The future of cooperative programs in Europe, paradox of a hybrid market


  • Renaud Bellais ENSTA Bretagne and University Grenoble Alps



Armament, cooperation, Europe, procurement, industry


For European arms-producing countries, launching a cooperative program represents a compromise between preserving their domestic industrial base and achieving an affordable acquisition. Nevertheless, scientific literature is marred with criticisms regarding the effectiveness of such an approach. Paradoxically, this does not prevent European states from committing to new cooperative programs—the European Commission has set up mechanisms for improving the effectiveness of European defense industry based, de facto, on incentives to launch cooperative programs. This article looks at the place of cooperative programs in Europe to understand whether the new initiatives of the European Union can succeed in improving the effectiveness of military spending as well as enhancing European strategic autonomy. It analyzes the organization of the European armament market to explain why cooperative programs appear unavoidable. It explores how the European Commission could overcome current limitations through community-funded programs, given that such funding would foster the emergence of a European defense technological and industrial base.

Author Biography

Renaud Bellais, ENSTA Bretagne and University Grenoble Alps

SHS (Ensta Bretagne)

CESICE (University Grenoble Alps)


Bellais, R. 2017a. Against the odds? The evolution of the European naval shipbuilding industry. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 12(1), pp. 5–11.

Bellais, R. 2017b. The Economic Imperative of Europeanizing Defense Innovation. In N. Karampekios, I. Oikonomou and E.G., Carayannis. eds. The Emergence of EU Defense Research Policy, From Innovation to Militarization. Cham: Springer, pp. 93–109.

Bellais, R. 2022. MBDA’s Industrial Model and European Defence. Defence and Peace Economics, 33(7), pp. 876-893.

Bellais, R. and Fiott, D. 2017. Disruptive Innovation, Market De-Stabilization and Europe’s Defence Market. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 12(1), pp. 37–45.

Bellais, R. and S. Jackson. 2014. Defence firms beyond national borders: Internationalization or multi-domestic approach? In R. Bellais; ed. The evolving boundaries of defence: An assessment of recent shifts in defence activities, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 233–251.

Berger, S. 2005. How We Compete: What Companies Around the World Are Doing to Make it in Today's Global Economy. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Briani, V. 2013. The costs of non-Europe in the defence field. Moncalieri: Centre for Studies on Federalism, and Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali.

Cohen, E. 1992 Le Colbertisme ‘high tech’, Économie des Telecom et du Grand Projet. Paris: Hachette.

Darnis, J.P. 2021. The European Union between strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty: impasses and opportunities. Recherches & Documents 10/2021, Paris: Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique.

De La Brosse, G. 2017. Deploying Financial Tools in Support of European Defence Cooperation. ARES Comment 14, Paris: Armament Industry European Research Group.

Faure, S.B.H. 2019. Varieties of international co-operation: France’s ‘flexilateral’ policy in the context of Brexit. French Politics, 17(1), pp. 1–25.

Faure, S.B.H. 2020. Avec ou sans l’Europe. Le dilemme de la Politique française d’armement. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

Fiott, D. 2019. Strategic investment, Making geopolitical sense of the EU’s defence industrial policy. Chaillot Papers 156. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.

Ford, R. 2015. Understanding the cost of cooperating. Défense & Industrie 4. Paris: Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, pp. 1–4.

GAO. 2022. Weapon systems annual assessment, Challenges to fielding capabilities faster persist. GAO-22-105230. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.

Hagedoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J. 1994. The internationalization of the economy: Global strategies and strategic technology alliances. In U. Muldur, R. Petrella and M.G. Colombo. eds. The European Community and the globalization of technology and the economy. Luxemburg: Commission of the European Communities, pp. 159–192.

Hartley, K. 2008. The industrial and economic benefits of Eurofighter Typhoon. Updated report. York: University of York.

Kirkpatrick, D. 2004. Trends in the costs of weapon systems and the consequences. Defense and Peace Economics, 15(3), pp. 259–273.

Kirkpatrick, D. 2008. Is defence inflation really as high as claimed? RUSI Defence Systems, October. Accessed on 31 January 2010.

Maulny, J.P., Simon, E. and Marrone, A. 2020. EU Defence Package: Defence Procurement and Intra-Community Transfers Directives, European Implementation Assessment. Report to European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels: European Parliament.

Lawrence, P. and Thornton, D. 2005. Deep stall, The turbulent story of Boeing commercial airplanes, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Schumacher, E. 2014. Consequences of political interference on the European procurement cooperation of the A400M and its lessons identified. Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, and and Lille: Sciences Po Lille.

Setter, O, and Tishler, A. 2006. A brave leap or a gradual climb? The dynamics of investment in R&D of integrative technologies. Defense and Peace Economics, 17(3), pp. 201–222.

Siroën, J.M. 2004. “L’international n’est pas le global, Pour un usage raisonné du concept de globalization.” Revue d’économie politique, 114(6), pp. 681–698.

Witney, N. 2012. Procurement and War. In Y. Boyer and J. Lindley-French. eds. The Oxford Handbook of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 531–543.



How to Cite

Bellais, R. (2023). The future of cooperative programs in Europe, paradox of a hybrid market. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 18(1).




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.