participant in the NSIP, its cost share is zero.  Table I.1
shows the current cost shares for each member at each level of
participation.  In 1997, the actual cost shares for the United States
were 23.35 percent for the civil budget, since all 16 nations
participate fully in this budget; 28.08 percent for the military
budget, exclusive of the AWACS program; 41.48 percent for the AWACS
program; and 26.46 percent of the NSIP budget.  The total U.S.  cost
share is 28.45 percent across all the budgets. 




                                    Table I.1
                     
                      Current Cost Shares for NATO's Common
                                     Budgets

                               (Numbers in percent)

     Civil
     budge                                             NATO Security Investment
       t                Military budget                        Program
     -----  ----------------------------------------  --------------------------
                                           AWACS
     -----                              ------------  --------------------------
                      At                                        At
Cou                 15\b     At                               15\b     At
ntr     At     At  Franc   15\c     At     At     At     At  Franc   15\c     At
y     16\a   16\a      e  Spain   14\d   13\e   12\f   16\a      e  Spain   14\d
---  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
Uni  23.35  24.12  25.00  28.89  30.16  32.62  41.53  23.27  24.06  26.77  27.82
 ted
 St
 at
 es
Bel   2.76   2.85   2.95   3.41   3.56   2.66   3.39   4.13   4.26   4.76   4.96
 gi
 um
Can   5.60   5.60   5.80   6.71   6.99   7.40   9.43   2.75   2.80   3.00   3.20
 ada
Den   1.59   1.68   1.74   2.01   2.10   1.57   2.00   3.33   3.42   3.79   3.94
 ma
 rk
Fra  16.50  16.50  17.10     \g     \g     \g     \g  12.90  13.34     \g     \g
 nce
Ger  15.54  15.54  16.10  18.61  19.42  22.10  28.14  22.40  23.16  25.74  26.76
 ma
 ny
Gre   0.38   0.38   0.39   0.46   0.47   0.49   0.62   1.00   1.01   1.05   1.07
 ece
Ice   0.05   0.04   0.05   0.05   0.06     \g     \g      0      0      0      0
 la
 nd
Ita   5.75   5.91   6.12   7.08   7.38   5.71   7.26   7.75   8.09   9.10   9.40
 ly
Lux   0.08   0.08   0.09   0.10   0.11   0.08   0.11   0.20   0.21   0.23   0.24
 em
 bo
 ur
 g
Net   2.75   2.84   2.94   3.40   3.55   2.94   3.75   4.58   4.72   5.27   5.48
 he
 rl
 an
 ds
Nor   1.11   1.16   1.20   1.39   1.45   1.15   1.46   2.83   2.94   3.27   3.38
 way
Por   0.63   0.63   0.65   0.75   0.78   0.55   0.70   0.35   0.37   0.39   0.41
 tu
 ga
 l
Spa   3.50   3.50     \g   4.19     \g     \g     \g   3.29     \g   3.78     \g
 in
Tur   1.59   1.59   1.65   1.90   1.99   1.28   1.63   1.04   1.08   1.13   1.17
 key
Uni  18.82  17.58  18.22  21.05  21.98  21.45     \g  10.19  10.54  11.72  12.18
 ted
 Ki
 ng
 do
 m
================================================================================
Tot    100    100    100    100    100    100    100    100    100    100    100
 al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

AWACS = Airborne Warning and Control System

Note:  Totals may not add due to rounding. 

\a Cost share when all 16 members of the alliance participate. 

\b Cost share when France participates and Spain does not. 

\c Cost share when Spain participates and France does not. 

\d Cost share when both Spain and France do not participate. 

\e Cost share for AWACS when Spain, France, and Iceland do not
participate but the United Kingdom does participate. 

\f Cost share for AWACS when the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and
Iceland do not participate. 

\g Country does not participate. 

Source:  NATO. 


--------------------
\1 When a nation does not participate in some aspect of a budget, its
cost share is apportioned among those participating. 


HISTORIC INFORMATION ABOUT NATO'S
CIVIL AND MILITARY BUDGETS
========================================================== Appendix II

Table II.1 provides information on the methods used and the cost
shares agreed to for the civil budget.  Initially, NATO attempted to
revise these shares annually; however, from 1952 through 1954, the
alliance was unable to agree on any changes.  The 1955 cost-sharing
formula was permanently adopted, barring the intervention of new
factors. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                     Historic Cost-Share Changes to the NATO
                                   Civil Budget

                               (Numbers in percent)

               1951                    1952               1955          1982
      ----------------------  ----------------------  ------------  ------------
                              Grouping and capacity
             Grouping                 to pay
      ----------------------  ----------------------
                                                       Expenditure         Spain
                                                               and    negotiated
Coun                                                      addition    and others
try      Current     Capital     Current     Capital    of Germany      prorated
----  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------
Unit       22.50       40.00       22.50       45.00         24.20         23.35
 ed
 Sta
 tes
Unit       22.50       22.50       22.50       22.50         19.50         18.82
 ed
 Kin
 gdo
 m
Fran       22.50       17.00       22.50       10.73         17.10         16.50
 ce
Germ                                                         16.10         15.54
 any
Cana        8.00        5.10       10.00        6.70          5.80          5.60
 da
Ital        8.00        5.10        7.65        5.36          5.96          5.75
 y
Spai                                                                        3.50
 n
Belg        5.00        3.10        4.00        2.68          2.86          2.76
 ium
Neth        5.00        3.10        3.50        2.18          2.85          2.75
 erl
 and
 s
Denm        2.00        1.30        2.25        1.51          1.65          1.59
 ark
Turk                                2.12        1.42          1.65          1.59
 ey
Norw        2.00        1.30        1.30        0.84          1.15          1.11
 ay
Port        2.00        1.30        1.00        0.64          0.65          0.63
 ugal
Gree                                0.50        0.33          0.39          0.38
 ce
Luxe        0.25        0.10        0.13        0.08          0.09          0.08
 mbo
 urg
Icel        0.25        0.10        0.05        0.03          0.05          0.05
 and
================================================================================
Tota         100         100         100         100           100           100
 l
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  NATO. 


Table II.2 details methods used and the cost shares agreed to for the
military budget, with all members participating.  These shares were
identical to the civil budget until 1966, when new cost shares
resulted from a request by the United Kingdom to renegotiate military
budget cost shares.  The United Kingdom based its argument on its
weaker gross national product (GNP) growth over the preceding decade
compared to most other member countries. 



                                    Table II.2
                     
                     Historic Cost-Share Changes to the NATO
                                 Military Budget

                               (Numbers in percent)

           1951           1952           1955           1966           1982
       -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
                                                                           Spain
                       Grouping and    Expenditure                    negotiated
Count                   capacity to   and addition                    and others
ry          Grouping            pay     of Germany  Renegotiation       prorated
-----  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Unite          22.50          22.50          24.20          25.00          24.12
 d
 Stat
 es
Unite          22.50          22.50          19.50          18.22          17.58
 d
 King
 dom
Franc          22.50          22.50          17.10          17.10          16.50
 e
Germa                                        16.10          16.10          15.54
 ny
Canad           8.00          10.00           5.80           5.80           5.60
 a
Italy           8.00           7.65           5.96           6.12           5.91
Spain                                                                       3.50
Belgi           5.00           4.00           2.86           2.95           2.85
 um
Nethe           5.00           3.50           2.85           2.94           2.84
 rlan
 ds
Denma           2.00           2.25           1.65           1.74           1.68
 rk
Turke                          2.12           1.65           1.65           1.59
 y
Norwa           2.00           1.30           1.15           1.20           1.16
 y
Portu           2.00           1.00           0.65           0.65           0.63
 gal
Greec                          0.50           0.39           0.39           0.38
 e
Luxem           0.25           0.13           0.09           0.09           0.08
 bourg
Icela           0.25           0.05           0.05           0.05           0.04
 nd
================================================================================
Total            100            100            100            100            100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  NATO. 


HISTORIC INFORMATION ABOUT NATO'S
INFRASTRUCTURE BUDGET
========================================================= Appendix III

In 1951, NATO inherited its infrastructure program from the Western
Union Defense Organization.  Initially the program's cost shares were
negotiated annually for groups of projects; however, to manage the
financing of these projects more efficiently, cost shares for
multiyear programs were adopted.  According to officials at NATO,
from the mid-1950s until 1990, NATO reviewed infrastructure cost
shares about every 5 years. 

The effective U.S.  cost share for infrastructure projects has been
reduced from over 43 percent in 1960 to under 27 percent in 1997. 
The U.S.  share in percentage terms has been affected by both
permanent reductions in the established U.S.  cost share and by other
means.  Due to the nature of the program, effective costs for a
member can be changed without permanently adjusting the cost share. 
For example, between 1971 and 1975, NATO implemented the European
Defense Improvement Plan.  This plan funded infrastructure projects
to improve physical protection installations for aircraft on NATO
airfields.  It was financed by a one-time special European
contribution from member nations except Canada, France, Portugal, and
the United States.  Between 1975 and 1979, NATO implemented the
United States Special Program, which was designed to reduce to 20
percent the effective U.S.  cost share by the allocation of a small
portion of infrastructure funds to special U.S.  projects.  These
projects were generally not eligible for infrastructure funding. 
This group of projects was funded by all members except Turkey.  The
effective U.S.  cost share will also decrease due to the greater
participation in the military aspects of the alliance and
infrastructure projects by Spain and possibly France. 


CURRENT GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FOR
NATO MEMBERS
========================================================== Appendix IV

Table IV.1 presents all NATO nations' gross domestic products (GDP)
converted into dollars through the use of purchasing power parity
(PPP).  PPP is a technique using standardized international dollar
price weights applied to the quantities of goods and services
produced in an economy, rather than using exchange rates to compare
economies.  We are presenting this information because GDP is an
economic indicator that has been considered when assessing a nation's
capacity to pay in alliance cost-share negotiations.  For example,
GDP was used in negotiations on cost shares with Spain in 1982. 



                               Table IV.1
                
                 NATO Nations' Estimated GDPs, Adjusted
                             by PPP (1996)

                         (Dollars in billions)

                                                      Percent of total
Country                                    PPP GDP        NATO PPP GDP
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
United States                               $7,610               48.99
Germany                                      1,700               10.94
France                                       1,220                7.85
United Kingdom                               1,190                7.66
Italy                                        1,120                7.21
Canada                                         721                4.64
Spain                                          593                3.82
Turkey                                         379                2.44
Netherlands                                    318                2.05
Belgium                                        205                1.32
Portugal                                       122                0.79
Denmark                                        118                0.76
Norway                                         114                0.73
Greece                                         107                0.69
Luxembourg\a                                    10                0.06
Iceland                                          5                0.03
======================================================================
Total                                      $15,532                 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Totals may not add due to rounding. 

\a Luxembourg's GDP is based on a 1995 estimate. 

Source:  The World Factbook 1997. 

*** End of document. ***