Fieldwork to research defence procurement in Germany
For any nation, the procurement of weapon systems has significant economic, political, and security implications and thus involves many trade-offs. Unsurprisingly, the different figures from government, the military, and industry that are involved in defence procurement decisions can have conflicting interests. Yet, the drivers of specific weapon system decisions often remain shrouded, despite the implications for how billions worth of taxpayer funds are spent. Furthermore, considering the critical role of Germany in the EU and European security, it is important to understand what might hinder or facilitate its defence procurement.
Accordingly, my PhD project seeks to explain contemporary German defence procurement decision-making in the air domain, in terms of the process as well as specific decisions made. It focuses on the decision regarding whether Germany should procure armed drones for the first time, as well as the decision on how it should replace its multi-role combat aircraft, the Panavia 200 Tornado, which has been flying since the 1980s. Given that in both cases, the procurements under consideration were either rejected or postponed initially, but then years later approved, my research asks how and why these changes finally took place in both cases.
German defence procurement decisions have often been studied in a more historical context. There are advantages and disadvantages to conducting research that is based on a very recent era vs. more archival historical research. One advantage to contemporary research is that the research subject may be directly adjacent to current political events and can offer some very relevant policy implications. A disadvantage is that while there are some open sources that can be utilized, such as parliamentary debates or journalistic pieces from media outlets, confidential official government documents dealing with defence procurement remain barred from public access for thirty years. Thus, when researching a contemporary topic that falls within this window of time, one can obviously not count on official documents as a source of data. Yet, given that official internal documents do not always reveal the whole picture behind a decision even when one has access to them, this need not prevent the research entirely. Elite interviews, sometimes referred to as expert interviews, with relevant stakeholders from that policy subfield, can then serve as a crucial alternative source of data.
In this regard, the UACES Microgrant was an essential resource, as it aided my travel to conduct fieldwork during February 2025 in Germany. Thanks to the grant, I was able to interview German stakeholders involved with defence procurement decision-making. Conducting expert interviews in person was a reminder that building trust is key when dealing with sensitive topics. It would not have been possible to conduct these interviews digitally due to their sensitive nature, and the ability to meet in person facilitated a much more congenial atmosphere, where a rapport could be built. The more informal nature of meeting in-person and capitalizing on perpetually changing schedules also enabled more interviewees to participate than was even originally planned.
