Ethnocentric vs. Regiocentric Consolidation in the Aerospace and

Chapter 2: The Intellectual Battlefield: Competing Theoretical Frameworks
2.1 Bound to compete: realism and the BMD / EADS mergers
This chapter analyses the BMD / EADS mergers from the perspective of two major IR theories:
realism and neo-liberal institutionalism (or “neo-liberalism”), whose proponents are locked in a
long-standing fight over intellectual battlefield dominance in IR theory:
“[T]he debate between these two approaches has dominated much of international
relations theory for the last decade. It is now commonplace for an article about some aspect
of international relations theory to begin by locating itself in terms of this debate” 176 .
Historically, realism has long been the pre-eminent school of IR theory. Political and military
leaders in particular, have come to value realism for its theoretical simplicity, its high explanatory
and predictive capacity, as well as its direct applicability to the practice of international relations.
Especially on hard-core defence and national security issues, realism is arguably still the only 800-
pound gorilla in the jungle of IR theories. A PhD student analysing the consolidation of the US and
European aeronautics and defence industry is therefore well advised to take a close look at realism
and the analytical framework that this IR theory provides.
Realism is based on the following key assumptions: 177 First, states are the primary actors in
international relations. In other words, despite the rise of international organisations (UN 178 ,
WTO 179 , etc.) and transnational actors (MNCs, NGOs, etc.), sovereign, independent states remain
the dominant players in the international system today. Sovereign states form governments, raise
taxes, control borders, maintain armies, and are the ultimate source of political control and authority
on their respective national territories.
“Second, the international environment severely penalises states if they fail to protect their
vital interests or if they pursue objectives beyond their means; hence, states are ‘sensitive to
costs’ and behave as unitary-rational agents. Third, international anarchy is the principal
force shaping the motives and actions of states.” 180
176 Powell (1994) p. 313
177 Grieco (1988)
177 Ibid., p. 488
178 UN = United Nations
179 WTO = World Trade Organisation
180 Ibid., p. 488
48