| Summary/Abstract |
Why did Denmark and Norway opt for respectively a domestic “make” and a “buy” abroad approach when acquiring comparable major surface combatants given both host a capable shipbuilding industry? Three explanations are examined: (1) Balancing concerns inch small states towards “buy” abroad decisions, if requirements are deemed urgent and if junior alliance partners fear abandonment by senior partners. Junior partners by contrast prefer “make at home” if entanglement is a greater concern. (2) National innovation systems can be biased towards large projects, such as complex warship programmes, or have a knowledge diffusion focus emphasising niche capabilities. The former point to a “make” decision whereas the latter is inclined towards “buy.” (3) Domestic defence industry advocate “make” decisions with the qualification that weaker firms favour “buy” with offset arrangements. Political executives balance job creation with military capability, but recent adverse domestic procurement experiences may prompt governments to favour “buy.”
|