A conceptual framework of defence innovation

ABSTRACT

Gaining a decisive technological edge is a never-ending pursuit for defence establishments. Intensifying geo-strategic and geo-economic rivalry among major powers, especially the U.S and China, and the global technological revolution occurring in the civilian and military domains, promise to reshape the nature and distribution of global power. This article provides a conceptual framework for a series investigating the state of global defence innovation in the twenty-first century. The series examines defence innovation in small countries with advanced defence innovation capabilities (Israel, Singapore), closed authoritarian powers (North Korea, Russia), large catch-up states (China and India) and advanced large powers (U.S.).

KEYWORDS:

• Defence innovation
• technology
• great powers
• military

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ For technological deterministic perspectives, see Michael C. Horowitz, The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics (Princeton, New Jersey; Princeton University Press, 2010) and Jeremy Black, War and Technology (Indiana University Press, 2013). For the political, social, and domestic drivers behind military revolutions, see MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray (Eds), The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001); and Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996).

² Tai Ming Cheung, Thomas G. Mahnken, and Andrew L. Ross, ‘Frameworks for Analyzing Chinese Defense and Military Innovation’, in Tai Ming Cheung (Ed), Forging China’s Military Might: A New Framework for Assessing Innovation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).

³ See Edella Schlager, ‘A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes’, in Paul A. Sabatier (Ed), Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, Co: Westview 2007).

⁴ Charles Edquist and Bjorn Johnson, ‘Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation’, in Charles Edquist (Ed), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations (Oxford: Routledge, 2005); and Charles Edquist, ‘Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges’, in Jan Fagerberg, Richard Nelson, and David Mowery, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

⁵ See Richard Nelson (Ed), National Innovation Systems (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

⁶ Edquist, ‘Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges’.

⁷ Elinor Ostrom, ‘Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework’, in Sabatier, Theories of the Policy Process.

⁸ Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), and Bryan Jones, Frank Baumgartner, and James True, ‘Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947–1995ʹ, Journal of Politics, 60 (February 1998).

⁹ Paul Sabatier and Christopher Weible, ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework’, in Paul A. Sabatier (Ed), Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, Co: Westview 2007).

¹⁰ Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990), 4–5.

¹¹ Edquist and Johnson, ‘Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation’, 46; and Elinor Ostrom, ‘Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework’, in Sabatier, Theories of the Policy Process, 26.

¹² Edquist and Johnson, ‘Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation’, 56.

¹³ Mark Zachary Taylor, The Politics of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 157–68.

¹⁴ Christopher Weible, Tanya Heikkila, Peter deLeon and Paul Sabatier, ‘Understanding and Influencing the Policy Process’, Policy Sciences 45/1 (March 2012); and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Daniel Nohrstedt, Christopher Weible, and Karin Ingold, ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program’, in Christopher Weible (Ed), Theories of the Policy Process (New York: Routledge, 2018).

¹⁵ For an expanded discussion, see Tai Ming Cheung, ‘The Chinese Defence Economy’s Long March from Imitation to Innovation’, Journal of Strategic Studies 34/3 (June 2011).

¹⁶ Moses Abramovitz, ‘Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind’, Journal of Economic History 46/386 (June,1986).

¹⁷ Rebecca Henderson and Kim Clark, ‘Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 35/1 (March 1990) 10.

¹⁸ See Tai Ming Cheung, Innovate to Dominate: The Making of the Chinese Techno-Security State and Implications for the Global Order (Forthcoming).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by, or in part by, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under contract/grant No. W911NF-15-1-0407. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army Research Office.

Notes on contributors

Tai Ming Cheung

Tai Ming Cheung is the director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and a professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California San Diego in La Jolla, California.