The emergence of EU defense research policy from innovation to militarization

ACARE Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation ACTFFCI ACT’s Framework for Collaborative Interaction with IndustryAECMA European Association of Aerospace Manufacturers AGARD

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

Series Editor

Elias G. Carayannis

George Washington University

Washington, DC, USA

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8124

Nikolaos Karampekios • Iraklis Oikonomou Elias G Carayannis

Editors

The Emergence of EU

Defense Research Policy From Innovation to Militarization

ISSN 2197-5698 ISSN 2197-5701 (electronic)

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

ISBN 978-3-319-68806-0 ISBN 978-3-319-68807-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68807-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017956210

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors

or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims

in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Editors

Nikolaos Karampekios

National Documentation Centre / National

Hellenic Research Foundation

This book is dedicated to the “Great

Generation” who fought and died for freedom and justice during WWII and all others since and in the future, as freedom is never free.

Foreword

This is a very timely volume Important decisions have been made by the member states of the European Union in order to enhance the Union’s role in military research The consequences of these decisions are potentially far reaching but not yet clear The contributions to this volume help to understand both the nature of the changes and the likely effects in a number of technological, economic and political dimensions

Until the late 1990s, the legal predecessors of the European Union were seen, in the famous words of Francoise Duchene, as “civilian powers” And indeed, they had nothing to do with military, or even security, matters That is quite a change to the vision outlined by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini in the “Global Strategy” of 2016, further detailed in documents

by the Commission and the Council, such as the Defence Action Plan and the Implementation Plan on Security and Defence The “progressive framing of a com-mon Union defence policy” mandated in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty was advancing quickly in 2016 and 2017

The political process from “purely civilian” to “also military” power Europe is competently analyzed in various chapters of this volume It has been marked by both an underlying secular economic logic and political spurges following interna-tional or European major crises The economic logic follows, as is shown in this volume, from the contradictions between the impulse of many national policy makers

to protect domestic arms producers on the one hand and the high budgetary costs and military inefficiencies of such protectionism on the other hand Major crises that pushed Europeanization of defense include the Kosovo War of 1999, which pushed the integration of the Western European Union (WEU) into the Union struc-tures resulting in the European Security and Defence Policy, as well as the Iraq War

of 2003 which facilitated the creation of the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the formulation of the European Security Strategy The Global Strategy of 2016, in contrast, primarily was a response to intra-EU problems, such as the European financial and refugee crises Brexit and Donald Trump as US President added to the political dynamic

Military research and development (R&D) has been an important element in the fragile process of Europeanization of defense While there have been many bilateral and trilateral joint R&D projects among EU member states, truly EU-wide activities have remained limited This is not due to a lack of initiatives Also, reluctance to go multilateral has not only been a problem for the EU.  There were a number of attempts at coordinating and pooling R&D among European NATO members as well as in the WEU in the past And the EDA also has consistently tried during the last decade and a half So there is quite some experience with cooperating in mili-tary R&D. But projects remained under the strict control of member states

Decisions at the level of the Council and in the Commission taken in 2016 and

2017 go a considerable step further by devoting European funds under the control

of the Commission to military R&D.  True, the amounts of European money are small compared to what member state governments are spending on military R&D.  However, judging by the earlier dynamics of European civilian security research, described in this volume, which only started after the September 11 terror-ist attacks in the early 2000s and has now become a major element of research fund-ing, it is likely to shape and catalyze national funding The European civilian security research proved to be attractive for governments as well as research institu-tions and companies, including a number of arms-producing companies While not permitted to conduct research toward military applications, they could collaborate

on research projects in civil security research which was also relevant for their core business

Still, the Europeanization of defense, including military research, is neither itable nor without contradictions The contributors to this volume make this very clear A sober assessment, as performed in this book, is necessary in order not to fall for simple ideas, often promoted by lobbyists for self-serving reasons Thus, a major push for European economic growth is highly unlikely, given the relatively small size of defense R&D compared to civilian commercial R&D plus the fact that stud-ies consistently have shown that the positive economic spin-offs of military research are limited, resulting in greater efficiency of civilian R&D expenditures for creating economic growth Long gone are the times, for instance, in the 1940s and the 1950s, when defense research stimulated the economy, particularly in the USA and the Soviet Union, in major ways While growth industries such as aerospace and elec-tronics benefited primarily from the size of spending, military R&D spending was important for doing research in areas marked by high technological risks However, the situation changed with the maturation of civilian industries in these sectors and the resulting shift in the balance of spending for civilian and military R&D. Furthermore, a case can be made that Europe as a whole, and some European countries in particular, such as Germany, has benefitted from low defense and high civilian R&D spending

inev-Costs and benefits, as well as their allocation to different groups and institutions, from arms producers to the wider public, therefore need to be investigated While the focus in this volume is on the economic consequences, contributors also look at technological and political effects, providing a comprehensive view of the issues

Foreword

Military R&D may not be very sizeable compared to civilian commercial R&D

or defense procurement spending, but it is a strategic type of government ture, with far-reaching consequences for defense-related issues, but also effecting civilian actors It is obviously of major interest to arms producers in Europe As a group, they will benefit financially when more money is spent on defense-relevant research However, individual companies will be hurt by more open European com-petition The concentration process, which has mainly benefited larger producers in major producing countries, is likely to continue Smaller member states may lose core defense industrial competencies A related issue is that of arms exports outside

expendi-of the Union, expendi-often politically contentious Europeanization expendi-of production is also a factor framing procurement decisions It remains to be seen whether European com-panies will be in a better position to challenge the technological dominance of US producers at a time when the US government is substantially increasing its spending

on military R&D and weapons procurement

The laudable objective of this volume is to clarify the issues and highlight the benefits and costs of further Europeanization of military R&D. Hopefully many of those involved in making relevant decisions will take note of its contributions Important decisions have been made, but more will need to be taken Through their differing viewpoints and perspectives, the authors of this volume provide readers with a clearer picture of the complexities and contradictions of the recent past and potential future of military R&D in Europe than has been available so far

Michael BrzoskaForeword

Series Foreword

The Springer book series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management was

launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/ local, transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public–private, and leading/“bleeding”-edge ideas, theories, and perspectives on these topics

The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy, which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership

The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current tional wisdom,” that are properly grounded in theory and practice, and that consider

“conven-the concepts of robust competitiveness,1 sustainable entrepreneurship,2 and cratic capitalism3 central to its philosophy and objectives More specifically, the aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth

demo-1 We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable, and scalable firms

Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading toward robust competitiveness

(E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254,

2009).

2 We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails

systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are part of the economy Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium-, and hightech- nology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities, and

nongovernmental organizations) (E.G.  Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and

Books that are part of the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro” (economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms), and “micro” levels (teams, indi-viduals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychol-ogy, research and development, science policy, information systems, and strategy, with the underlying theme that for innovation to be useful, it must involve the shar-ing and application of knowledge

Some of the key anchoring concepts of the series are outlined in the figure below and the definitions that follow (all definitions are from Carayannis and Campbell (2009))

Conceptual profile of the series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management:

• The “Mode 3” Systems Approach for Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use:

“Mode 3” is a multilateral, multinodal, multimodal, and multilevel systems approach to the conceptualization, design, and management of real and virtual,

“knowledge-stock” and “knowledge-flow,” modalities that catalyze, accelerate, and support the creation, diffusion, sharing, absorption, and use of cospecialized knowledge assets “Mode 3” is based on a system-theoretic perspective of socio-economic, political, technological, and cultural trends and conditions that shape the coevolution of knowledge with the “knowledge-based and knowledge-driven, global/local economy and society.”

• Quadruple Helix: Quadruple helix, in this context, means to add to the triple helix of government, university, and industry a “fourth helix” that we identify as the “media-based and culture-based public.” This fourth helix associates with

“media,” “creative industries,” “culture,” “values,” “lifestyles,” “art,” and haps also the notion of the “creative class.”

per-Series Foreword

• Innovation Networks: Innovation networks are real and virtual infrastructures and infratechnologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention, and cata-lyze innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, govern-ment–university–industry public–private research and technology development coopetitive partnerships)

• Knowledge Clusters: Knowledge clusters are agglomerations of cospecialized, mutually complementary, and reinforcing knowledge assets in the form of

“knowledge stocks” and “knowledge flows” that exhibit self-organizing, learning- driven, dynamically adaptive competences and trends in the context of

an open systems perspective

• Twenty-First-Century Innovation Ecosystem: A twenty-first-century innovation ecosystem is a multilevel, multimodal, multinodal, and multiagent system of sys-tems The constituent systems consist of innovation metanetworks (networks of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) and knowledge metaclusters (clus-ters of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) as building blocks and orga-nized in a self-referential or chaotic fractal knowledge and innovation architecture (Carayannis 2001), which in turn constitute agglomerations of human, social, intellectual, and financial capital stocks and flows as well as cultural and techno-logical artifacts and modalities, continually coevolving, cospecializing, and cooperating These innovation networks and knowledge clusters also form, reform, and dissolve within diverse institutional, political, technological, and socioeconomic domains, including government, university, industry, and non-governmental organizations and involving information and communication tech-nologies, biotechnologies, advanced materials, nanotechnologies, and next-generation energy technologies

Who is this book series published for? The book series addresses a diversity of audiences in different settings:

1 Academic communities: Academic communities worldwide represent a core

group of readers This follows from the theoretical/conceptual interest of the book series to influence academic discourses in the fields of knowledge, also carried by the claim of a certain saturation of academia with the current concepts and the postulate of a window of opportunity for new or at least additional con-cepts Thus, it represents a key challenge for the series to exercise a certain impact on discourses in academia In principle, all academic communities that are interested in knowledge (knowledge and innovation) could be tackled by the book series The interdisciplinary (transdisciplinary) nature of the book series underscores that the scope of the book series is not limited a priori to a specific basket of disciplines From a radical viewpoint, one could create the hypothesis that there is no discipline where knowledge is of no importance

2 Decision-makers—private/academic entrepreneurs and public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors: Two different groups of decision-makers are being addressed simultaneously: (1) private entrepreneurs (firms, commercial firms, academic firms) and academic entrepreneurs (universities), interested in opti-mizing knowledge management and in developing heterogeneously composed Series Foreword

knowledge-based research networks, and (2) public (governmental, mental) actors that are interested in optimizing and further developing their poli-cies and policy strategies that target knowledge and innovation One purpose of

subgovern-public knowledge and innovation policy is to enhance the performance and

com-petitiveness of advanced economies

3 Decision-makers in general: Decision-makers are systematically being supplied

with crucial information, for how to optimize knowledge-referring and edge-enhancing decision-making The nature of this “crucial information” is conceptual as well as empirical (case study-based) Empirical information high-lights practical examples and points toward practical solutions (perhaps reme-dies); conceptual information offers the advantage of further-driving and further-carrying tools of understanding Different groups of addressed decision-makers could be decision-makers in private firms and multinational corpora-tions, responsible for the knowledge portfolio of companies; knowledge and knowledge management consultants; globalization experts, focusing on the internationalization of research and development, science and technology, and innovation; experts in university/ business research networks; and political sci-entists, economists, and business professionals

4 Interested global readership: Finally, the Springer book series addresses a whole

global readership, composed of members who are generally interested in edge and innovation The global readership could partially coincide with the communities as described above (“academic communities,” “decision-makers”), but could also refer to other constituencies and groups

References

Carayannis EG (2001) Strategic Management of Technological Learning, CRC Press, Boca Raton Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem Int J Technol Manage 46(3–4):201–234

Series Foreword

We beat the Germans twice and now they are back!

Lady Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister, December 8, 1989 (quoted in Volkery 2009)

Helmut Kohl wanted a European Germany, not a German Europe

(Riegert 2017)

As editor of the book series by Springer (a German global publisher) on Technology, Innovation and Knowledge Management, I find this book project par-ticularly challenging, intriguing and inspiring as well as relevant and timely given the social, economic, political and geo-strategic events and trends in Europe and the world

This is a book about emerging theories, policies and practices on defense and security research and technological development However, one should perhaps first consider and question the meaning, nature, dynamics and implications of defense and security alongside development and prosperity as well as democracy as a col-lection of hybrid (public and private as well as collective and individual) goods with substantial market, network and knowledge spillover effects and higher order out-puts, outcomes and impacts within and across local, regional, national and transna-tional ecosystems and the knowledge economy and society at large

The operationalization frameworks of the quadruple and the quintuple ment, university, industry, civil society and the environment) innovation helices (e.g see Carayannis, Barth and Campbell 2012) may serve as potential implementa-tion guidelines for some of the models and approaches outlined in the chapters of the present manuscript

(govern-In particular, in the context of the European Project, defense and security have been controversial concepts from the early days given the history and tragic experi-

So the question remains: What could and should European defense and security mean beyond and besides the existing frameworks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and related EU institutions such as the Western European Union and Frontex?

• A Europe where there are close to 180 defense-related technical standards and specifications across European defense companies and systems versus about 30 for the US context

• A Europe where sovereignty trumps solidarity and where narrowly defined national priorities almost always frame the policy agenda and dialogue

• A Europe where the vision of Schumann and other founders and architects of the European Project has become victim to greed, fear and hypocrisy

But it is for these very reasons that this book is especially relevant and useful as

a tool to explore options and expand our horizons toward enhancing the potential and relevance of the European Project via a number of axes of integration of European institutions and policy making instruments and modalities including and pivoting on defense and security which could well serve as supranational ways and means for rapprochement and strengthening of identity of the European countries beyond financial monikers (see Eurozone vs others) or even the European Union itself (see Brexit) as Europe is indeed much larger, broader and deeper than the European Union per se and the European Project should be thought of as only par-tially relying on the European Union as it has evolved and morphed since the Treaty

of Maastricht

European defense and security as conceptual framework for related theory, icy, practice and even politics could and should include NATO and its partners as well as countries such as Switzerland, Norway and for that matter neighbors to the east under the proper terms and conditionalities They could and should allow and engage “frenemies” as well as traditional allies and partners (the ongoing drama in Syria is a clear and present illustration for the need, potential and limitations of such

pol-an approach – a next-generation “Realpolitik”)

Europe has served as the platform for many conflicts over the centuries and the two biggest ones in history during the twentieth century, but it could also serve as the “bridge over troubled waters” linking all G8/G20 countries not simply as the playground of their geopolitical games and satellite/proxy conflicts In this context, the Chinese “One Road/One Belt” vision and project that is already under way

should serve as a wake-up call as to the need to think beyond the box, not just

out-side the box (see Carayannis 2015) when dealing with the nature, dynamics,

chal-Preface by the Springer TIKM Book Series Editor

lenges and opportunities of the redefinition and reinventing of European defense and security as a hybrid (public/private), gloCal (global/local), dynamically adap- tive and complex good , not just the readjustment of the scope and scale of policies, institutions and practices The transformation of standards, rules and regulations would surely need to be part of it

The operationalization part of this next-generation “Realpolitik” would pivot

around a fractal, net-centric architecture of government, university and industry cross-sectoral, cross-disciplinary and cross-regional innovation networks and knowledge clusters linking civilian and military R&D centers across European countries and partners on the periphery and beyond (on fractal net-centric architec-ture, see Carayannis 2011; Carayannis and Campbell 2012) Civil society should be engaged and empowered to help frame and shape the related agendas and priorities

in a proactive and transparent manner as defense and security are public/private hybrid goods with substantial spillovers that transcend all five defense and security

engagement domains – land, sea, air, extraterrestrial space and cyberspace with

collateral synergies as well as impacts and implications for defense and security as well as privacy and other fundamental human rights

It is indeed around the core of and for the protection of the fundamental human rights as defined by national and international law that this entire business of “col-lective defense and security” should pivot and derive meaning and validation  – surely in the context of the polity of developed democracies

The conceptual design of this book has by intent a “multi-legged T” architecture, namely, a broad foundational theory component on which in-depth specialized and specific themes are developed in the respective chapters

The intent of the editors has been to produce and provide a theory-developing, policy making and practice-shaping toolkit for Defence R&D with a Euro-centric perspective

Elias G. Carayannis

References

Carayannis EG (2011) The FREIE concept in the context of open innovation diplomacy Presentation at BILAT 2011, Vienna, Austria http://archive.euussciencetechnology.eu/uploads/ docs/CARAYANNIS_BILAT_2011_final%20(2).pdf

Carayannis EG (2015) Arise for growth via thinking-beyond-the-box (TB2) towards the freie architecture Message posted online at A.R.I.S blog, 21 February 2015 http://www.dieange- wandte.at/jart/prj3/angewandte_aris/main.jart?j-j-url=/blog

Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in Quadruple Helix vation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development Springer (Springer Briefs in Business), New York

inno-Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DFJ (2012) The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation J Innov Entrep 1(2) https://doi org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2

Preface by the Springer TIKM Book Series Editor

Riegert B (2017) Helmut Kohl, the ‘giant’, remembered at European memorial ceremony DW, 1 July 2017 http://www.dw.com/en/helmut-kohl-the-giant-remembered-at-european-memorial- ceremony/a-39508156

Shuster S (2017) German Chancellor Helmut Kohl Nearly Outlived the Europe He Created Time,

17 June 2017 http://time.com/4822651/germany-helmut-kohl-europe-union-obituary/

Volkery C (2009) The Iron Lady’s views on German reunification Spiegel Online, 11 September

2009 tion-the-germans-are-back-a-648364.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-iron-lady-s-views-on-german-reunifica-Preface by the Springer TIKM Book Series Editor

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our Springer Acquisitions Editor, Nicholas Philipson, and the Springer Editorial Team for their unstinting support and inspiring vision

Contents

Nikolaos Karampekios, Iraklis Oikonomou, and Elias Carayannis

Part I Theoretical Considerations

and Contrasting the Origins of the European Research

Programmes for Security and Defense 15

Andrew D James

and the Economic Consequences of Military R&D 45

Guglielmo Carchedi

the National and the EU Dimension 57

Charalampos Chrysomallidis

Part II Defense R&D and Industrial Collaboration

Part III Historical Background and Evolution

Emergence of EU Military Research: The Curious Antecedent

of the European Aeronautics Research Programme 149

Alessandra De Angelis

10 The European Arms Industry, the European Commission

and the Preparatory Action for Security Research:

Business as Usual? 181

Nikolaos Karampekios and Iraklis Oikonomou

11 The Emergence of the European Defence Research

Programme 205

Jocelyn Mawdsley

Part IV Actors and Institutions

12 Network Analysis of EU-Funded R&D Collaboration

in the European Security Research Programme:

Actors and Industries 221

Evangelos Siokas

13 The European Parliament on Space: From Promoting

Scientific Research to Supporting the Common Security

and Defence Policy 247

Emmanuel Sigalas

14 The EDA-European Commission Connection in EU

Military R&D: Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees 261

Iraklis Oikonomou

15 EU-NATO Cooperation: The Case of Defense R&D 281

Daniel Fiott

Part V Novel Themes of an Emerging Agenda

16 Toward an Authentic European Defence Research

Strategy: Legal Aspects 301

Elias G. Carayannis is professor of science, technology, innovation and neurship at the George Washington University School of Business.

entrepre-Guglielmo  Carchedi is professor emeritus at the University of Amsterdam and associate professor at York University, Toronto, Canada, and the author of numerous books and articles in epistemology, sociology and political economy

Charalampos  Chrysomallidis holds a PhD in political science and European studies from the University of Athens and is currently working as a researcher at the Greek National Documentation Centre

Alessandra De Angelis is PhD candidate in law and politics at the University of Nottingham, with a research project on the Europeanization of defense equipment markets, and a visiting researcher at Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Daniel  Fiott is security and defense editor at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, where he analyzes European defense policy and defense industrial issues

Keith  Hartley is emeritus professor of economics at the University of York, England, where he was formerly professor and director of the Centre for Defence Economics

Andrew D. James is assistant associate dean for business engagement and nal relations, Faculty of Humanities, University of Manchester; senior lecturer at the Alliance Manchester Business School; director of the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research; and member of Visiting Faculty, Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po

exter-Nikolaos  Karampekios holds a PhD in European technology policy and is a researcher at the Greek National Documentation Centre, working at the intersection

of science, technology and innovation policy and defense

Lucia Marta is expert in European Space Policy, research and programs, with a focus on public policy, governance and cooperation and an interest in innovation, technologies and R&D policies in the space domain

Ron Matthews is a defense economist holding the Cranfield University Chair in Defence Economics at the UK Defence Academy

Frédéric Mauro is a lawyer at the bars of Paris and Brussels, specialized in dealing with complex advocacy relating to defense and the operations, legal matters and costs

Jocelyn  Mawdsley is a senior lecturer in European politics at the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University

Christian Mölling is deputy director of the German Council on Foreign Relations’ research institute

Iraklis Oikonomou is an independent researcher based in Athens and interested in

EU armaments and space policies and the political economy of EU militarization

Torben Schütz is managing director at Berlin Office for Defence Information and

an independent political advisor with a focus on questions about European security and defense

Emmanuel  Sigalas is policy analyst at the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission and research fellow at the University

of Leuven and the Czech Institute of International Relations

Evangelos Siokas is research fellow in the “Innovation and Entrepreneurship Studies” and “Information Society and the Knowledge-based Economy” research groups at the Laboratory of Industrial and Energy Economics (LIEE-NTUA) and coordinator of NTUA “EPI.noo” Center of Research and Entrepreneurship

Contributors

ACARE Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation

ACTFFCI ACT’s Framework for Collaborative Interaction with IndustryAECMA European Association of Aerospace Manufacturers

AGARD Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development

ASD AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of EuropeBMEWS Ballistic Missile Early Warning System

BRITE Basic Research in Industrial Technologies

CADMID Concept, Assessment, Development, Manufacturing, In-service,

and Disposal

CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union

CNAD Conference of National Armaments Directors

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

EDTIB European Defence Technological and Industrial Base

Abbreviations

EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

ESDP European Security and Defence Policy

ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds

ESPRIT European Strategic Programme for Research and Development

in Information TechnologyESRAB European Security Research Advisory Board

ESRIF European Security Research and Innovation Forum

EUISS European Union Institute for Security Studies

EURAM European Research in Advanced Materials

EUROSUR European External Border Surveillance System

FFT Food-for-Thought

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

GovSatCom Government Satellite Communications

HR/VP High Representative/Vice-President

ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulation

IWGS Industrial Working Group on Security

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Abbreviations

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NNMPT Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production TechnologiesOCCAR Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation en matiere d’ArmementOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OSRA Overarching Strategic Research Agenda

PADR Preparatory Action on Defence Research

PASAG Protection and Security Advisory Group

PASR Preparatory Action on Security Research

PESCO Permanent Structured Cooperation

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of

Chemicals

RSI Rationalization, Standardization and Interoperability

Parliament

SESAR Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research

SSN United States Space Surveillance Network

TADIC Transatlantic Defence Technological and Industrial Cooperation

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

N Karampekios et al (eds.), The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy,

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management,

€82 billion in H2020), an enlargement of thematic areas (focal point of FPs moved from energy and IT to more diverse and more ‘horizontal’ themes, including researcher mobility), a growing awareness of its economic implications (knowledge- based economy, technology-intensive economic growth, industrial policy) as well as its linkages to education and innovation policies (higher education area, innovation union) Despite this growing spiral, European science and technology policy was committed to one specific characteristic: its civilian orientation Non-civilian topics, such as funding for defense research, were explicitly excluded from the scope of FPs for reasons that go back to WWII and the notion that EU is a force of good.The change in this pattern with the all too recent institutionalization of defense research and development (R&D) funding at the EU level forms the empirical back-ground of this edited volume Why and how did EU defense research come about? What were the ideological, institutional, economic and strategic forces that made it

happen? What are the implications of the emergence of EU defense R&D for nology, research and innovation in Europe as well as for the theorization of European integration as a whole? These are some of the questions addressed by the present volume, which stands as the first of its kind in tackling empirically and theoretically the emergence of EU military research policy

tech-The move from an exclusively civilian mode of action to a defense one did not happen automatically or immediately Testing the waters in FP6 (2002–2006), the Preparatory Action on Security Research (PASR) led to a full-scale introduction of security in FP7 (2007–2013) The European Security Research Programme (ESRP) focused in developing security technologies To take things further, Horizon 2020 incorporated security research as one of the seven societal challenges Security R&D funding stands as one of these bridges that, among others, primed member states of the increasing impact of EU technology policies in areas of national secu-rity in addition to defense industries becoming acquainted with the European mode

of practice and governance in terms of research priorities, academic partnerships and stakeholder engagement This is why EU involvement in security research is also explored by the volume

These EU-level research and development-relevant (R&D) actions do not pen in a vacuum The overarching political framework into which security R&D is placed can be located within various EU security strategies (ranging from the 2003 European Security Strategy to the 2016 EU Global Strategy) which attempt to iden-tify the threats and chart a strategy to cope against The strategy necessitates the development of a comprehensive ‘suite’ of means to counter these threats Singled out are the technological means The provision of such means necessitates the tak-ing up of related R&D

hap-In parallel to the institutionalization of security in EU R&D, developments record another EU first against the long-held mantra of exclusively civilian European R&D priorities, introducing defense R&D.  Starting with a Commission Communication (European Commission 2013), a Council Conclusion (European Council 2013) and a Commission report (European Commission 2014), a pilot proj-ect as part of the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR) is already being implemented A successful PADR will lead to a fully fledged defense research pro-gram funded under the next multi-annual financial framework These are important developments in the evolution of European science policy further highlighted because they are accompanied by related policy efforts Initiatives by defense- oriented (EDA) and security-oriented institutions (ESA) are synchronized with the Commission to avoid duplication of efforts in terms of activities and funding (e.g

in exploring how results from FP7, Horizon 2020 and EDA research synergies can boost European defense and security capabilities)

Again, these R&D developments are connected to wider political, economic and industrial issues For example, the European Parliament, arguing in favor for a

‘successful’ European Defence Research Programme, links the program with Europe’s strategic competitors and external relations, the degree of complementar-ity between national and European priorities and the potential of defense industries

as industrial centers of excellence and innovation hubs (European Parliament 2016) Equally, the Commission’s argumentation in favor of defense R&D ranges from the

N Karampekios et al.

security and defense union to issues of wider technological innovation (European Commission 2017a)

It is against this backdrop of recent policy developments that this edited volume

is positioned On a wider level, this volume seeks to address the political, economic, industrial and, indeed, philosophical questions that go beyond this topicality, touch-ing upon the foundations of processes such as European integration and arms pro-duction and collaboration The ongoing dialogue for a deeper military cooperation between European countries will gain an even greater momentum, not only in reac-tion to a very unstable near abroad but also because Europe is signaling its aspira-tion to further integrate in ‘hot’ areas with significant political and macroeconomic impact, other than the monetary one

In addition to policy developments, this volume is placed at the intersection of multiple academic themes Existing analyses of cases of EU involvement in matters

of non-civilian R&D priorities stop short of taking into consideration the latest developments, in addition to being case specific, something that hinders compre-hensiveness in this emerging topic More broadly, the book stands as the first attempt

to integrate conceptually the realm of R&D, the European Union, the European security and strategy, the European arms manufacturers and arms collaboration

By doing so, the book fosters a novel research agenda, integrating European research, politics, economics and security into a single academic endeavor charac-terized by interdisciplinarity and theoretical pluralism

On the theoretical level, this volume stands on a line of past work treating the technological and industrial qualities of non-civilian technologies Based on the assumption that increased civil-military integration can be accomplished through a dual-use technology transfer that can reduce the cost of R&D shorten the develop-ment cycle, improve R&D capability and promote resource integration (Stowsky

1992; Alic et al 1992) It was Molas-Gallart (2001, 2002, 2010) that placed the argument in the EU context by exhibiting the strains that civil-military integration meant for the European Research Area The competencies between the institutional actors on the EU level for the coming about of ESRP have been equally addressed

by Citi (2014), whereas Edler and James (2015) highlighted the role of the Commission in bringing about security research Mawdsley (2013) addressed secu-rity R&D on terms linking it to export controls and regulations, and Sempere (2011) attempted to define the European security sector in terms of its market size, and technological and industrial affiliations, without making use of empirical evidence While the aforementioned literature has addressed the place of security technolo-gies in the research and innovation pipeline, the obvious shortcoming is that this has been done without taking into account the actual process taking place in FP7 and in Horizon 2020 In regard to defense R&D activities, the shortcoming has been even more severe: the literature has not touched on the subject at all

Concerning the relation between innovation and defense industrial policy, while descriptive case studies treat the effects of defense spending on technological devel-opment and the wider economic growth (Stowsky 2004; Ruttan 2006; Alic 2007; Rappert 2007; McLeish and Nightingale 2007; Reppy 2008; Blom et  al 2013; Gholz 2014), few researchers have theorized the place of national security in the

1 Introduction

innovation system (see Mowery 1998, 2009, 2010, 2012 for the US Innovation System) James has dealt with the issue from an EU angle, exploring new technol-ogy policies because of the terrorism threats (2006a), the low innovation potential

of the EU (vs the USA) due to low defense R&D spending (2006b), the tional changes in military establishments due to the dynamism of the innovation system (2009a, ) and the blurring of technological dichotomies between security and defense (2009c) Blom et al (2013) and Castellaci and Fevolden (2015) have addressed the liberalization of EU defense market and the appropriate innovation strategies in view of EU competition policies from a country perspective Again, the issue with this literature is twofold While the authors addressed aspects of the phe-nomenon, the rise of actual security, defense and defense-related R&D in the con-text of a European innovation system and how the latter can be accommodated within EU policies (e.g European Research Area and Innovation Union), have received very limited attention Equally, technological spillovers of non-civilian R&D to other technological areas and its industrial, academic or other linkages have also been unaddressed

organiza-1.2 Target Audience

Given the interdisciplinarity of the scope, the volume builds on several academic areas EU research and technology funding/priorities are studied in conjunction with other fields, such as European integration, economics of technology and devel-opmental and institutional economics, in addition to non-civilian funding being addressed within the cadre of political economy of arms production and armaments collaboration, strategic concepts and culture, national defense policies and estab-lishments, military capabilities development, research and technology policy, mili-tarism and militarization

The volume, with research and technology as its empirical subject matter, ents particular interest to scholars active in the field of science, technology and innovation (STI) studies For example, STI public policy, innovation impact, gover-nance of sociotechnical systems, dynamics of the European research space as well

pres-as metrics and network analysis are certain STI subfields touched upon herein Equally, STI scholars that treat the technological trajectories, issues of spillover, industrial potential and enabling character of security and defense R&D constitute another population segment This is the case in an international context (e.g versus the US experience), in a national context (e.g versus domestic defense R&D priori-ties) and in an EU context In addition, this volume will help STI scholars that inquire the manner in which public policies shape technological innovation, the link between investments in (defense) R&D and industrial policy and the manner in which non-civilian R&D is linked to the wider European science policy (via, e.g smart specialization, public procurement for innovation) This includes the transi-tion to a post-Horizon 2020 program (e.g European Commission 2017b: 10), the question of where to place defense R&D (within FP9 or in a parallel yet separate

N Karampekios et al.

in addition to the existing interest in the so-called agencification of EU defense policy Defense economists need to take note of EU security and defense R&D as

an additional input in their analyses in regard to EU and country-level (in)efficiency

of defense spending, (lack of) armaments interoperability, duplication of effort, employment opportunities, productivity and economic complementarities to the civilian sector The same holds concerning the degree of complementarity with NATO as a topic deserving continuous attention, as well as its implications for the

US and transatlantic relations

1.3 Why Now?

Publication of this volume (start of 2018) coincides with the phasing out of the pilot project on military R&D which will give way to a fully fledged Preparatory Action, thus signaling European Union’s continuous commitment in defense R&D.  As such, a comprehensive attempt to take stock of and assess all past developments in technology development, in the form of an edited volume, appears as a good starting point Also, this volume can help in scanning future-related actions within a post- Horizon 2020 R&D context and, more broadly, the future of the European security and defense union (European Commission 2017a)

For example, the all too recent institutionalization of the European Defence Fund (EDF) is an example of imminent future action that falls within the scope of this volume EDF will provide for a two-stranded approach to amplify national invest-ments in defense R&D. Firstly, it will offer grants for collaborative research in inno-vative defense technologies and products for the first time The budget of these grants will reach €90 million until 2019, and 500 million per year after 2020, thus making the EU one of the biggest defense R&D investors in Europe Also, EDF will create incentives for member states to cooperate on joint developing and acquiring defense equipment and technology This dedicated defense and industrial develop-ment program will involve a budget of €500 million during 2019 and 2020 From then on, a €1 billion spending per year is foreseen (European Commission 2017c)

1 Introduction

Similar interest should be directed toward the security research priorities of Horizon

2020 (secure societies – protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens)

as well as security-relevant research priorities found in other civilian thematic areas The issue of security technologies being funded within the context of non-civilian research priorities/themes is important because technologies developed therein can

be deployed in military-specific situations, something that would further contribute

to the fuzzy-enough dichotomy between security and defense, and indicates the (indirect) ways defense research is already being benefited Further interest in secu-rity and security-related R&D is due given the participation of the defense indus-try – if past security R&D can serve as blueprint

1.4 Structure and Summary of Chapters

Starting from a well-defined empirical epicenter  – the rise of non-civilian R&D priorities in EU – the book covers a multitude of interrelated themes and topics These include, among others, the novel theoretical approaches to arms production and R&D collaboration, the political role of industrial actors, the relations and net-works between European R&D-related institutions, the technological and research foundations of EU security policy, the past and present of European armaments collaboration, the transatlantic dimension of European R&D cooperation, the mili-tarization of border security and the significance of space R&D military use of space In other words, the book employs an interdisciplinary approach to the study

of European non-civilian research with theoretical and ontological pluralism, unveiling the strategic, industrial, institutional and ideational sources of the Commission’s military research initiative

All chapters are structured around the central theme of the rise of non-civilian R&D priorities as the nucleus of EU technology and innovation policy touching upon on the interrelatedness of European security, industrial competitiveness and military capabilities While some of the chapters tread along established analytic and empirical pathways, other chapters offer new and innovative insights and data not introduced before

In selecting the contributions, every effort was made to achieve a balance and interplay between theoretical and empirical analysis An emphasis on theory is reflected in the inclusion of a separate, first section as well as in the multiple refer-ences to major political, technology policy and network analysis’ strands that appear

in other chapters At the same time, most of the chapters maintain a solid empirical foundation, in the form of issue-related focus To enable a cross-chapter study,

‘flags’ in the form of chapter identification have been included to highlight points that are touched upon in other chapters in this volume

Section A (Theoretical considerations) kicks off with Chap 2, where Andrew D James compares the emergence of the European Security Research Programme with that of the European Defence Research Programme, by using a process-tracing methodology The analysis highlights, theoretically, the crucial role of the European

N Karampekios et al.

Commission as policy entrepreneur, introducing the notion of ‘serial policy preneurship’ Also, the author highlights the use of ambiguity in the definition of the research programs as a means of assembling and mobilizing a transnational coali-tion of interests

entre-Following an assessment of the European Defence Research Programme,

Guglielmo Carchedi, in Chap 3, discusses the basic assumption behind both ian and military expenditures, namely, that such expenditures foster economic growth and are successful anti-crises policies The author considers the historical example of the long period of economic growth following WWII and concludes that

civil-it was economic growth that made possible such expendcivil-itures rather than the other way around Also, the chapter examines the Keynesian multiplier and its alternative, the Marxist multiplier, and concludes that the production of weapons, while enrich-ing the producers of weapons, contributes to the tendential fall of the average rate of profit in the producing and exporting country

Chapter 4, by Charalampos Chrysomallidis, involves a liberal

intergovernmen-talist theorization of the emergence of research and technological development in

EU policy agenda Emphasis is placed on the variation that exists among member states as far as their research-related performance and priorities are concerned The analysis suggests that EU activity in research and technology is primarily voluntary and geared toward funding, with limited transfer of power from the national to the

EU level

In Chapter 5, the first chapter of Section B (Defense R&D and industrial ration), Keith Hartley provides an overview of the European defense industrial policy and places the European Defence Action Plan in the context of the weak-nesses that it is designed to address Then, the author reviews and evaluates alterna-tive models of arms collaboration, before delineating the key components of a future European defense industrial policy He concludes that the focus should not be on that policy per se but rather on the aims of defense policy and the efficiency of European armed forces

collabo-Next, Renaud Bellais suggests in Chap 6 that there is a strong economic nale for the Europeanization of defense innovation and the pooling of defense R&D efforts The chapter examines factors such as the rising costs of defense systems, the lack of a European defense market and the limits of past and existing collaborative programs The author’s main conclusion is that a domestic approach to defense innovation is inefficient and that the sharing of the latter should be broadly accepted

ratio-Ron Matthews offers, firstly, a historical profile of Europe’s arms industrial collaborative experience His Chap 7 evaluates the process and impact of major European collaborative programs, especially with regard to research and develop-ment The chapter then identifies the principal collaborative mechanisms employed by EU member states over the last two decades and provides an arms

1 Introduction

acquisition typology to facilitate evaluation of the various collaboration ways, highlighting both the positive and negative aspects of each model

path-In Chap 8, Christian Mölling and Torben Schütz analyze the empirical

back-ground of current armaments cooperation in Europe In particular, they explore the motivations that explain why cooperation in this sector is pursued and highlight some of the logics driving the systems that are involved in cooperation Finally, they evaluate the European Defence Research Programme in light of these insights, con-cluding that its impact will be primarily political rather than economic

Section C (Historical background) starts with Chap 9, where Alessandra De Angelis reconstructs the origins of European defense and defense-related research policy The chapter develops a technologically guided explanation around the delayed emergence of an EU military research program, contending that a changing technological scenario, made more critical by the security and economic conse-quences deriving from the end of the Cold War, came to play a major role in confirming the strategic and political significance of aeronautical industries at European level The analysis contends that the experience of the EU aeronautics research case should be regarded as a milestone development toward the emergence

of the research themes of security and defense

In Chap 10, Nikolaos Karampekios and Iraklis Oikonomou study the making of

the Preparatory Action for Security Research (PASR), which is a key episode in the development of EU security research leading to the inclusion of a security theme in

FP 7 The chapter’s primary aim is to provide an in-depth description and analysis

of the role of the European arms industry in the setting up of the initiative, ing more broadly the centrality of the industry in the translation of security goals into research and technological output Using PASR as a case study, the chapter highlights the embeddedness of the governance of security research in technologi-cal, industrial and socio-economic objectives

highlight-In the next chapter, Chap 11, Jocelyn Mawdsley examines the emergence of the

European Commission’s defense research initiative, tracing 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 until the present day The author 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 created sets of vested interests Also, the chapter demonstrates that some of the distinctive features of the defense research initiative trace their origins to this long-standing narrative and point out that this risks creating perverse incentives for mem-ber states in defense industrial policy

Section D (Actors and institutions) includes, firstly, Chap 12 by Evangelos Siokas, examining the EU-funded research collaborative networks formed in the European Security Research Programme Social network analysis is employed to investigate network structure and dynamics and examine the role of participating organizations over a 7-year period The empirical results suggest that this kind of networks are highly connected, structured around a core of key actors which are mainly large-sized firms, prestigious universities and research centers

N Karampekios et al.

Then, Emmanuel Sigalas and his Chap 13 turn to the case of space in order to highlight the role of the European Parliament (EP) as an actor in the broader EU security- and defense-related ecosystem The chapter look at the development of the EP’s positions toward a European space policy, drawing on EP space resolutions and on personal interviews with MEPs and EP officials It concludes that, at an early stage, the EP started pushing for a European space policy early on and that research has been instrumentalized by the EP to build an EU space policy that has a security/military dimension

The role of the European Defence Agency (EDA) in EU military research and its interaction with the European Commission are studied in Chap 14 by Iraklis Oikonomou The chapter, against a background of a literature consistently stressing the existence of rivalry between the two institutions, highlights the inner unity of purpose that unites dialectically the Agency and the Commission as far as defense research is concerned It does so by documenting the record of EDA in the realm of R&D and by integrating this record and the Commission initiative into a single conceptual scheme, emphasizing the unifying role of the goal to support the com-petitive position of the European arms industry

Chapter 15, by Daniel Fiott, places the defense research efforts of the EU in a

transatlantic context, analyzing the respective R&D efforts of the NATO and fying areas of commonality and avenues for cooperation The chapter maps out current cooperative defense R&D policies within NATO and the EU and focuses on areas of potential complementarity Looking at each organization separately and then as interrelated institutions, the analysis adds to our understanding of how European governments cooperate with one another for pursuing defense R&D

identi-Moving to Section E (Novel themes), Frederic Mauro examines in Chap 16 the legal aspects of EU involvement in defense research The primary question that he tackles is that of the compliance of the involvement with the European treaties, and the answer that he provides is that such an action is indeed respectful of the European legal order and brings added value to the efforts of the member states The author also draws up a model of the future European Defence Research Programme, con-necting it to a European defense planning

In Chap 17, Lucia Marta provides an overview of the main European actors

involved in space research and studies at European level, namely, the EU, the European Defence Agency, the European Space Agency and the European Satellite Centre The chapter focuses on the dual-use approach, both at R&D and program-matic level, and refers to Copernicus and Galileo programs and their security ser-vices as well as to the Space Surveillance and Tracking Support Framework, which exemplifies some contradictions of the dual-use approach in this domain Furthermore, the author introduces the new European Defence Fund and identifies its possible impact for European space activities

Chapter 18 by Mark Akkerman illustrates the militarization of border security in

EU research programs The author points out that border security and border control are focal points in the EU’s main research programs, notably the Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, and that large military and security compa-nies as well as research agencies are the main recipients of related EU funding The

1 Introduction

analysis suggests that border security R&D research helps drive an agenda that continually seeks to expand border security, as part of the drive of what the author defines as the military-industrial complex to enlarge its scope and penetrate into security markets

Last but not least, Nikolaos Karampekios in Chap 19 refutes the idea that the introduction of EU security research constitutes an ‘anomaly’, given the explicitly civilian character of European research Instead, with the use of database analysis,

he documents how security considerations influenced other research priorities, thus apportioning a significant part of the civilian-aimed funds Overall, the chapter views EU involvement in security research as an interim point where non-civilian R&D priorities initiated a process leading to the militarization of EU research

Bibliography

Alic JA (2007) Trillions for military technology Why the Pentagon innovates and why does it cost

so much Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Alic JA, Branscomb L, Brooks H, Carter A, Epstein GL (1992) Beyond spinoff Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Blom M, Castellacci F, Fevolden A (2013) The trade-off between innovation and defence industrial policy Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(8):1579–1592

Castellacci F, Fevorden A (2015) Innovation and liberalization in the European defence sector A small country perspective Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Citi M (2014) Revisiting creeping competences in the EU: the case of security R&D policy J Eur Integr 36(2):135–151

Edler J, James AD (2015) Understanding the emergence of new science and technology cies: policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme Res Policy 44:1252–1265

poli-European Commission (2013) Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security tor COM 2013(542) final

sec-European Commission (2014) A new deal for sec-European defence COM 2014(387) final

European Commission (2015) In defence of Europe defence integration as a response to Europe’s strategic moment, EPSC strategic notes 4, 15 June 2015 Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

European Commission (2017a) Reflection paper on the future of European defence Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

European Commission (2017b) LAB – FAB – APP — investing in the European future we want, report of the independent high level group on maximising the impact of EU research & innova- tion programmes Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg

European Commission (2017c) A European defence fund: €5.5 billion per year to boost Europe’s defence capabilities Press Release, 7 June 2017

European Council (2013) Conclusions of the European Council 19–20 December 2013

European Parliament (2016) The future of EU defence research EP Policy Department, Brussels Gholz E (2014) Military innovation and the prospects for defense-led energy innovation Issues Sci Technol 31(1):41–54

James AD (ed) (2006a) Science and technology policies for the anti-terrorism era IOS Press, Amsterdam

James AD (2006b) The transatlantic defence R&D gap: causes, consequences and controversies Def Peace Econ 17(3):223–238

N Karampekios et al.

James AD (2009a) Reevaluating the role of military research in innovation systems: introduction

to the symposium J Technol Tran 34(5):449–454

James AD (2009b) Organisational change and innovation system dynamics: the reform of the UK government defence research establishments J Technol Tran 34(5):505–523

James AD (2009c) Study on the industrial implications of the blurring of the dividing lines between defence and security European Commission, Brussels

Mawdsley J (2013) A European Agenda for security technology: from innovation policy to export controls Flemish Peace Institute, Brussels

McLeish C, Nightingale P (2007) Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: the increasing convergence of science and security policy Res Policy 36:1635–1654

Molas-Gallart J (2001) Government defence research establishments: the uncertain outcome of institutional change Def Peace Econ 12:417–437

Molas-Gallart J (2002) Coping with dual-use: a challenge for European research policy J Common Mark Stud 40(1):155–165

Molas-Gallart J  (2010) Innovation, defence and security In: Smits R, Kuhlmann S, Shapira P (eds) The theory and practice of innovation policy: an international research handbook Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Mowery D (1998) The changing structure of the US national innovation system: implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy Res Policy 27(6):639–654

Mowery D (2009) National security and national innovation systems J Technol Tran 34:455–473 Mowery D (2010) Military R&D and innovation In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, vol 2 Elsevier, Amsterdam

Mowery D (2012) Defense-related R&D as a model for ‘Grand Challenges’ technology policies Res Policy 41(10):1703–1715

Rappert B (ed) (2007) Technology and security Palgrave, London

Reppy J (2008) A bio-medical military industrial complex? Technovation 28:802–811

Ruttan VW (2006) Is war necessary for economic growth? Military procurement and technology development Oxford University Press, New York

Sempere CM (2011) The European security industry: a research Agenda Def Peace Econ 22(2):245–264

Stowsky J (1992) From spin-off to spin-on: redefining the military’s role in American technology development In: Sandholtz W, Borrus M, Zysman J, Conca K, Stowsky J, Vogel S, Weber S (eds) The highest stakes Oxford University Press, New York

Stowsky J (2004) Secrets to shield or share? New dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age Res Policy 33(2):257–269

1 Introduction

Part I

Theoretical Considerations

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

N Karampekios et al (eds.), The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy,

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management,

Abstract This chapter builds on the theoretical and empirical insights of Edler

and James (Res Policy 44:1252–1265, 2015) to examine the origins of the European Defence Research Programme (EDRP)

Edler and James (Res Policy 44:1252–1265, 2015) used a process tracing odology to examine the emergence of the European Security Research Programme (ESRP) as part of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) The case study shows that the emergence of the ESRP could only be understood by taking into account the policy entrepreneurship of the European Commission In particular, the paper iden-tifies the role of individual mid-ranking Commission officials who identified a win-dow of opportunity to put the theme on the agenda and mobilized the political and financial resources of selected Directorate Generals of the European Commission The policy entrepreneurs orchestrated the framing of this policy through managing ideational discourse and mobilizing existing and novel actor networks In doing so the Commission gained the credibility to be the venue for science and technology policy in the area of security research The paper also showed how the policy entre-preneurs used ambiguity in the definition of the meaning, scope and rationale for

meth-“security research” as a means of assembling a transnational coalition of interests and masking the initial cognitive and normative differences that existed between the various interest actors The chapter will use process tracing to examine the origins

of the EDRP. Specifically, the chapter will consider whether – following tionalism (Haas EB, The uniting of Europe: political, social and economic forces 1950–57 Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1958; Sandholtz W, Stone Sweet A (eds), European integration and supranational governance Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998; Stone Sweet A, Sandholtz W, Fligstein N (eds), The institutionaliza-tion of Europe Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001) – the EDRP is simply an

neofunc-A.D James ( * )

University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

e-mail: andrew.james@manchester.ac.uk