Abstract
This chapter examines the emergence of the European Commission’s defense research initiative. It traces the development of a particular narrative on security, innovation, research and economic growth from Servan-Schreiber’s 1960s fears about the transatlantic security technology gap and argues that this narrative became deeply embedded in successive research programs most notably ESPRIT from the 1980s and the security research agenda that began in the 7th Framework Programme, which in turn have shaped the defense research program. The chapter then looks at the claims made by the proponents of defense research funding finding there are three interlocked claims: a technology gap or strategic autonomy claim, an economic and technological benefits claim and a security imperative argument. The chapter goes on to argue that not all these factors can be satisfied in this defense research program and that difficult trade-offs will need to be made. It concludes by asserting that these decisions have to be made with a realistic assessment of the state of the EDTIB, otherwise, the chapter will argue that this risks creating perverse incentives for member states in defense industrial policy and thus may not aid the development of the CSDP in the way it is intended.
Notes
- 1.
It should be pointed out that the statistics given in the European Commission quotation are from the main industry lobby group ASD rather than independent data.
- 2.
A good example of this problem was the decision to procure the Eurofighter, which was designed to counter Soviet MiG fighter jets in a presumed Cold War European battlefield in the 1980s but which came into operational service in 2003.
- 3.
It is also important to point out that the claims made for the USA by the various EU reports are considered unproven by some American economists, who point out that no counterfactual model exists to prove whether defense research was uniquely technologically important or if the USA had chosen to fund another sector’s R&D so generously whether it might have had the same effects (Mowery 2012).
Bibliography
Bailes A (2008) The EU and a ‘Better World’: what Role for the European Security and Defence Policy? Int Aff 84(1):115–130
Besch S (2017) #AskCER: Is the new European defence fund a game-changer for EU defence? Centre for European Reform, 7 June 2017. http://www.cer.org.uk/askcer-new-european-defence-fund-game-changer-eu-defence
Bigo D, Jeandesboz J. (2010) The EU and the European security industry questioning the ‘public-private dialogue’. INEX Policy Brief no. 5, February 2010
Citi M (2014) Revisiting creeping competences in the EU: the case of security R&D policy. J Eur Integr 36(2):135–151
Creasey P (1988) The options and prospects for defence procurement collaboration. In: Creasey P, May S (eds) The European armaments market and procurement cooperation. Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp 165–192
Edler J, James A (2015) Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European framework programme. Res Policy 44(6):1252–1265
Edquist C (1997) Introduction. In: Edquist C (ed) Systems of Innovation: technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Pinter, London, pp 1–35
EUISS (2016) Report of the Group of Personalities on the Preparatory Action for CSDP Related Research – European Defence Research; The Case for an EU-Funded Defence R&T Programme. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/GoP_report.pdf
European Commission (2016) Defence Action Plan. COM(2016) 950 final, Brussels, 30 November 2016
European Commission (2017) Launching the Defence Fund. COM(2017) 295 final, Brussels, 7 June 2017
European Network Against the Arms Trade (2016) Why the EU should not subsidy military research. ENAAT Position Paper on the proposal of Preparatory action on Defence research, August 2016, Brussels. http://www.enaat.org/news/PPResearch.pdf
Fiott D, Bellais R (2016) A ‘Game Changer’? The EU’s Preparatory Action on Defence Research. ARES Group Policy Paper. http://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ARES-Group-Policy-Paper-Fiott-and-Bellais-04-16-OK.pdf
Hayes B (2010) Full spectrum dominance’ as European Union security policy: on the trail of the ‘NeoConOpticon’. In: Haggerty K, Samaras M (eds) Surveillance and democracy. Routledge, London, pp 148–170
James A (2006) The transatlantic defence R&D gap: causes, consequences and controversies. Def Peace Econ 17(3):223–238
Luukkonen T (2002) Technology and market orientation in company participation in the EU framework programme. Res Policy 31(3):437–455
Manners I (2006) Normative power Europe reconsidered: beyond the crossroads. J Eur Publ Policy 13(2):182–199
Matthews R (1992) European armaments collaboration: policy, problems and prospects. Harwood Academic Press, Chur
Mauro F, Thoma K (2016) The Future of EU Defence Research. European Parliament Report. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/535003/EXPO_STU(2016)535003_EN.pdf
Mawdsley J (2004) The Commission moves into Defence Research. Eur Secur Rev 22
Mawdsley J (2011) Towards a merger of the European defence and security markets? In: Bailes A, dePauw S (eds) The EU defence market: balancing effectiveness with responsibility. Flemish Peace Institute, Brussels, pp 11–19
Mawdsley J (2013) A European agenda for security technology: from innovation policy to export controls. Brussels, Flemish Peace Institute
Mowery D (2009) National security and national innovation systems. J Technol Transfer 34(5):455–473
Mowery D (2012) Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies. Res Policy 41(10):1703–1715
Nelson R (ed) (1993) National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Oikonomou I (2015) Brothers in arms? The European arms industry and the making of the EDA. In: Oikonomou I, Karampekios N (eds) The European Defence Agency: arming Europe. Routledge, London, pp 43–62
Pavitt K (1998) The inevitable limits of EU R&D funding. Res Policy 27(6):559–568
Radaelli C (2000) Policy transfer in the European Union: institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance 13(1):25–43
Salomon J-J (1977) Science policy studies and the development of science policy. In: Spiegel-Rosing I, de Solla Price D (eds) Science, Technology and Society. Sage, London, pp 43–70
Santangelo G (1997) The IT revolution and Europe: The European lag and reaction. An analysis of ESPRIT. Jean Monnet working Paper, No. 09/97, University of Catania, July 1997. http://aei.pitt.edu/390/1/jmwp09.htm
Servan-Schreiber J-J (1967) Le défi américain. Denoël, Paris
Solana J, Blockmans S (2016) EU defence plan is ‘no game-changer’. EU-Observer, 16 December 2016. https://euobserver.com/opinion/136315
Teffer P (2017) EU environment and science money moved to military fund. EUObserver, 9 June 2017. https://euobserver.com/institutional/138174
Zandee D (2016) New kid on the block: The European Commission and European Defence. Clingendael Policy Brief, December 2016 https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/PB_New%20kid%20on%20the%20block.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mawdsley, J. (2018). The Emergence of the European Defence Research Programme. In: Karampekios, N., Oikonomou, I., Carayannis, E. (eds) The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68807-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68807-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68806-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68807-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)