Search

European defence policy clearly remains heavily dependent upon the equipment of the French and British armed forces. What remains largely unknown, however, is the extent of co-operation between these forces to maintain this equipment and thereby transform theoretical capacity into actual military capability. Drawn from a study of such bilateral cooperation over servicing the Atlas (A400M) airlifter, this article shows that modest levels of co-operation have developed but also that deeper collaboration continues to be blocked by unfavourable organisational and political structures. The first level of differentiation concerns contracting with the aircraft's manufacturer (Airbus): the British have delegated nearly all support activity to this firm, whereas the French have retained most of it 'in-house'. Secondly, the two countries' defence industrial policies continue to differ significantly. In the British case, defence industrial base concerns are now addressed on a bespoke basis centred upon market conditions in general, and competitiveness of supply in particular. Conversely, neo-dirigiste interventionist industrial policy still dominates French equipment support. Weak bilateral co-operation over supporting the Atlas is therefore best explained by using constructivist political economy to unpack the problem definitions and policy instruments it has entailed, together with the national hybrids it has bolstered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes a reinvestment in political sociology in general, and the concept of territory in particular, as means of renewing analysis of the policy–polity dialectic at the heart of the European Union (EU). Drawing on a sociological theory of decision-making and sectoral regulation, the foundations for a ‘territorial institutionalist’ approach are developed in order to study political usages of territory. Specifically, the process of the ‘political assignment of authority' is examined to analyse three such usages in EU fisheries and wine: justifying frontiers of policy instruments, defining actor eligibility, politicizing/depoliticizing regulatory controversies. Overall, we argue that EU studies must re-engage in epistemological debates over policy–polity linkages in order to produce new and rigorous knowledge about European integration and its legitimization. For, as our findings suggest, these processes are not driven by the certainty of ‘rational’ multi-level governance, but are mediated within sectoral ‘institutional orders’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]