Part 4: Research-policy-industry network and normalisation of militarism

Barış Çelik - Teaching Associate, Department of Politics and International Relations

One of the most significant ways in which militarism becomes normalised in ESS is through the research-policy-industry network, underpinned by economic interests. These institutions are often financially intertwined and collaborate in ways that reinforce a security paradigm centred on functional policy outcomes and military solutions rather than critical reflections on the normative implications of defence research. For instance, think tanks such as the Egmont Institute, Finnish Institution for International Affairs (FIIA) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) play a pivotal role in shaping a particular knowledge on security that prioritises military readiness. Many of these organisations have close relations with policymakers and companies in defence, creating a symbiotic relationship where think tanks provide policy-relevant research suggesting more efficient, effective, and legitimate forms of security provision, in turn sustaining the defence industry.

The mainstream understandings of ESS refer to a form of civilian research that does not provide technological advice about developing military capabilities. Instead, mainstream research that is arguably on the more civilian side is concerned with questions about the necessity of defence policy integration among EU and NATO members, increasing defence budgets, and more efficient public-private sector collaboration in defence policy. However, such conventional definitions overlook the interaction between the field and military/defence technology. This interaction could be seen, among other things, in the collaborations between universities and defence industries. For instance, an ESRC-funded project is seeking to provide advice to several states in Europe about how to ‘make the most of their militaries’ in a challenging political and economic environment. Similarly, the European Commission,in collaboration with several private companies across Europe, has allocated significant funding to the development of ‘a new Main Battle Tank (MBT) platform that adequately meets current and future threats and needs, integrating innovative and disruptive technologies’. While these collaborations are framed as innovative solutions to security challenges in Europe, they also reflect an underlying imperative: research efforts are incentivised to align with state and private interests due to the availability of research funding. 

The increasing attraction of research into the problem-oriented – rather than critical – research on defence is perhaps not surprising given the current political and economic context around international defence policies. Global defence spending rose 9% between 2023 and 2024. Likewise, European arms imports nearly doubled, the US remains the top arms exporter, and the EU has launched its first ever defence industrial strategy. 

At the same time, the entanglements between research, policymaking and industry have more critical –and equally material– implications for the practice of war and militarisation in Europe. Defence industries, which stand to benefit from increased military spending, actively shape the demand for new knowledge on security, coercive capabilities, and ultimately, organised violence. The military-industrial complex is sustained through these networks of influence, and is deeply invested in maintaining a security environment that justifies continued investment in solutions that involve military tools. For instance, European defence companies such as Airbus and BAE Systems are not only involved in producing weapons systems but also fund academic research that promotes the necessity of their products. Moreover, close ties between government ministers and the arms industry in the UK is shown to undermine the government’s ability to effectively enforce its own export licensing regulations, which directly fuels escalating violence in, for instance, Yemen and Palestine. The research-policy-industry network thus creates a feedback loop where the need for military technologies is continually reinforced. The economic imperatives of defence industries inform research priorities on a spectrum ranging from the so-called civilian research on defence to development of new weaponry.

All of this is not to say that there are not any critical views in ESS. Recently, a number of critical views, especially those informed by postcolonialism and feminism, have provided much needed critical views in the field. There is also an established critical view scrutinising how European arms end up in the hands of regimes that clash with the normative values that the European states seek to uphold. Less common in the field is a fundamentally critical perspective about the aforementioned normalisation of militarism in research, and academia’s connections with the military-industrial complex. Absence of such critical views risks making the field more like an echo chamber where military solutions are continually prioritised, with little space for normative critique of the coercive tools and organised violence that these policies reinforce.

To start countering the normalisation of militarism, ESS can critically engage with the economic and institutional entanglements that shape the field. By foregrounding the financial ties between research, policymaking, and industry, we can begin to challenge the economic imperatives that drive militarisation in the field. Given the atrocities caused by means of organised violence developed through European defence policies, it is high time for the field to reflect upon its indifference to the normalisation of militarism in scholarly work. ESS should work toward a more inclusive, ethically grounded understanding of security that considers the implications of defence research beyond providing functional and strategic solutions. This requires a shift away from outcome-oriented defence research towards a more critically reflective approach that considers the ethical implications of scholarly involvement in topics around organised violence.