Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T06:19:26.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Buy American? The International Politics of Fighter Jet Transfers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

Srdjan Vucetic  and
Atsushi Tago
Srdjan Vucetic*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Atsushi Tago*
Affiliation:
Kobe University
*
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada, Email: [email protected]
Graduate School of Law, Kobe University, 2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 657-8501, Japan, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When it comes to buying military aircraft, what leads states to prefer one supplier over the other? This paper explores this question from the perspective of international relations theory. First we use social network analysis to map out fighter jet transfers during and after the Cold War and examine the extent to which historical structures of international hierarchy shape contemporary supplier-receiver relationships. Next, we use a basic probit model to analyse the origins of fighter jets in the world's air forces today to evaluate the effect of interstate orders of super-ordination and sub-ordination on sourcing patterns. All things being equal, the more a state is embedded in US security and economic hierarchy, the more it is likely to buy American-made fighter jets.

Résumé

Lorsqu'il s'agit de l'achat d'avions militaires, qu'est-ce qui conduit les États à préférer un fournisseur plutôt qu'un autre ? Cet article explore cette question du point de vue de la théorie des relations internationales. D'abord, nous utilisons l'analyse des réseaux sociaux pour recenser les transferts d'avions de chasse pendant et après la guerre froide et examiner dans quelle mesure les structures historiques de la hiérarchie internationale forment les relations fournisseur-récepteur contemporaines. Ensuite, nous utilisons un modèle probit pour analyser les origines des avions de chasse dans les forces aériennes mondiales d'aujourd'hui et pour ainsi évaluer l'effet des relations interétatiques de prépondérance et de subordination sur les structures d'approvisionnement. Toutes choses étant égales, plus un État est impliqué dans les structures économiques et sécuritaires américaines, plus il est susceptible d'acheter des avions de combat de fabrication américaine.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 101 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerman, Anders and Seim, Anna Larsson, 2013. “The Global Arms Trade Network 1950–2007,” Working paper, June 16, http://ideas.repec.org/p/deg/conpap/c017_055.html (December 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Atkinson, Michael M. and Nossal, Kim Richard, 1981. “Bureaucratic Politics and the New Fighter Aircraft Decisions.” Canadian Public Administration 24 (4): 531–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC News, “China fake parts ‘used in US military equipment.’” May 5, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293 (November 4, 2012).Google Scholar
Bow, Brian. 2009. The Politics of Linkage: Power, Interdependence, and Ideas in Canada-US Relations. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry and Herring, Eric. 1998. The Arms Dynamic in World Politics. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Caverley, Jonathan and Kapstein, Ethan B., 2012. “Arms Away: How Washington Squandered Its Monopoly on Weapons Sales.” Foreign Affairs 91 (5): 45–54.Google Scholar
Charbonneau, Bruno and Cox, Wayne S., eds., 2010. Locating Global Order: American Power and Canadian Security. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Den Tandt, Michael, 2014. “France eager for chance to bid on Canadian defence procurements worth billions,” National Post (Toronto), October 30, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/30/michael-den-tandt-france-eager-for-chance-to-bid-on-canadian-defence-procurements-worth-billions/ (4 November 2014).Google Scholar
de Nooy, Wouter, Mrvar, Andrej and Batagelj, Vladimir. 2005. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Jennifer L. 2013. “Market Imperative Meets Normative Power: Human Rights and European Arms Transfer Policy.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 206–34.Google Scholar
Eyre, Dana P. and Suchman, Mark C., 1996. “Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons: An Institutional Theory Approach,” In Culture of National Security, ed. Katzenstein, Peter J.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, Theo. 2005. “World Culture and Military Development.” Security Studies 14: 448–88.Google Scholar
Fearon, James and Wendt, Alexander. 2002. “Rationalism vs. Constructivism: A Skeptical View.” Handbook of International Relations, ed. Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B.A.. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Andrew. 2011. The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Gause, F. Gregory III. 2010. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godbout, Mark. 2014. “Remplacement des CF-18 : Dassault prêt à assembler le Rafale au Canada, ” Radio Canada, 13 March http://ici.radiocanada.ca/nouvelles/Economie/2014/03/13/003-dassault-assemblage-avion-rafale-canada.shtml (March 13, 2014).Google Scholar
Gray, Colin S. 2012. Airpower for Strategic Effect. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press with Air Force Research Institute. http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_122_Airpower.pdf (March 18, 2013).Google Scholar
Harkavy, Robert E. 1975. The Arms Trade and International Systems. Cambridge MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Hartley, Keith. 2007. “The Arms Industry, Procurement and Industrial Policies.” In Handbook of Defense Economics, ed. Sandler, Todd and Hartley, Keith. vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Horton, Frank B. Rogerson, Anthony C. and Warner, Edward L.. 1974. Comparative Defense Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Jamie, ed. 2012. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2012–2013: In Service. Coulsdon, Surrey: Jane's Information Group.Google Scholar
IISS. 2012. The Military Balance 2012. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Isenberg, David. 2007. From the Frying Pan into the Fire: U.S. Arms Sales and Military Assistance to the Persian Gulf and Middle East. London: British American Security Information Council.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2009. “Paradigmatic Faults in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 330–59.Google Scholar
Kinsella, David. 1998. “Arms Transfer Dependence and Foreign Policy Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 35: 7–23.Google Scholar
Kinsella, David. 2011. “The Arms Trade,” In The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, ed. Coyne, Christopher and Mathers, Rachel. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Krause, Keith. 1991. “Military Statecraft: Power and Influence in Soviet and American Arms Transfer Relationships.” International Studies Quarterly 35: 313–6.Google Scholar
Krause, Keith. 1992. Arms and the State: Patterns of Military Production and Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolodziej, Edward A. 1987. Making and Marketing Arms. The French Experience and its Implications for the International System. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krotz, Ulrich. 2011. Flying Tiger: International Relations Theory and the Politics of Advanced Weapons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laguerre, Cédric and DeVore, Marc. 2011. “F-35: Price and Prejudice.” Defense & Security Analysis 26 (3): 331–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David. 1996. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations.” International Organization 50 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Lake, David. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett Ashley and Morgan, T. Clifton. 2012. “The Quest for Security: Alliances and Arms.” In Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes, ed. Mitchell, Sara, Diehl, Paul and Morrow, James. Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lennox, Patrick. 2009. At Home and Abroad: The Canada-US Relationship and Canada's Place in the World. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Markusen, Anne and DiGiovanna, Sean, 2003. “From Defense to Development?” In From Defense to Development? International Perspectives on Realizing the Peace Dividend, ed. Markusen, Anne, DiGiovanna, Sean and Leary, M.C.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milewski, Terry. 2014. “F-35's French rival pitches ‘Canadianized’ fighter jet.” CBC News, March 18. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234 (March 18, 2014).Google Scholar
Müller, Harald. 2013. “Security Cooperation.” In Handbook of International Relations, ed. Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Nossal, Kim Richard. 2012–13. “Late Learners: The F-35 and Lessons from the New Fighter Aircraft Program.” International Journal 68 (1):167–84.Google Scholar
Palmer, Randall, Ljunggren, David and Shalal, Andrea. 2014. “Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe—source,” Reuters (US edition), September 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-canada-defense-fighters-idUSKBN0GZ2MC20140904 (October 4, 2014).Google Scholar
Polity IV Project 1800–2010. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm (21 July 2013).Google Scholar
Pythian, Mark. 2000. The Politics of British Arms Sales Since 1964. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra and Kazenstein, Peter J.. 2010. Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. London: Palgrave. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sislin, John. 1994. “Arms as Influence: The Determinants of Successful Influence.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 665–89.Google Scholar
Sorenson, David S. 2014. “Why the Saudi Arabian Defence Binge?” Contemporary Security Policy 35 (1): 116–37.Google Scholar
Sprecher, Christopher and Krause, Volker. 2006. “Special Issue on Alliances.” Journal of Peace Research 43: 363–489.Google Scholar
Tago, Atsushi and Vucetic, Srdjan. 2012–13. “The ‘Only Choice’: Canadian and Japanese F-35 Decisions Compared.” International Journal 68 (1):131–50.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” www.stanford.edu/~tomz/software/clarify.pdf (April 3, 2005).Google Scholar
Vucetic, Srdjan, forthcoming. “The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.” In Salter, Mark, ed., Making Things International, Vol. 2: Catalysts and Reactions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Vucetic, Srdjan and Nossal, Kim Richard. 2012–13. “The International Politics of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.” International Journal 68 (1): 3–12.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander and Barnett, Michael. 1993. “Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization.” Review of International Studies 19: 321–47.Google Scholar
Wezeman, Siemon. 2011. “International Transfers of Combat Aircraft, 2005–2009.” In SIPRI Fact Sheet. November 2010. http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id =414 (December 1, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyss, Marco and Wilner, Alex. 2012. “The Next Generation Fighter Club.” Canadian Military Journal 12: 18–27.Google Scholar