Citizens' Preferences for Narrow and Broad Security Threats: Evidence From a New NATO Member State

This study explores citizens' evaluations of competing security threats and prioritizes policy responses using data from Finland. Despite escalating geopolitical tensions and proximity to Russia, Finnish public opinion favors broader human security concerns, such as climate change and organized crime, over traditional military threats. Using a randomized conjoint experiment, we analyze how individuals evaluate trade-offs between different threat environments and security policy arrangements across national, community, and personal security domains. The results show that internal and environmental security threats strongly influence public preferences, often as much as or more than military threats. These patterns are consistent across demographic and political subgroups, suggesting that public security preferences are relatively stable and multidimensional rather than purely reactive to short-term geopolitical developments. While there is support for moderate defense spending and alliance commitments such as NATO membership, proposals involving nuclear weapons or very high military spending face public resistance. The study highlights the importance of public opinion in shaping security policy priorities, particularly in small states where resource constraints make trade-offs between different security domains more visible. The findings contribute to research on public opinion and security policy by demonstrating how citizens prioritize military and non-military security concerns within a comprehensive security framework.