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.”

摘要

鉴于丹麦和挪威都拥有强大的造船业，为什么丹麦和挪威在获得可比的主要水面战舰时分别选择国内“制造”和“购买”国外的方式？研究了三种解释：（1）如果需求被认为是紧急的并且初级联盟伙伴担心被高级伙伴抛弃，则平衡小国对“购买”国外决定的担忧。相比之下，如果纠缠是一个更大的问题，初级合伙人更喜欢“在家做”。(2) 国家创新系统可能偏向于大型项目，例如复杂的军舰计划，或者侧重于强调利基能力的知识传播。前者指向“做出”决定，而后者倾向于“购买”。（3）国内国防工业主张“做出”决定，条件是实力较弱的企业倾向于“购买”，抵消安排。政治高管在创造就业机会和军事能力之间取得平衡，但最近不利的国内采购经验可能会促使政府倾向于“购买”。