Existing institutions get redirected toward new problems because sunk costs make replacement costly.

Evidence

Institutionalist theory would lead us to expect that rather than folding NATO’s tent, declaring victory, and moving to create new institutions, NATO members will take the alliance in new directions, making use of existing procedures and mechanisms to build on past successes to deal with new problems. They spent forty-five years learning how to work as a long-term coalition through a sophisticated political and military structure. NATO members can thus be expected to turn first to existing mechanisms and procedures when confronted with new problems rather than creating new non-NATO institutions. The presumption is that actors will be disinclined to abandon sunk costs (political and economic) of existing institutional arrangements, turning instead to a mechanism (NATO) that already works. Developing new institutions or consultative frameworks entails start-up costs; NATO’s appeal is that these costs already have been paid. A common refrain from NATO officials was that it is easier to change NATO’s direction than to obtain unanimous agreement on a new treaty-based organization. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 119

Categorization

• XREF: Sunk-cost path-dependence reasoning connects directly to the reader’s interest in how NATO-type institutions outlive their founding purposes. — connects to: Institutions persist past their founding purpose because maintaining them costs less than replacing them.; Sunk investments create hostage situations where premature termination is costly. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2532

Related

• Institutions persist past their founding purpose because maintaining them costs less than replacing them. (similarity 0.93)
• Mature institutions survive their founding purpose because members prefer sunk costs over new formation (similarity 0.92)
• An institutionalist view holds alliances survive only while states value their benefits. (similarity 0.83)
• NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.81)
• NATO’s institutionalization beyond mutual defense explains its persistence after its founding threat vanished. (similarity 0.80)
• Costly alliances should dissolve when the threat justifying their costs disappears. (similarity 0.80)
• Alliances can persist and expand purposes after their founding enemy disappears (similarity 0.80)
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.80)
• High institutionalization distinguishes NATO from traditional alliances. (similarity 0.79)
• Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.79)
• Alliance theory has neglected why alliances persist and what happens when they become obsolete (similarity 0.79)
• NATO’s survival hinges on member states continuing to benefit from it (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Sunk investments create hostage situations where premature termination is costly. #corroborates (0.92) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2532