European integration has increased to encompass security-related policies. One such policy is defense industry policy, which traditionally has been a national concern rooted in defense and security policy. Efforts have been made since the 1990s to create a European defense industry market. However, there have been different ideas of how this goal should be achieved or which model for state—industry relations the market should rest on. Using Sweden to illustrate the development, this article argues that for the Europeanization of defense industry policy, marketization has played a vital role. Building on official documents and interviews, the article analyzes the efforts to create a European defense industry market, marketization of Swedish defense industry policy, and the increased interaction between Swedish and European defense industry policy processes. The analysis also shows domestic challenges that the processes of Europeanization and marketization have brought about.

In this article we argue that organizations and organizing activities lie at the very heart of the European integration process. Cross-pillar issues require an analytical framework that allows one to study the interplay between the market and security spheres of European integration, including how supranational and intergovernmental actors, private and public, interact with each other. By using sociological institutionalism and its notion of how organizations are institutionalized, we analyse the organizational complexity in the multifaceted policy area of armaments, without losing theoretical clarity. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

The development of European Union (EU) civil protection cooperation highlights important issues in the debate on the internal—external security nexus. It points to the increased transnationalization of threats usually assigned to the field of ‘internal’ security, but it also presents researchers with a puzzle: despite the relatively rapid development of civil protection cooperation, there is still substantial disagreement among the EU member states as to how it should continue to develop. Applying an analytical framework based on neo-institutional organization theory and the study of organizational ‘fields’, this article explores two questions: What is the institutional basis for member states’ diverging positions on the future direction of EU civil protection? and How may these positions affect the current development of EU civil protection? Our analysis draws upon empirical evidence from civil protection practice in Spain, Sweden and the EU, including official documents in the form of bills and laws, policy papers and elite interviews. We find that the basis for member states’ diverging positions on the future of EU civil protection is rooted in conflicting national institutional logics of civil protection. No logic has become dominant at the EU level, suggesting that as long as multiple institutional logics continue to coexist, disagreement on the future development of European level civil protection cooperation will persist.

No abstract

No abstract