Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:57:33.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concorde—bird of harmony or political albatross: an examination in the context of British foreign policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Annabelle May
Annabelle May
Affiliation:
Research Associate at The Open University, Milton Keynes, England.
Get access

Abstract

Increasingly, technological decisions are entering into the political arena. They alter the environment in which policy must operate. It is claimed that British foreign policy since the Second World War has been dominated by unrealizable goals. Britain has been preoccupied by the debate about her world-role, a debate which was in itself the product of anachronistic values and assumptions. The Concorde project was the manifestation of a desire to maintain Britain's position as a leading aeronautical power. The aircraft industry faithfully reflects the pattern of government interests and influence. But Concorde was also intended to emphasize what the British government felt to be changing relationships with the United States and Europe. However, in “modernized” states, the boundaries between foreign and domestic policies are increasingly blurred. Although this phenomenon may result in interdependence at an international level, the formation of transnational links can restrict the power of sovereign states. It can also inhibit the domestic process of democratic control. While international burden-sharing may place unforeseen pressures on the structures of government, the momentum for technological development is often so strong that it becomes impossible to resist. While visible technology can be a potent instrument of prestige, it must also respond to needs at a market level in order to be successful. Concorde has conspicuously failed to do this.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1979 , pp. 481 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1979

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

1 Kaiser, Karl, “Transnational Politics: Toward a Theory of Multinational Politics,” International Organization 25 (1971): 816–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Skolnikoff, Eugene B., Science, Technology and American Foreign Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1967), pp. 306, 315Google Scholar.

3 Wallace, William, The Foreign Policy Process in Britain (London: RIIA/George Allen & Unwin, 1977), p. 82Google Scholar.

4 Blank, Stephen, “Britain: the Politics of Foreign Economic Policy, the Domestic Economy, and the Problem of Pluralistic Stagnation,” International Organization 31, 4 (Autumn 1977): 673–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Cmnd. 4107 (July 1969).

6 Morse, Edward, Foreign Policy and Interdependence in Gaullist France (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 318Google Scholar.

7 See Vernon, Raymond, “Enterprise and Government in Western Europe” in Big Business and the Slate: Changing Relations in Western Europe, Vernon, R., ed. (London: Macmillan, 1974), pp. 18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Gilpin, Robert, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), Chapter 1, passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See Moorhouse, Geoffrey, The Diplomats: the Foreign Office Today (London: Jonathan Cape, 1977), p. 29Google Scholar.

10 London: HMSO, 1977, p. ix. Its recommendations were rejected by the government in 1978.

11 Morse, pp. 125–26.

12 Skolnikoff, p. 208.

13 Vig, Norman J., Science and Technology in British Politics (London: Pergamon, 1968), pp. 30, 157Google Scholar.

14 Committee of Enquiry into the Aircraft Industry, (Plowden Report), Cmnd. 2853 (December 1965).

15 Barry, Gillman, Eglin.

16 See Wallace, p. II.

17 0. U. Archive. Passages thus marked form part of a collection of recorded interviews, originally made for O.U. programs. These interviews were only broadcast in part. This collection is held at the Open University, and is available to researchers. I conducted many additional interviews myself; I would like to thank all those involved for their help and cooperation.

18 Barry, Gillman, Eglin.

19 Interview.

20 Public Money in the Private Sector, 6th Report from the Expenditure Committee, 1971– 72 (London: HSMO 1972), p. 238 (1144)Google Scholar.

21 The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1972, pp. 8–9.

22 612H.C. Debs., 74.

23 Dunsire, Andrew, “The Passing of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation,” Public Law (Summer 1961): 150–164Google Scholar. In this context, it is interesting to note that in 1963 Sir Matthew Slattery, then Chairman of BOAC, had what he described as a “blazing row” with Whitehall about having British aircraft forced on the corporation. This policy, he complained, together with the government compelling BOAC to run certain unprofitable routes and invest in foreign airlines “for Foreign Office reasons,” had resulted in a £60m. loss. Following this incident, Sir Matthew was quoted as remarking, “At least I've saved BOAC from buying Concord.” Later that year, he was dismissed from his post. For an account of this incident, see Lyall, Gavin, “Through Hardship (and Politics) to the Stars,” Daily Telegraph Magazine, 8 11 1968Google Scholar. See also Johnson, Nevil, Parliament and Administration: the Estimates Committee 1945–65 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 107–110Google Scholar, for an account of similar remarks made by Sir Matthew.

24 M. S. Hochmuth, “Aerospace,” in Vernon, ed., op. cit.

25 O.U. Archive.

26 O.U. Archive.

27 See Huntington, Samuel P., “Transnational Organizations in World Politics,” World Politics XXV, 3 (04 1973)Google Scholar.

28 Smouts, Marie-Claude, “French Foreign Policy: the Domestic Debate,” International Affairs 53, 1 (01 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Blondel, Jean, The Government of France (London: Methuen, 1974), p. 255Google Scholar. See also Morse, Chapter 1, for a further account of de Gaulle's attempted distinction between foreign and domestic affairs. France, notes Morse, had the only democratic constitution written after World War Two which vested the supreme authority to conduct foreign affairs in the head of state.

30 Verrier, Anthony, “British Defense Policy under Labor,” Foreign Affairs 42, 2 (01 1964): 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Knight, Geoffrey, Concorde: the Inside Story (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1976), p. 5Google Scholar.

33 Barry, Gillman, Eglin.

34 Jewkes, p. 13.

35 Skolnikoff, pp. 15–16.

35 Henderson, David, “Two British. Errors: Their Probable Size and Some Possible Lessons,” Oxford Economic Papers 29, 2 (07 1977): 190–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Beer, Samuel, British Politics in the Collectivist Age (New York: Vintage Books, 1969), p. 426Google Scholar.

37 Blank, p. 688.

38 Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee, p. 85 (267).

39 O.U. Archive.

40 O.U. Archive.

41 Moorhouse, p. 370.

42 Interview.

43 Interview with former senior Treasury official.

44 Blondel, p. 246.

45 O.U. Archive.

46 Bruce-Gardyne, Jock and Lawson, Nigel, The Power Game (London: Macmillan, 1976), p. 28Google Scholar.

47 Wilson, Andrew, “The Concorde Tragi-Comedy,” New Statesman, 7 05 1976Google Scholar. Italics added.

48 Sampson, Anthony, Macmillan, a Study in Ambiguity (London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1967), p. 221Google Scholar.

49 The Times, 15 January 1963.

50 Hochmuth, p. 145.

51 Blank, p. 686.

51 Nau, Henry R., “Collective Responses to R&D Problems in Western Europe: 1955–1958 and 1968–1973,” International Organization 29, 3 (Summer 1975): 635CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Eighth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts 1976–77 (London: HMSO, 07 1977), p. 264Google Scholar.

54 Chapman, Leslie, Your Disobedient Servant (London: Chatto & Windus, 1978), pp. 127–130Google Scholar.

55 The Times, 10 December 1971.

56 Second Report from the Estimates Committee (London: HMSO 1964), pp. xxvi–xxviiGoogle Scholar.

57 688 H. C. Debs., 972–973; 1157–60.

58 M O.U. Archive.

59 Eighth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, p. xiii. Italics added.

60 O.U. Archive.

61 Interview.

62 SirGore-Booth, Paul, With Great Truth and Respect (London: Constable, 1974), p. 354Google Scholar.

63 Interview.

64 Interview.

65 Knight, p. 32.

66 According to Christopher Layton, a two-day session was held at two monthly intervals. See Layton, , European Advanced Technology, a Programme for Integration (London: PEP/George Allen &Unwin, 1969), p. 130Google Scholar.

67 O.U. Archive.

68 O.U. Archive.

69 See Layton, p. 138.

70 O.U. Archive. Across the Channel, however, attitudes were different. For the French, according to Gilpin, the Concorde project was the equivalent in aeronautics of the space and nuclear weapons program. It was an instrument with which to modernize the French aviation industry. He quotes one of France's top aeronautical engineers: “The project has been very important for us, very stimulating. It was a unique occasion to have money to push ahead on all these technical fronts. All was permitted for Concorde. ‘It is for Concorde? Okay!’” See Gilpin, p. 339.

71 The Times, 9 April 1973.

72 Quoted in Williams, Roger, European Technology: the Politics of Collaboration (London: Croom Helm, 1973), p. 130Google Scholar.

73 Williams, pp. 162–163.

74 Nau, p. 635.

75 Blank, p. 714.

76 Interview.

77 Walker, Patrick Gordon, “The Labor Party's Defense and Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 42, 3 (04 1964): 393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Crossman, Richard, Diaries of a Cabinet Minister (London: Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape, 1975), Vol. I, p. 57Google Scholar.

79 The Economic Situation (London: HMSO, 26 10 1964)Google Scholar.

80 Interview.

81 Interview.

82 Gore-Booth, p. 327.

83 Interview.

84 Interview.

85 Archive, O.U. See also Wilson, Harold, The Labour Government 1964–70 (London: Penguin, 1974), p. 527Google Scholar.

86 701 H.C. Debs., 423–4.

87 Crossman, , Diaries, Vol. II, p. 638Google Scholar.

88 This Week, Thames Television (London), 24 09 1970Google Scholar.

89 848 H.C. Debs., 115–6.

90 O.U. Archive.

91 “My Style of Government,” interview by Wintour, Charles and Carvel, Robert, Evening Standard (London, 1 06 1972)Google Scholar.

92 Friday Talk-In, BBC Television, 8 December 1972.

93 Barry, Gillman, Eglin.

94 Interview.

95 Henderson, p. 178.

96 Eglin, Roger, “British Airways’ Taste of Honey,” Sunday Times Business News, 15 10 1978Google Scholar.

97 “How Concord was Saved,” Sunday Times, 10 January 1965.

98 Money at Work: the Tortoise and the Hare, BBC 2, 23 February 1973.

99 British Airways Annual Report and Accounts 1977–78 (London: British Airways Board, 1978)Google Scholar.

100 10 November 1976.

101 Skolnikoff, pp. 212–3. Italics added.

102 Henderson, p. 178.

103 Lever, Harold, “Lame Ducks Home to Roost,” New Statesman, 12 02 1971Google Scholar.

104 See Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee, p. 30 (79).

105 Money at Work, see n. 98.

106 See report in the Guardian (London), 11 07 1978Google Scholar.

107 See A. Wilson, referred to in n. 47. The “imperialist” attitude, supposedly held by some sections of British industry, was defined recently as: “We make what we want to, and you buy it.”

108 Interview.

109 The Guardian, 4 June 1974.

110 Williams, p. 164.

111 One former senior Treasury official remarked during an interview, “There never has been a time at which it would have been cheaper to stop.”

112 Skolnikoff, Eugene B., The International Imperatives of Technology: Technological Development and the International Political System (Research Series No. 16) (Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of International Studies), pp. 134, 93–97Google Scholar.