HESP Academic Fellowship Program 20082009

1
HESP Academic Fellowship Program2008-2009

• In the name of the national interest
• Reflections on Security and Competitiveness of
  Nations in the 21st Century
• (Comparative Analysis of the National Security
  Strategies
• of USA, Russia and EU member states)

Denitza Hinkova, AFP RS Political Science
Department Sofia University St. Kliment
Ohridski, Bulgaria
2
There are only a few types of surprises and
direct actions.Yet you can always vary the ones
you use.There is no limit to the ways you can
win.Sun Tzu The Art of War

• Companies not nations are on the frontline of
  international competition.
• Michael Porter

3
Project overview

• Why do some nations win or lose a share of the
  world trade? and on the other handWhat does it
  mean to speak in the name of the nation?.
• These two brilliant questions, offered in two
  inspiring works the first one by the strategic
  management expert and Harvard Business School
  Professor - Michael Porter and the second one
  by one of the most influential contemporary
  scholars in Nationalism Studies Rogers
  Brubaker, challenged me to explore the relation
  between the national interest, national security
  and the competitive advantage of nations.

4
Research Analysis

• The first line of research analysis leads to the
  competitiveness potentials of nations, the
  resources for prosperity and competitive
  strategies illustrated by the Diamond Model of
  Michael Porter and exemplified by the Global
  Competitive Index for 2008-2009.
• The second line starts from the notion that
  Nations are understood as real entities, as as
  communities, as substantial, enduring
  colectivities. That they exists is taken for
  granted, although how they exist and how they
  came to exist - is much disputed.

5
Aims

• The aims to research explore
• how the main national strategic documents
  respresent the national interest
• to what extend nation is used/misused as a
  paradigm and as a political idiom
• how the priotities of the national interests
  provide sustainable competitive advantage for
  nations.

6
Background

• After European Security Strategy (2003) most of
  EU the member states have introduced new
  strategic documents which reflect the general
  European agenda.
• Especially since 2007, new national security
  strategies have been developed and made public in
  the Netherlands, the UK and Germany, and the last
  was that of France, in June 2008. They stem from
  modern states need to update the security model
  they have been providing for their societies, and
  their publication is novel because until now
  European governments had never committed to
  writing what they perceived their security
  problems to be. Some had White Papers on Defence
  or Home Affairs, but they had never yet decided
  to emulate the US tradition or the precedent of
  the European Security Strategy of 2003.
• As a result of this trend most countries have
  similar content in the security strategies,
  especially in the list of threats and
  countermeasures. Most strategies lack specific
  competitive advantage and are simply based on the
  reflection of EU and NATO documents.

7
National Security Concepts and Strategies

• These national security strategies lay out the
  respective governments vision of the risks and
  threats that their societies face and the way in
  which the authorities plan to provide security to
  the State and its citizens. The strategies
  contain, at the very least, a concept of national
  security, an assessment of the security problems
  that affect it, the tools available to the State
  and the measures that should be adopted. The
  strategies that have appeared each have their own
  specific features but they share common concepts
  and contents.
• These concepts also coincide in the area of
  protection population, society and territory,
  with some variations (in the case of France,
  there is a contribution to international security
  and republican values).

8
12 basic competitiveness criteria/pillars

• In the research inquiry for the political
  implications on the competitiveness of nations,
  the project will be based on twelve basic
  competitiveness criteria/pillars and the Diamond
  Model, proposed by Michael Porter, in order to
  compare the different cases and find conclusions.
• Basic requirements
• Institutions
• Infrastructure
• Macroeconomic stability
• Health and primary education
• Efficiency enhancers
• Higher education and training
• Goods market efficiency
• Labor market efficiency
• Financial market sophistication
• Technological readiness
• Market size
• Innovation and sophistication factors
• Business sophistication
• Innovation

9
Preliminary Hypothesis

• Competitive advantage of nations is of vital
  importance for the formulation and implementation
  of national security strategies, especially when
  the critical assets of states are at stake.
  Strategies that lead to the success of nations
  focus on the correct use of national interest and
  provide fertile soil for innovative development.

10
Key Questions

• Who are the winners and losers competing on the
  global market and how can our nations benefit
  from that?
• What is the most appropriate form of appeal to
  the national interest?
• What does it really mean to speak in the name of
  the Nation, We the People, in the name of
  public interests, when at stake is the basic
  survival of nations?

11
Methodology

• Qualitative and quantitative methods (statistical
  data from the Global Competitiveness Report)
• Comparative analysis of 18 national security
  strategies
• SWOT analysis (inherent for the strategic
  analysis),
• Risk analysis
• Content analysis (if necessary it will be applied
  only for the terms national interest and
  advantage.

12
Objectives

• The main objective of the project is to underline
  the importance of the strategic priority of the
  national interests, ordered in accordance with
  the contemporary challenges and global
  competition.
• The wise policy-makers should count on the
  specific national strategic advantage in order to
  tackle threats and challenges and defend the
  national interests.
• The future prosperity belongs states that invest
  in innovations and that use efficiently the
  available human, information and technological
  resources for the well-being of the nation.

13
Expected results

• On the basis of the 10 strategies investigated so
  far and the core theoretical readings, I expect
  to
• revise the political uses of the national
  interest only as a paradigm
• open a debate on the importance of competitive
  advantage implied in security strategies as the
  main strategic framework of states
• find some recommendations for the future.

14
Timetable of research

• December 2008 - January 2009. Analysis of 10
  national security strategies
• the main theoretical resources, statistical data
  and reports
• January February 2009. Analysis of 8 national
  security strategies/policies of EU members states
• Consultations with Prof. Todor Tanev, Professor
  in Strategic Governance at the Sofia University.
• March end of April 2009. Feedback from the
  peer-reviews and finalization of the project.

15
Concepts

• Competitiveness A nations level of
  competitiveness reflects the extent to which it
  is able to provide rising prosperity to its
  citizens.
• The set of institutions, policies, and factors
  that determine the level of productivity of a
  country.
• The concept of competitiveness thus involves
  static and dynamic components although the
  productivity of a country clearly determines its
  ability to sustain a high level of income, it is
  also one of the central determinants of the
  returns to investment, which is one of the key
  actors explaining an economys growth potential.

16
Concepts

• National interest Interests are the desired
  values of vital importance for the states such as
  survival, economic well-being, and enduring
  national values. The national elements of power
  are the resources used to promote or advance
  national interests. Strategy is the pursuit,
  protection, or advancement of theses interests
  through the application of the instruments of
  power.

17
Comments of the Review

• Peer Review by Luciana-Alexandra Ghica
• There is no link between the conceptual
  framework and the empirical data. How can
  competitiveness be assessed? How can one
  recognize competitiveness? Isnt it there anyway
  in the premises of the research, therefore its
  difficult to falsify any theory that focuses on
  such a concept? And ultimately, why
  competitiveness is more relevant than other
  concepts for understanding the dynamics of
  national security strategies?

18
Comments of the Review-1

• Methodology
• There might be too many complex methods to be
  tested. Taking into account that there are 18
  cases, the amount of work for this project may be
  too big for one researcher and for a relatively
  short time so that empirical data remain
  relatively stable over the research period.
  Therefore, I strongly suggest focusing on a
  cluster of methods that could help build a
  stronger argument and to let the
  comprehensiveness for bigger projects. Or
  alternatively, I suggest to renounce to a number
  of cases or to group them in such a way that a
  meaningful comparison is possible with less
  effort. In relation to that, it would be
  interesting to understand also which were the
  substantive criteria for selecting the cases. In
  order to decide upon such issues, maybe a sharper
  research question may help.

19
Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009

• A nations prosperity depends on its
  competitiveness, which is based on the
  productivity with which it produces goods and
  servicesCompetitiveness is rooted in a nations
  microeconomic fundamentalsthe sophistication of
  company operations and strategies and the quality
  of the microeconomic business environment in
  which companies compete.

20
The Global Competitiveness Index 20082009

• OVERALL INDEX (Top 10 countries)
• United States
• Switzerland
• Denmark
• Sweden
• Singapore
• Finland
• Germany
• Netherlands
• Japan
• Canada

21
Country Rankings 2008-2009Top Ten

22
The Dimanond Model of M
23
Bibliography

• Brubaker, Rogers. In the Name of the Nation
  reflections on nationalism and Patriotism//Citizen
  ship Studies, Vol.8, No. 2, June 2004, pp.
  115-127
• Brubaker, Rogers. Nationalism Reframed
  Nationhood and the National Question in the New
  Europe. Cambridge Cambridge University Press,
  1996.
• Buzan, B. and Wæver. Regions and Powers the
  Structure of International Security, Cambridge
  University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
• Krause, Keith. Towards a Practical Human Security
  Agenda. Geneva Center for Democratic Control of
  the Armed Forces (DCAF).DCAF Policy Papers, 2006.
  ttp//www.dcaf.ch/publications
• Leadership and National Security Reform The Next
  President's Agenda. Edited by Dr. Joseph R.
  Cerami, Dr. Robert H. Dorff, Lisa Moorman.
  http//www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/
• Missiroli, Antonio. Revisiting the European
  Security Strattegy beyond 2008. European Policy
  Center, Policy Brief, April 2008.
• National Security Policy// Backgrounder.
  Security Sector Policy and Reforms, November
  2005, Geneva Center for Democratic Control of the
  Armed Forces (DCAF).http//www.dcaf.ch/publication
  s/kms/details.cfm?lngenid18417nav15
• Porter, Michael. The Competative Advantage of
  Nations, Palgrave MacMillan, 1990.
• Porter, Michael E., Klaus Schwab. The Global
  Competitiveness Report 2008-2009. World Economic
  Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  http//www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR08/GCR08.pdf
• Smith, Anthony D. The Nation is History
  Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and
  Nationalism. University Press of New England,
  2000.
• Wulf, Herbert. The Future of the Public Monopoly
  of Force//DCAF Publication. http//www.dcaf.ch/pub
  lications/kms/details.cfm?lngenid44610nav15

24
National Security Strategies

• Strategies analyzed so far
• National Security Strategy of USA (2006)
• National Strategy for Homeland Security of USA
  (2007)
• National Defense Strategy of USA (2008)
• European Security Staregy. A Secure Europe in a
  Better World (2003)
• National Security Concept of the Russian
  Federation (2000)
• National Security Strategy of UK (2008)
• National Security Strategy of the Netherlands
  (2008)
• National Security Strategy of Poland ( 2007)

25
Instead of a conclusion

• There can be no greater role for government than
  the protection and safety of its citizens. But
  managing national security without a strategy is
  like running an orchestra without a musical
  score a recipe for an ill-coordinated and
  out-of-tune response. A national security
  strategy is not a panacea for joined-up
  government, and there are limitations to
  strategy a strategy by no means renders national
  security invulnerable to threats. Nor does a
  strategy eradicate all risks. It would, however,
  enable the government to communicate clearly
  concerning its ability and inability to safeguard
  national security. (National Security Strategy
  and Work Programme 2007-2008, Government of the
  Netherlands, 2007)

26

• Thank you for your attention!