Prioriteringar i försvarsmaterielanskaffning : – Ett historiskinstitutionellt perspektiv

Sammanfattning

This study examines national technology priorities in defence acquisition in six European countries – Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. This seemingly bureaucratic field is interesting as it involves huge amounts of funds, high politics, strategic choices and complex processes. These aspects are here analysed from a historical institutionalist perspective. The historical institutionalist perspective carries, as main features, observations on path dependencies, critical junctures, institutional rigidity and the importance of power groups. Researchers in political science have observed a tendency to theorise without solid empirical data within this discipline. This study contributes by comparing empirically the actual acquisition in six countries for 2022 and 2025 and prioritisation strategy documents for defence materiel acquisition. Due to lags in the implementation of acquisitions policy decisions, the policies for 2025 cannot be expected to readily reflect in acquisitions the very same year, other than for complementary acquisitions. However, policy documents valid now and the state of acquisition now (2025) could say whether there is progress in respect of the situation in 2022, assumed to be a critical juncture for acquisitions after the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The case studies show that the policy priorities on defence materiel acquisition diverge in formulations and emphasis, but have similar content, and that they display path dependencies in the acquisition priorities. The recent surge in acquisitions, seems to have started already before 2022, at least in the cases of “front states” Poland and Finland, whereas the larger arms developing countries have been slower to move, meaning surprisingly few changes can be noted (yet) in view of how much money is now pouring into acquisitions and defence. In all countries, institutional rigidity can be observed, with issues in the strategy process or the acquisition organisation. Perceiving states as national policy networks and power groups, it appears all countries are now moving into a more nationalist and protective direction although pledging allegiance to their allies. These are among the 11 concluding observations of the study.