Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power Games in Space: The German High-Tech Strategy and European Space Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries

  • 1248 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the status of the space sector in the German High-Tech Strategy and outlines an explanation of the strategy paper’s orientation towards large scale technological systems. By integrating multiple explanatory levels – national bureaucratic politics, Europeanization of space policy, and global competition and security aspects – the study shows how policy choices emerge from complex actor constellations. It concludes that the concentration on large technological systems is still a major focus of German research and innovation policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    GMES – Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.

  2. 2.

    The ESA council rejected this project at its meeting in December 2005 (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 8 December 2005, p. 36).

  3. 3.

    In contrast to a must-agenda, which is financed pro-rata by all ESA member states, a facultative agenda (like Ariane or Columbus) offers to voluntarily participate; this makes agenda setting more flexible and helps to better meet the interest of the members.

  4. 4.

    The main difference between the two systems is the availability of the signal, which is 90 percent (GPS) or 99 percent (Galileo) respectively (Geiger 2005).

  5. 5.

    The stop of the artificial distortion of GPS in 2000 was, among other game plans, motivated by the strategy to hamper Europe’s plans to establish an independent satellite navigation system. Even in the past, the U.S. had adopted this strategy to thwart European attempts of independence, generously offering cooperation, e.g. in the case of Azur (1960s), Ariane (1970s) or ISS (1980s).

References

  • Allison, G., & Halperin, M. (1972). Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics: A Quarterly Journal of International Relations, 24, 40–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF. (2006). The hightech strategy for Germany. Bonn/Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF. (2007). Report of the federal government on research 2006. Bonn/Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF. (2010). Federal report on research and innovation 2010. Bonn/Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandes, U., Kenis, P., Raab, J., Schneider, V., & Wagner, D. (1999). Explorations in the visualization of policy networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(1), 75–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruzelius, N., Flyvbjerg, B., & Rothengatter, W. (2002). Big decisions, big risks: Improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy, 9(2), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, G. (2000). The European space agency and its successful science programme. European Review, 8(2), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. (1992). Le colbertisme high-tech. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, J. (2007). The role of public policy in promoting technical innovations: The case of the regional innovation network InnoPlanta. STI-Studies, 3, 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2000). Council resolution of 16 November on a European space strategy (2000/C 371/02). Official Journal of the European Communities. Information and Notices, 43(Part 371), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2001). Council resolution of 5 April 2001 on Galileo (2991/C 157/01). Official Journal of the European Communities. Information and Notices, 44(Part 157), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2007). Council resolution on the European space policy, 25 may 2007 (10037/07). Official Journal – European Union Information and Notices C, 50(136), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohse, D. (2005). Clusterorientierte Technologiepolitik in Deutschland: Konzepte und Erfahrungen. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 14(Nr. 1/März 2005), 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2005). Towards one system? The European research area initiative of research systems and the changing leeway of national policies. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 14(Nr. 1/März 2005), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESA–EU. (2003). Framework agreement between the European community and the European space agency (25.11.2003). Zeitschrift Fur Luft und Weltraumrecht, 53(Part 1), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1988). The Community and space: a coherent approach, COM(88) 417final. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1996). The European union and space: Fostering applications, markets and industrial competitiveness COM(96) 617 final (04.12.1996), Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003). Space: A new European frontier for an expanding Union. An action plan for implementing the European space policy (white paper), COM(2003) 673 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007a). European space policy: Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament, COM(2007) 212, 26.04.2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007b). Space council welcomes historic European space policy. (20 June 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, A. (2010). Space and the complexity of European rules and policies: The common projects Galileo and GMES–precedence for a new European legal approach? Acta Astronautica, 66(7–8), 1262–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, G. (2005). Europas weltraumgestützte sicherheit. Aufgaben und probleme der satellitensysteme Galileo und GMES. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. SWP-Studie 2005, S 27, September 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemsa, T. (2007). Deutschland will zum Mond (Teil 1). Luft-und Raumfahrt, 2/2007, 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, P., & Vink, M. (2007). Europeanization: New research agendas. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Härpfer, S. (2003). Mogelpackung Galileo. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, 10/2003, 1172–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, K. (1994). European Union policy and the European aerospace industry. Journal of European Public Policy, 1(3), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, G. W. (2000). Wirtschaftsstrategische und sicherheitspolitische Bedeutung des europäischen Satellitennavigationssystems GALILEO und seine Auswirkungen auf die zivile Infrastruktur. Zusammenfassung und Ergebnis einer interdisziplinären Studie No place/publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornschild, K., & Wieland, B. (1997). Is the German and European space industry fit to face the future? Economic Bulletin, 34(12), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESA Industry Portal (2007). Europe's space policy becomes a reality today. (22 May 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (1996). Aerospace. In H. Kassim & A. Menon (Eds.), The European Union and national industrial policy (pp. 88–105). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, R., & Prange, H. (2002). A new concept of deepening European integration?–The European research area and the emerging role of policy coordination in a multi-level governance system. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 6, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, O. (1988). A theory of white elephants: Asymmetric information in government support for technology. Research Policy, 17, 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klodt, H. (1987). Mehr Sternschnuppen als Sternstunden. Eine kritische Bilanz der staatlichen Forschungsförderung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 October 1987, pp. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langerfeux, P. (1986). Europe's commitment to space – Europe aims for space independence. Aerospace America, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M. (1986). The space shuttle program: A policy failure. Science, 232(4754), 1099–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M. (2008). The new European space policy as seen from across the Atlantic. Yearbook on Space Policy, 2006(2007), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, N. (1958). The local community as an ecology of games. The American Journal of Sociology, 64(3), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2001). Triebkräfte der Technikentwicklung und die Rolle des Staates. In G. Simonis, R. Martinsen, & T. Saretzki (Eds.), Politik und Technik. Analysen zum Verhältnis von technologischem, politischem und staatlichem Wandel am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts (Vol. PVS Sonderheft, pp. 3–18, Vol. 31). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazurelle, F., Wouters, J., & Thiebaut, W. (2009). The evolution of European space governance: Policy, legal and institutional implications. International Organizations Law Review, 6(1), 155–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F. (2005). Handlungsspielräume und Modernisierungserfordernisse nationaler Technologie-und Innovationspolitik. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 14(Nr. 1/März 2005), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Kuntze, U. (1992). Bestandsaufnahme der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. In K. Grimmer, J. Häusler, S. Kuhlmann, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Politische Techniksteuerung (pp. 95–118). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardon, L. (2009). Galileo and the issue of public funding. Yearbook on Space Policy, 2007(2008), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plattard, S. (2008). What’s the problem with Europe’s flagships Galileo and GMES? Yearbook on Space Policy, 2006(2007), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffhauer, N. (2003). Völker, hört die Signale. Technology Review (Nov. 2003), 126–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, V., & Mayntz, R. (1995). Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Technikforschung. Fragestellungen und Erklärungsansätze. Jahrbuch Technik und Gesellschaft, 8, 107–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, V., & Werle, R. (2007). Telecommunications policy. In P. Graziano & M. Vink (Eds.), Europeanization: New research agendas (pp. 266–280). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, V., Janning, F., Leifeld, P., & Malang, T. (2009). Politiknetzwerke. Modelle, anwendungen und visualisierungen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taverna, M. A. (2003). European challenger. Go-ahead for Galileo may force U.S. leaders to stake a new position on satnav systems. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 08.09.2003, 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taverna, M. A., & Wall, R. (2006). Almost a go for Galileo. Aviation Week & Space Technology (25.09.2006), 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (1992). Der Raumtransporter SÄNGER als Instrument deutscher Großmachtpolitik? Gutachten, erstellt im Auftrag des Büros für Technikfolgenabschätzung des Deutschen Bundestages. Materialien zum TAB-Arbeitsbericht (p. 49). Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (1993a). Akteurstrategien und strukturelle Eigendynamiken (Raumfahrt in Westdeutschland 1945–1965 (13.10.2003 00:00:0)). Göttingen: Otto Schwartz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (1993b). System und Akteur. Zum Nutzen zweier soziologischer Paradigmen bei der Erklärung erfolgreichen Scheiterns. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 45, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (2004). Innovationen fördern – aber wie? Zur Rolle des Staates in der Innovationspolitik. In M. Rasch & D. Bleidick (Eds.), Technikgeschichte im Ruhrgebiet – Technikgeschichte für das Ruhrgebiet (pp. 278–294). Essen: Klartext Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (2005). Staatliche Förderung von Großtechnikprojekten. Ein dysfunktionaler Anachronismus im Zeitalter der Globalisierung? Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 14(Nr. 1, März 2005), 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (2006). Die Raumfahrtpolitik des Bundesforschungsministeriums. In P. Weingart & N. C. Taubert (Eds.), Das Wissensministerium – Ein halbes Jahrhundert Forschungs-und Bildungspolitik in Deutschland (pp. 64–91). Weilerswist: Velbrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J., Kirchner, U., Riedl, L., & Schmidt, J. F. K. (1997). Technik, die Gesellschaft schafft. Soziale Netzwerke als Ort der Technikgenese. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkelhage, J. (2006). Galileo soll zur Jobmaschine werden. Frankfurter Allgemeine FAZ.Net, (19.01.2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, J. (2009). Space in the treaty of Lisbon. Yearbook on Space Policy, 2007(2008), 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zervos, V., & Siegel, D. (2008). Technology, security, and policy implications of future transatlantic partnerships in space: Lessons from Galileo. Research Policy, 37(9), 1630–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dortmund University of Technology, Dortmund, Germany

    Johannes Weyer

  2. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

    Volker Schneider

Authors
  1. Johannes Weyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Volker Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Weyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Quello Center for Telecommunication, Michigan State University, Communication Arts and Sc. Building 409, East Lansing, 48824, Michigan, USA

    Johannes Bauer

  2. , Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, Konstanz, 78464, Germany

    Achim Lang

  3. , Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, Konstanz, 78464, Germany

    Volker Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weyer, J., Schneider, V. (2012). Power Games in Space: The German High-Tech Strategy and European Space Policy. In: Bauer, J., Lang, A., Schneider, V. (eds) Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12562-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12563-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation