Advertisement

Political Economy of Outer Space Security

  • Vasilis ZervosEmail author
Living reference work entry
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

As human civilizations increasingly explore, utilize, and compete in space, the man-made security challenges are evolving and the strategies and political economic rationales become increasingly relevant for analysis. Sustainability and efficiency call for exploitation of static economies of scale and scope in space industries and services, yet the trade-offs in control, governance, and dynamic innovation point towards autonomy and oligopolistic structures with overcapacity. The economic sustainability becomes a key element of the dynamic pursue of space policies and objectives at national and partnership levels. In the latter case, specialization and its implications for the wide economy through externalities and indirect effects receive increasing attention as space becomes contested, congested, and competitive. Notwithstanding the fact that they are largely government controlled, aerospace industries play a crucial role in trading patterns. Hence, they can be considered a fiscal government spending element similar to defense expenditure. The country specializations and their evolution in commercial markets and alliances are focal points in the current global trade policy paradigm shifts, affecting performance and evolution of space programs and industries. The analysis concludes with the ever-increasing role of regulation and relative power balances across nations, companies, and terrestrial-air-space systems especially for telecommunication applications.

References

  1. Butler A (2015) USAF operationally responsive space office could oversee next SSA, Weather Sats. Aviation Week, February 12. http://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-operationally-responsive-space-office-could-oversee-next-ssa-weather-sats
  2. Commission (2001) Report of the Commission to Assess Unites States National Security Space Management and Organization. Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. DoD (2018) Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Unpublished, Department of Defense, USGoogle Scholar
  4. Graziola G, Cefis E, Gritti P (2011) LÍndustria Spaziale Italiana nel Contesto Europeo. IL Muliko, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  5. Harford J (1997) Korolev: how one man masterminded the soviet drive to beat America to the moon. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Henry (2019) ITU wants megaconstellations to meet tougher launch milestones. Spacenews. https://spacenews.com/itu-wants-megaconstellations-to-meet-tougher-launch-milestones/?fbclid=IwAR0VpMhgrwveNmii_mNkC2a8inzFnG9Lhc_aspFLgAG_RoPcD4W6AsC5pII. Accessed July 2019
  7. Hertzfeld HR (2002) Technology transfer in the space sector: an international perspective. J Technol Transf 27(4):307–309Google Scholar
  8. HoC (2017) Space sector report. House of Commons Committee on Exiting the European Union, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. ITU (2015) Improving the dissemination of knowledge concerning the applicable regulatory procedures for small satellites, including nanosatellites and picosatellites, Resolution ITU-R 68. ITU, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. ITU (2016) Workplan timeline process and deliverables for the future development of IMT. Unpublished Document, International Telecommunications Union, IMT-ADV/2 Working Group TECH, Meeting 24 June, ITU, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD (2019) The space economy in figures: how space contributes to the global economy. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/c5996201-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2019) Main trends and challenges in the space sector. PWC, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Reagan R (1985) Determination under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, memorandum for the United States trade representative. The President of the US, White House, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Rostow E (1968) President’s task force on communications policy, final report. Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office (GPO 0-351-636), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Snow M (1976) Communication via satellite – a vision in retrospect. A.W. Sijthoff International Publishing Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Snow M (1987a) National monopoly in INTELSAT: cost estimation and policy implications for a separate system issue. Telemetics Inform 4(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Snow M (1987b) An economic issue in international telecommunications: national monopoly in commercial satellite systems. In: Macauley MM (ed) Economics and technology in space policy. R.F.F., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. USAF (2013) Global horizons final report. United States Air Force, SAF/PA Public Release case no. 2013-0434, June, USGoogle Scholar
  19. Zervos V (1998) Competitiveness of the European space industry, lessons from Europe’s role in NATO. J Space Policy 14(1):39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zervos V (2002) The economics of the European space industry. DPhil thesis, University of YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Zervos V (2011) Conflict in space. In: Braddon L, Hartley K (eds) Handbook of the economics of conflict. Edward Edgar Publishers, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Zervos V (2018) Vasilis Zervos: “public goods, club goods and specialization in evolving collaborative entities”. In: Vliamos S, Zouboulakis M (eds) Institutionalist perspectives on development – a multidisciplinary approach. Palgrave Macmillan, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zervos V, Siegel D (2008) Technology, security and policy implications of future transatlantic partnerships in space: lessons from Galileo. Res Policy 37:1630–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Strasbourg and International Space UniversityStrasbourgFrance

Section editors and affiliations

  • Christina Giannopapa
    • 1
  1. 1.European Space AgencyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations