Pub Date : 2023-11-21DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2279625
Jake Barnes, Seth Benson, Jack Farris, Michael Rosol, Todd Schmidt
{"title":"Domestic politics and international competition: populism and the importance of understanding rhetoric","authors":"Jake Barnes, Seth Benson, Jack Farris, Michael Rosol, Todd Schmidt","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2279625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2279625","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"47 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139252317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-08DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2279624
Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Frank Finelli, Samuel Gerstle, Isak Kulalic, Mark Wilson
ABSTRACTUnited States support for Ukraine and preparation for a potential, likely protracted, conflict with China has drawn attention to the fragility of the U.S. defense industrial base. Since the end of the Cold War, the American defense industry has optimized for peacetime and low-attrition conflicts, prized efficiency and cost-savings over capacity and flexibility, and incentivized short-run returns over resilience and innovation. While this design may have made sense in a period of undisputed U.S. dominance, the rise of the People’s Republic of China as a peer competitor and the emerging demand that the U.S. deter and, if necessary, win one or more protracted conflicts requires that Washington take a more intentional and direct role in shaping the capability, capacity, and resilience of the U.S. defense industrial base.KEYWORDS: Defense industryAmerican defense industrial basepowergreat power competition Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsRosella Cappella ZielinskiRosella Cappella Zielinski is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Political Economy Working Group at Boston University, and Non-Resident Fellow at the Krulak Center for Innovation & Future Warfare at Marine Corps University.Frank FinelliFrank Finelli is managing director at the Carlyle Group, focusing on investments in the defense and aerospace sector, where he has led numerous acquisitions and developed Carlyle’s cross-portfolio value creation and risk reductionSamuel GerstleSamuel Gerstle is a PhD student at Boston University. He previously worked at The Asia Group and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He holds a Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.Isak KulalicIsak Kulaic is a recent MA graduate in International Affairs from Boston University. His research revolves around post conflict development in the Western Balkans and regional European and North Atlantic integration.Mark WilsonMark Wilson is a Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. He is also an Andrew Carnegie Fellow for his work on the American military-industrial complex from the 1950s to the early 21st century.
{"title":"American arms and industry in a changing international order","authors":"Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Frank Finelli, Samuel Gerstle, Isak Kulalic, Mark Wilson","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2279624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2279624","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTUnited States support for Ukraine and preparation for a potential, likely protracted, conflict with China has drawn attention to the fragility of the U.S. defense industrial base. Since the end of the Cold War, the American defense industry has optimized for peacetime and low-attrition conflicts, prized efficiency and cost-savings over capacity and flexibility, and incentivized short-run returns over resilience and innovation. While this design may have made sense in a period of undisputed U.S. dominance, the rise of the People’s Republic of China as a peer competitor and the emerging demand that the U.S. deter and, if necessary, win one or more protracted conflicts requires that Washington take a more intentional and direct role in shaping the capability, capacity, and resilience of the U.S. defense industrial base.KEYWORDS: Defense industryAmerican defense industrial basepowergreat power competition Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsRosella Cappella ZielinskiRosella Cappella Zielinski is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Political Economy Working Group at Boston University, and Non-Resident Fellow at the Krulak Center for Innovation & Future Warfare at Marine Corps University.Frank FinelliFrank Finelli is managing director at the Carlyle Group, focusing on investments in the defense and aerospace sector, where he has led numerous acquisitions and developed Carlyle’s cross-portfolio value creation and risk reductionSamuel GerstleSamuel Gerstle is a PhD student at Boston University. He previously worked at The Asia Group and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He holds a Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.Isak KulalicIsak Kulaic is a recent MA graduate in International Affairs from Boston University. His research revolves around post conflict development in the Western Balkans and regional European and North Atlantic integration.Mark WilsonMark Wilson is a Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. He is also an Andrew Carnegie Fellow for his work on the American military-industrial complex from the 1950s to the early 21st century.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"128 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135342207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277455
Mark Bromley
ABSTRACT This article analyses the process and outcome of the review and recast of the EU Dual-use Regulation which concluded in 2020. The recast was dominated by conflicts both among EU member states and between the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament about the interlinked issues of expanding the range of human rights states should consider when implementing the Regulation and controlling exports of “cyber-surveillance items”. The processes through which states individually and collectively determine their content of their export controls are often portrayed as a zero-sum contest between “norms” and “interests”. This article argues that the recast can be better understood if it is viewed as a competition between different constitutive and regulative norms grounded in humanitarian, economic and national security concerns. The article also argues that the outcome of the recast can be better understood if we apply Brunsson’s concept of “organized hypocrisy” and view it as a set of compromises which sought to address several competing norms. The article concludes by reflecting on the potential wider application of the “competing norms” and “organized hypocrisy” frameworks for other studies of states’ export controls and export control regimes.
{"title":"The EU Dual-use Regulation, cyber-surveillance and human rights: the competing norms and organised hypocrisy of EU export controls","authors":"Mark Bromley","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277455","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses the process and outcome of the review and recast of the EU Dual-use Regulation which concluded in 2020. The recast was dominated by conflicts both among EU member states and between the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament about the interlinked issues of expanding the range of human rights states should consider when implementing the Regulation and controlling exports of “cyber-surveillance items”. The processes through which states individually and collectively determine their content of their export controls are often portrayed as a zero-sum contest between “norms” and “interests”. This article argues that the recast can be better understood if it is viewed as a competition between different constitutive and regulative norms grounded in humanitarian, economic and national security concerns. The article also argues that the outcome of the recast can be better understood if we apply Brunsson’s concept of “organized hypocrisy” and view it as a set of compromises which sought to address several competing norms. The article concludes by reflecting on the potential wider application of the “competing norms” and “organized hypocrisy” frameworks for other studies of states’ export controls and export control regimes.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"297 1","pages":"644 - 664"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277452
Karolina Muti, Elio Calcagno
ABSTRACT The Critical Appraisal draws a picture of the current state of the EU Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) by building on the 7 Papers included in the Defence Studies Special Issue dedicated to ”European Defence”. The authors assess the EU defence industry consolidation process, describing the trends that shape it and the variety of actors involved. In the complex European defence market, opposite – but not mutually exclusive – trends of consolidation and fragmentation coexist. The authors conclude that the EDTIB is likely to continue developing along these apparently contradictory lines, where the variety of public and private actors involved cooperate and compete simultaneously, according to a plethora of interests. The Appraisal suggests several areas for future research and touches upon new EU defence initiatives, such as the European Defence Fund (EDF) and it's precursor programmes.
{"title":"Critical appraisal – Special Issue “European defence”","authors":"Karolina Muti, Elio Calcagno","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277452","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Critical Appraisal draws a picture of the current state of the EU Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) by building on the 7 Papers included in the Defence Studies Special Issue dedicated to ”European Defence”. The authors assess the EU defence industry consolidation process, describing the trends that shape it and the variety of actors involved. In the complex European defence market, opposite – but not mutually exclusive – trends of consolidation and fragmentation coexist. The authors conclude that the EDTIB is likely to continue developing along these apparently contradictory lines, where the variety of public and private actors involved cooperate and compete simultaneously, according to a plethora of interests. The Appraisal suggests several areas for future research and touches upon new EU defence initiatives, such as the European Defence Fund (EDF) and it's precursor programmes.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"35 1","pages":"687 - 692"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277434
Lindy Newlove-Eriksson, Johan Eriksson
ABSTRACT In his 1961 farewell address, US President Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex,” referring to the coalescing of military, industrial, and political interest groups. In contemporary Europe, the military-industrial complex is arguably transforming into a complex with a noteworthy commercial civilian dimension, blurring traditional military and arms-focused understandings of European defence and security. Our emphasis on an added corporate civilian component captures the expansion of defence and security beyond the traditional military domain. Coalescing of industry and politics is observed in Europe, blurring the military-civilian divide, technologically as well as in organization and governance, particularly through public-private partnerships. Eisenhower, himself a decorated WWII general, warned of how the US military-industrial complex could lead to “disastrous use of misplaced power.” Rather than reiterating such a conclusion in the European context, our paper examines how the European military-civilian-industrial complex is emerging, looking at how elite participants shape the public-private structure of the complex, and specifically how policies on dual-use and emerging technologies influence developments in Europe. The focus herein is on novel actors, characteristics, and the European Union and charts out defining conceptual features of the defence and security industry in Europe.
{"title":"Conceptualizing the European military-civilian-industrial complex: the need for a helicopter perspective","authors":"Lindy Newlove-Eriksson, Johan Eriksson","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277434","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In his 1961 farewell address, US President Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex,” referring to the coalescing of military, industrial, and political interest groups. In contemporary Europe, the military-industrial complex is arguably transforming into a complex with a noteworthy commercial civilian dimension, blurring traditional military and arms-focused understandings of European defence and security. Our emphasis on an added corporate civilian component captures the expansion of defence and security beyond the traditional military domain. Coalescing of industry and politics is observed in Europe, blurring the military-civilian divide, technologically as well as in organization and governance, particularly through public-private partnerships. Eisenhower, himself a decorated WWII general, warned of how the US military-industrial complex could lead to “disastrous use of misplaced power.” Rather than reiterating such a conclusion in the European context, our paper examines how the European military-civilian-industrial complex is emerging, looking at how elite participants shape the public-private structure of the complex, and specifically how policies on dual-use and emerging technologies influence developments in Europe. The focus herein is on novel actors, characteristics, and the European Union and charts out defining conceptual features of the defence and security industry in Europe.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"78 1","pages":"561 - 588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277451
H. Gruber
ABSTRACT To contribute to the efforts of building a common European defense policy the European Investment Bank has set up a special programme to support investment in technologies that have a bearing on defense capabilities, in particular dual-use technologies. Pooling economic resources is essential in achieving goals of economic efficiency and effectiveness. Economic research along these lines should be continued.
{"title":"Post-scriptum","authors":"H. Gruber","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277451","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To contribute to the efforts of building a common European defense policy the European Investment Bank has set up a special programme to support investment in technologies that have a bearing on defense capabilities, in particular dual-use technologies. Pooling economic resources is essential in achieving goals of economic efficiency and effectiveness. Economic research along these lines should be continued.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"693 - 695"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277474
Luca Lambertini
ABSTRACT The relationship between industry structure, aggregate R&D activity, and the pace and quality of the resulting innovation process is currently the subject of a lively debate across NATO in general and even more so among its European members. This paper tackles this issue from a standpoint belonging to the tradition of industrial economics, adapting it to the specific context of the defence sector. This is done with a view to stressing the need of increasing the degree of concentration in order to increase standardization and interoperability of defence systems and facilitate the exploitation of scale economies. In the traditional jargon of industrial organization theory, this amounts to vindicating the Schumpeterian view according to which increasing concentration (eventually all the way up to pure monopoly) monotonically fosters innovation incentives, while mitigating effort duplications affecting large and long-lasting R&D projects. One additional implication, equally relevant, is that the concentration process can indeed be facilitated, in the short to medium term, by systematically resorting to the creation of research joint ventures and/or R&D cartels so as to boost spillover effects and reduce excess investments.
{"title":"A Schumpeterian view of the interplay between innovation and concentration in the EU defence industry","authors":"Luca Lambertini","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277474","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The relationship between industry structure, aggregate R&D activity, and the pace and quality of the resulting innovation process is currently the subject of a lively debate across NATO in general and even more so among its European members. This paper tackles this issue from a standpoint belonging to the tradition of industrial economics, adapting it to the specific context of the defence sector. This is done with a view to stressing the need of increasing the degree of concentration in order to increase standardization and interoperability of defence systems and facilitate the exploitation of scale economies. In the traditional jargon of industrial organization theory, this amounts to vindicating the Schumpeterian view according to which increasing concentration (eventually all the way up to pure monopoly) monotonically fosters innovation incentives, while mitigating effort duplications affecting large and long-lasting R&D projects. One additional implication, equally relevant, is that the concentration process can indeed be facilitated, in the short to medium term, by systematically resorting to the creation of research joint ventures and/or R&D cartels so as to boost spillover effects and reduce excess investments.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"608 - 625"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277439
A. Calcara, A. Gilli, Mauro Gilli
ABSTRACT The war in Ukraine, coupled with a more turbulent international system characterized by geopolitical competition between the United States and China, is leading to a simultaneous change in the demand and supply side of the European defence market. On the demand side, European countries are adapting their procurement plans to move from a crisis management phase dominated by asymmetric warfare against small states or non-state actors to an era of strategic competition and potential conflict against peer adversaries. On the supply side, European defence industries are preparing to meet the increased demand for major equipment from national governments in the short term, while at the same time trying to be ready to invest in long-term innovation, in order to anticipate future government requirements for the new era. This paper investigates the interactions between demand and supply in the European defence market and provides a first illustration of the trade-off between prioritizing short-term readiness over long-term innovation and vice versa
{"title":"Short-term readiness, long-term innovation: the European defence industry in turbulent times","authors":"A. Calcara, A. Gilli, Mauro Gilli","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277439","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The war in Ukraine, coupled with a more turbulent international system characterized by geopolitical competition between the United States and China, is leading to a simultaneous change in the demand and supply side of the European defence market. On the demand side, European countries are adapting their procurement plans to move from a crisis management phase dominated by asymmetric warfare against small states or non-state actors to an era of strategic competition and potential conflict against peer adversaries. On the supply side, European defence industries are preparing to meet the increased demand for major equipment from national governments in the short term, while at the same time trying to be ready to invest in long-term innovation, in order to anticipate future government requirements for the new era. This paper investigates the interactions between demand and supply in the European defence market and provides a first illustration of the trade-off between prioritizing short-term readiness over long-term innovation and vice versa","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"58 1","pages":"626 - 643"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2285303
G. Giacomello, Johan Eriksson, Francesco Giumelli
{"title":"Sources of strength: the European defence industry in a disorderly world","authors":"G. Giacomello, Johan Eriksson, Francesco Giumelli","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2285303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2285303","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"527 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2023.2277440
Francesco Giumelli, Marlene Marx
ABSTRACT The fragmentation of the European defence market hampers the establishment of a unified European defence. The European Union (EU) has implemented initiatives like the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, Permanent Structured Cooperation, and the European Defence Fund (EDF) to address this issue. However, a comprehensive understanding of the European defence market and its consolidation, which is essential for evaluating these programs, remains insufficient. This article aims to observe the configuration of the European defence market and its evolution over time, exploring potential trends towards consolidation. The authors contend that despite the fragmented nature of the European defence market, a few larger companies from four countries hold significant positions. They also identify a positive trend towards consolidation, although institutional incentives perpetuate market fragmentation. To delve deeper, the authors analyze the funding allocation for defence companies through the preparatory programs of the European Defence Fund. Their analysis encompasses 65 projects awarded to 430 companies between 2016 and 2020, supplemented by insights from three focus groups and an expert survey conducted in the Netherlands, Italy, and Sweden. This article suggests avenues for future research on the EDF, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of market consolidation and the efficacy of current initiatives.
{"title":"The European Defence Fund precursor programmes and the state of the European market for defence","authors":"Francesco Giumelli, Marlene Marx","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2023.2277440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277440","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The fragmentation of the European defence market hampers the establishment of a unified European defence. The European Union (EU) has implemented initiatives like the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, Permanent Structured Cooperation, and the European Defence Fund (EDF) to address this issue. However, a comprehensive understanding of the European defence market and its consolidation, which is essential for evaluating these programs, remains insufficient. This article aims to observe the configuration of the European defence market and its evolution over time, exploring potential trends towards consolidation. The authors contend that despite the fragmented nature of the European defence market, a few larger companies from four countries hold significant positions. They also identify a positive trend towards consolidation, although institutional incentives perpetuate market fragmentation. To delve deeper, the authors analyze the funding allocation for defence companies through the preparatory programs of the European Defence Fund. Their analysis encompasses 65 projects awarded to 430 companies between 2016 and 2020, supplemented by insights from three focus groups and an expert survey conducted in the Netherlands, Italy, and Sweden. This article suggests avenues for future research on the EDF, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of market consolidation and the efficacy of current initiatives.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"589 - 607"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139324158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：