Entrepreneurship in the Dutch space sector: The role of institutional logics, legitimacy and business incubation

VU Research Portal

Entrepreneurship in the Dutch space sector: The role of institutional logics, legitimacy and business incubation

Sagath, D.

2019

document version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in VU Research Portal

citation for published version (APA)

Sagath, D. (2019). Entrepreneurship in the Dutch space sector: The role of institutional logics, legitimacy and business incubation.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

E-mail address:

vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl

Download date: 12. Oct. 2021

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE DUTCH

SPACE SECTOR:

THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS, LEGITIMACY AND BUSINESS INCUBATION

DANIEL SAGATH

AMSTERDAM IN SCIENCE, BUSINESS AND SOCIETY

ABRI

AMSTERDAM BUSINESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE WWW.ABRI.VU.NL

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE DUTCH SPACE SECTOR

The Role of Institutional Logics, Legitimacy and Business Incubation

Innovation and entrepreneurship play a significant role in the success of the European space sector. The dynamics over the years have shown that institutional pressuresw from main players such as the European Space Agency (ESA), European Union (EU), and European states continue to influence the innovation process. The level of ‘independent’ and ‘breakthrough’ innovation and entrepreneurship in the space sector under the current conditions is under debate. This debate concerns the question whether the full potential of the industry gets fruitfully exploited. This dissertation contributes to this debate by analysing entrepreneurship patterns in The Netherlands and by comparing the Dutch space sector with a number of other ESA member states. It relates the entrepreneurial patterns to institutional logics, legitimacy, business incubation and technology transfer infrastructure, and governmental incentive programs. Thus, this dissertation delivers important insights in how institutional logics, business incubation practices, and facilitating programmes impact entrepreneurship and innovation. Moreover, it delivers practical knowledge to design measures that foster the development of an entrepreneurial and innovative business environment in the Dutch and

European space sector.

About the author

Daniel Sagath (1986) obtained his BSc and MA degrees in Political Science and European Studies at the Palacky University in Olomouc, Czechia. Next, he worked for multiple governmental organisations and think-tanks, including the United Nations and the European Space Agency. In 2014, he joined the PhD programme at the Amsterdam Business Research Institute, School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His work has been accepted for multiple professional and academic high- level conferences, and has been published in, among others, Acta Astronautica and the Journal of Business Venturing Insights, and a couple of book volumes. His primary expertise is in public governance, entrepreneurship and business development in

high-tech sectors.

ISBN 978 90 361 0564 4

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE DUT CH SP ACE SEC TOR

39

D ANIEL SA G ATH

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE DUTCH SPACE SECTOR:

THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS,

LEGITIMACY AND BUSINESS INCUBATION

ii

PhD Committee: Prof. dr.ir. Bart Bossink

Prof. dr. Thomas Hoerber Prof. dr. Svetlana Khapova Prof. dr.ir. Isabelle Reymen Prof. dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl

© Daniel Sagath, 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, included a complete or partial transcription, without the prior written permission of the author.

This research was co-funded by the Netherlands Space Office and the European Space Agency.

Cover picture: Shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/) Printed by HAVEKA

ISBN: 978 90 361 0564 4

This book is number 39 in the ABRI Dissertation Series.

iii VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT

E NTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE D UTCH SPACE SECTOR : T HE ROLE OF

INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS , LEGITIMACY AND BUSINESS INCUBATION

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor of Philosophy aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,

op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. V. Subramaniam, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de School of Business and Economics

op woensdag 26 juni 2019 om 9.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit,

De Boelelaan 1105

door

Daniel Sagath

geboren te Zilina, Slowakije

iv

Promotoren: prof.dr. Joep P. Cornelissen

dr.ir. Elco (J.C.) van Burg

Copromotor: dr. Christina G. Giannopapa

v

Table of contents

List of figures...vii

List of tables...viii

List of abbreviations ... ix

Chapter 1 Introduction ... 1

1.1 Overview of the chapters ... 5

Chapter 2 The developing European space sector: Governance and policy trends in member states of the European Space Agency ... 11

Abstract ... 12

2.1 Introduction ... 13

2.2 Research setting ... 15

2.3 Methodology ... 26

2.4 Research results ... 27

2.5 ESA member states industrial structure ... 36

2.6 Discussion ... 38

2.7 Conclusion ... 40

Chapter 3 We have lift-off: How entrepreneurs respond to sectoral logics in the European space sector ... 41

Abstract ... 42

3.1 Introduction ... 43

3.2 Theoretical background ... 46

3.3 Research setting ... 50

3.4 Data collection ... 51

3.5 Data analysis ... 54

3.6 Institutional logics of the European space sector ... 59

3.7 Entrepreneurial practices as responses to sectoral logics...77

3.8 Discussion ... 84

3.9 Conclusion ... 88

Chapter 4 Identifying design principles for business incubation in the European space sector ... 89

Abstract ... 90

4.1 Introduction ... 91

4.2 Elements for business incubation design principles ... 93

4.3 Qualitative methodology ... 106

4.4 Incubation design principles and practices in the European space sector ... 120

4.5 Discussion ... 134

4.6 Conclusion ... 137

vi

Chapter 5: Can incentives build legitimacy?

Industrial dynamics and entrepreneurship in the Dutch space sector .. ..139

Abstract ... 140

5.1 Introduction ... 141

5.2 Theoretical background and hypothesis ... 144

5.3 Methods ... 149

5.4 Empirical results ... 160

5.5 Discussion ... 170

5.6 Conclusion ... 174

Chapter 6: Discussion and conclusion ... 175

6.1 Discussion ... 176

6.2 Conclusion ... 188

References……….……..191

Appendices………..217

Summary……….239

Samenvatting……….…..243

Acknowledgements ... 248

vii

List of figures

Figure 2.1: ESA Member States 2016 ESA budget (MEUR) and 2016 GDP (BEUR)…. ... 17 Figure 2.2: Ministries responsible for space in ESA twenty-two member states………….. ... 29 Figure 2.3: Archetype of space governance ... 30 Figure 2.4: Public policy priorities for space in technology domains. .... 33 Figure 2.5: Public policy priorities for space in areas of sustainability .. 35 Figure 2.6: Public policy motivations for space activities ... 36 Figure 5.7: ESA program contract value distribution (2000-2016) ... 151 Figure 5.8: Total Dutch annual contribution to ESA (2000-2016) and total ESA contract value distribution to the Dutch industry ... 152 Figure 5.9: Subsidy distribution according to the Dutch space sector technology roadmap ... 154 Figure 5.10: Total ESA contract value distribution according to type of company (2000-2016) ... 156 Figure 5.11: The Preparatory ESA Program (PEP) subsidies

redistribution according to the type of company (2003-2012) ... 156 Figure 5.12: The Preparatory ESA Program (PEP) contractual

arrangements…. ... 157

viii

List of tables

Table 2.1: Cooperation and integration process to ESA including

integration to EU ... 19

Table 2.2: ESA mechanisms for integrating new member states ... 23

Table 2.3: ESA Guidelines towards full membership ... 25

Table 2.4: Concentration ratio of the European space industry ... 38

Table 3.5: Interviewee information ... 53

Table 3.6: Institutional logics in the Dutch space sector compared to Switzerland, Sweden and the UK ... 58

Table 3.7: Market logics ... 61

Table 3.8: Company capability logics ... 68

Table 3.9: Product development logics ... 72

Table 3.10: Entrepreneurial response strategies to sectoral logics ... 79

Table 4.11: Business incubation practices and mechanisms identified in the literature analysis... 101

Table 4.12: Journal representation in the literature analysis ... 102

Table 4.13: Summary of the three space incubation programs in the Netherlands and the UK ... 110

Table 4.14: Empirical data collection ... 111

Table 4.15: Synthesis of business incubation design principles and practices in the space sector ... 115

Table 4.16: Design principles and practices observed in the three cases... 119

Table 5.17: The Dutch space industry overview (2000-2016) ... 158

Table 5.18: Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix ... 162

Table 5.19: Tobit regression on ESA financial performance in 2014-2016…... 163

Table 5.20: SMEs-only Tobit regression on ESA financial performance in 2014-2016 ... 166

Table 5.21: Tobit regression on ESA financial performance in 2014-2016, excluding ESA General budget program ... 167

Table 5.22: SMEs-only Tobit regression on ESA financial performance in 2014-2016, excluding ESA General budget program... 168

Table 5.23: Tobit regression on ESA financial performance

in 2012-2014…... 169

ix

List of abbreviations

ALR Austrian Aeronautics and Space Agency

ASI Italian Space Agency

BELSPO Belgian Space Policy Office

BEUR Billion Euro

BIC Business Incubation Centre

CAP Calls for Outline Proposals

CDTI Centre for the Development of Industrial

Technology

CNES French National Centre for Space Studies

CR Concentration Ratio

DLR German Aerospace Centre

EC European Commission

ECS European Cooperating State Agreement

ECSS European Cooperation for Space Standardization

EDA European Defense Agency

EE Enterprise Estonia

EEC European Economic Community

EI Enterprise Ireland

EISC European Interparliamentary Space Conference

EMITS Electronic Mail Invitation to Tender System

ESA European Space Agency

ESO Estonian Space Office

ESTEC European Space Technology Centre

EU European Union

EUMETSAT European Organization for Exploitation of

Meteorological Satellites

FCT Foundation for Science and Technology

FTE Full-time equivalent

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GSA European Global Navigation Satellite Systems

Agency

GSRT General Secretariat of Research and Technology

HHI Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

HSO Hungarian Space Office

IGO International Governmental Organizations

IIS Industrial Incentive Scheme

IP Intellectual Property

ITT Invitation to Tenders

ITU International Telecommunications Union

KEUR Thousand EURO

x

LSI Large System Integrator

LSA Luxembourg Space Office

MEUR Million Euro

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NSC Norwegian Space Centre

NSO Netherlands Space Office

NWO Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

PECS Plan for European Cooperating States

PEP Preparatory ESA Program

POLSA Polish Space Agency

R&D Research and Development

RDI Research and Development Institute

ROSA Romanian Space Agency

SA Satellite Applications (Catapult)

SAITSD Space Technology and Satellite Systems Department

Satcen European Union Satellite Centre

SCP Structure-Conduct-Performance

SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

SNSA Swedish National Space Agency

SSO Swiss Space Office

TEKES Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and

Innovation

TRL Technology Readiness Level

UNCOPUOS United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of

Outer Space

UKSA United Kingdom Space Agency

VU Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

2

High-tech and highly institutionalized sectors are still not completely understood as a context for entrepreneurial activities. High-tech sectors typically have science- or technology-driven innovation as a basis for new entrepreneurial opportunities (e.g., Beckman et al., 2012).

Therefore, doing a study in a high-tech sector has the potential to bring more in-depth insights in dynamics, constraints and enablers of entrepreneurship and business development in such a sector.

The main objective of this study is to deepen understanding of the European space sector, as a high-tech industry, in relation to entrepreneurship and business venturing, with a special focus on small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). Only a limited number of studies have studied entrepreneurship in this highly institutionalized and very specific setting (e.g., Bütfering, 2010; Giannopapa, 2010;

Johannsson et al., 2015; Van Burg et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2018). This study focuses on the space sector with the European Space Agency (ESA) as the main European space industry development public agency, and compares multiple cases of ESA member states, with a special focus on the Dutch space sector. Thus, this study helps to understand the current business activities in the European space sector, with a special focus on The Netherlands, and in turn brings new insights to the entrepreneurship literature.

Small companies and new start-ups have to establish

legitimacy to attract resources required for survival and

growth. For example, despite the potential for innovation in a

high-tech sector such as the space sector, its context may at the

same time create multiple barriers for innovative companies

due to an emphasis on credibility of the companies and their

products (e.g., Garud et al., 2014b). As a result, the landscape

of the industrial actors involved in contributions to the space

sector is in Europe limited to a number of large space

integrators (LSIs) and relatively few SMEs. Innovation is often

associated with entrepreneurship and SMEs (Audretsch, 2002;

3 Bresnahan & Gambardella, 2004), but such innovation through SMEs appears to be underrepresented or underutilized in the space sector. SMEs find it difficult to enter the space sector to deliver new technologies and applications. There is an increasing number of European states in which their space industries are mainly built on SMEs, and the importance of SMEs in breakthrough innovations, this requires a rethinking of the role of the institutional actors in the space sector towards entrepreneurship.

In general, the level of ‘independent’ innovation and entrepreneurship in the space sector, in particular through involvement of SMEs, is under debate. This debate concerns the question whether the full potential of the industry gets fruitfully exploited (e.g., Giannopapa, 2010; Van Burg et al., 2017). This innovation potential could be unleashed by targeted measures to facilitate entrepreneurship, business development and innovation. Addressing this debate, this study aims to answer the following research question:

How does institutionalization impact entrepreneurship in the context of the Dutch space sector, and how can entrepreneurship be enhanced in this sector?

By focusing on this particular sector, this study takes

into account the impact of a broader spectrum of public

organizations involved, particularly addressing the effects of

sectoral logics and the role of entrepreneurial legitimation

strategies. The dynamics in the space sector over the years

have changed as institutional pressures from the public and

international agencies continue to drive the process through

shifting government priorities. Governments and international

organizations in principle can set strong boundaries for

entrepreneurial activity, making it difficult for entrepreneurs

to deviate from institutionalized policies and norms

(Doblinger et al., 2016). Governments can also affect firm-

level innovativeness by controlling regulative instruments, for

4

example instruments related to promoting innovation (e.g., Michael & Pearce, 2009). Furthermore, governmental funding can influence the structure of the industry, access to resources, and to business opportunities (e.g., Bohnsack et al., 2016;

Díez-Martín et al., 2016). As a result of this public influence on the industrial environment, this may lead to the involvement of preferred and/or a limited number of entrepreneurs and innovative firms (e.g., Acs, 2008).

Therefore, it is an important question how the space sector responds to current trends in which innovation turns from preferring a few large firms towards more SME participation (e.g., Mueller, 2007; Czarnitzki et al., 2007).

From a theoretical perspective, the dynamics in the space sector around entrepreneurship and innovation relate to the problem of how entrepreneurship is enabled and constrained by the environment, for instance by the existing institutionalized practices and logics. The institutional logic perspective (e.g., Thornton et al., 2012; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) is herein used as an analytical tool to capture the prevailing sectoral logics related to performing entrepreneurial activity. At the same time, this study addresses entrepreneurial legitimacy strategies to overcome existing constraining effects of these logics (e.g., Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). In particular, new ventures have a significant need for legitimacy (Dacin et al., 2007). Legitimacy is a complex social process including the wider institutional context of organizations (e.g., Markard et al, 2016) and the notion of entrepreneurial legitimacy refers to the process of how nascent organization become operational and accepted in their environment (e.g., Tornikoski &

Newbert, 2007). At the same time, lacking legitimacy may imply limited access to important resources and collaboration (e.g., Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001).

This study further uncovers design principles for

support mechanisms provided through business incubation

centers. Business incubators usually provide a shelter

environment for new entrepreneurs in industry (e.g., Albort-

5 Morant & Oghazi, 2016; Markovitch et al., 2017), to some extent protecting entrepreneurs from the constraining elements defined by, for example, the sectoral logics. As such, focus on business incubation practices in the sector can bring an opportunity to explain mechanisms and practices (e.g., Albort- Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016; Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010) applied by incubators in supporting new business venturing and innovation. At the same time, incubators may take into account the contextual dependencies of these mechanisms in the space sector (e.g., Chetty et al., 2014; Plummer, 2010), changing or creating new incubation practices according to the needs of entrepreneurs and innovators.

Focusing on this particularly regulated and institutionalized industry provides an opportunity to further understand entrepreneurial agency as a contextual process that is enabled by, but also critically depends on, policies, values, and practices (e.g., Karnøe & Garud, 2012). This study in more detail examines the influence of the institutional environment on business venturing, the role of incubation design principles that are applied in order to support business venturing and innovation in such a context, and the way how entrepreneurs, and especially new ventures and SMEs, respond to their environment to form legitimate and innovative enterprises. It grasps the influence of institutions through a context-centric perspective (e.g., Greenman, 2013) for understanding the individual and the institutional interactions.

To answer the main research question, this dissertation presents four consecutive studies, introduced below as Chapters 2 to 5.

1.1 Overview of the chapters

Chapter 2 describes the multi-national context of the European

space sector giving an overview of the different ESA member

states. Even though ESA has a long-standing history in

European cooperation in space activities, the cooperation is

typically on a program-by-program basis. Therefore,

understanding the national policies of ESA member states

6

towards participation in these programs is crucial. The main objective is to provide a comprehensive analysis on ESA member states, their policies, strategies, budgets, and industrial capabilities. The main question of Chapter 2 is: How is the European space policy (the macro-perspective of the space sector) framed and what are the strategic and motivation elements for performing public space investments?

There have been limited systematic efforts to make an inventory of the national space strategies and programs across the ESA member states. Chapter 2 presents research outcomes of two independent survey studies conducted in 2014 and 2017. The analysis finds four main public framing areas (i.e., governance, priorities, motivators and areas of sustainability) and multiple sub-domains as a framing classification according to the national strategy priorities and industrial capabilities.

Chapter 3 relates entrepreneurship and innovation practices to institutional pressures in the form of sectoral logics. The main research question answered here is: How do sectoral logics in the space sector enable and constrain entrepreneurial action and what practices do entrepreneurs employ in dealing with such logics?

Through a qualitative comparative multiple-case study of The Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Chapter 3 provides a detailed reading of these countries’ entrepreneurial and institutional contexts, and theorizes about how sector-level institutional logics impinge on entrepreneurial activities. It demonstrates how particular sectoral logics, namely the market, project, and company capability, explain the overall contours of the sector and entrepreneurial activity that takes place in order to become a legitimate enterprise.

Next, Chapter 4 turns to technology transfer and

incubation mechanisms that are designed to support

entrepreneurship and innovation in the space sector. The main

research question of Chapter 4 is: What are the key elements

7 of design principles for business incubation according to the literature and how are these design principles contextualized in space sector incubation practices?

The objective of Chapter 4 is to develop a set of design principles for technology transfer and incubation practices which respond to the current trends and needs in the sector and are according to the business incubation literature. Adopting a science-based design methodology, including a literature and qualitative analysis, Chapter 4 investigates prevailing business incubation practices in the European space sector, especially in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Together with the literature analysis, the data enables an in-depth understanding of the business incubation practices that may help new ventures to establish a position in the space sector.

Finally, Chapter 5 searches for quantitative insights and confirmation of the key entrepreneurship and innovation patterns in The Netherlands by focusing on the role of ESA and national subsidies in the distribution of resources for business venturing. The main research question of Chapter 5 is: How do the national industry and entrepreneurship incentive programs support industrial participation and legitimacy of new entrants, especially SME’s?

Analyzing companies’ contractual performance in both

ESA tenders and national incentives (e.g., preparatory

programs), this analysis provides important insights in the

current industrial, technology and programmatic trends and

effects of these programs. This ultimately may lead to

particular patterns in the distribution of public investments

according to the type of company and the legitimacy of the

venture, which in turn also impacts the development of

legitimacy in the future. The objective of Chapter 5 is to

quantitatively test some of the key patterns identified in studies

presented in Chapters 3 and 4, but in particular those identified

in Chapter 3. For example, this study tests the effect of firm

size (company size logic), firm age (weak indicator for

8

established market logic), and the effect of national incentive programs (product incentive logic).

In sum, this study delivers important insights in how rules, regulations, and facilitating programs (e.g., national strategies, policies and business incubation programs) impact entrepreneurship and innovation in the space sector as well as in how these rules, regulations, and facilitating programs could be adapted to foster entrepreneurship and innovation.

Thus, this study contributes in at least three ways to the existing literature. First, it contributes to understanding the general institutional norms, beliefs and practices typical for the high-tech space sector (e.g., Ocasio & Radoynovska, 2016;

Thornton et al., 2012; Greenwood et al., 2010). Following the description of the institutional context of the sector, this study contributes by collecting practices and strategies which entrepreneurs apply in order to legitimize themselves and to overcome constraining factors defined by sectoral logics (Suchman, 1995; Markard et al., 2016; Kalantaridis, 2014;

Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Second, this study contributes to further understanding of the notion that legitimacy is a complex collective social process of multiple actors active a high-tech (space) sector, including governments, entrepreneurs and other organizations (e.g., Johnson et al., 2006; Markard et al., 2016; Obaji & Olugu, 2014). Third, this PhD study contributes to business incubation studies by exploring the incubation design principles and practices that help early business ventures and start-ups to enter and to be better prepared to deal with the constraining environments of high-tech sectors and to develop legitimacy (e.g., Van Burg &

Romme, 2014; Hackett & Dilts, 2008; Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005).

In the final chapter, Chapter 6, we discuss in more

detail the theoretical and practical implications of this

research. Overall, this study demonstrates that context-centric

focus and the combination of institutional logic, business

incubation and legitimacy theories contribute to further

9

understanding of the complexity of bottom-up and top down

interactions between entrepreneurs and resource-providing

organizations. Focusing on constraining elements and

underlying mechanisms provides insights that can be turned

into practical solutions that help to unleash innovative

potential in the space sector.

11

Chapter 2 The developing European space sector: Governance and policy trends in member states of the European Space Agency ¹

1

Parts of this chapter have been published in the following articles:

Adriaensen, M., Giannopapa, C., Sagath, D., & Papastefanou, A. (2015).

Priorities in national space strategies and governance of the member states of the European Space Agency. Acta Astronautica, 117, 356-367;

Giannopapa, C., Adriaensen, M., & Sagath, D. (2016). The member states of the European Space Agency. National governance structures, priorities and motivations for engaging in space. In: Hoerber, T. and P. Stephenson (Eds.). European Space Policy. European Integration and the Final Frontier. London, UK: Routledge, 173-190; Sagath, D., Papadimitriou, A., Adriaensen, M., & Giannopapa, C. (2018). Space strategy and governance of ESA small member states. Acta Astronautica, 142, 112-120.; and:

Sagath, D., Adriaensen, M., & Giannopapa, C. (2018): Past and present

engagement in space activities in Central and Eastern Europe. Acta

Astronautica, 148, 132-140.

12

Abstract

The European Space Agency (ESA) has been the main programmatic and industrial capacity development organization of the European space sector since its establishment in the early 1970s. Understanding the national policies of ESA member states is crucial for the future development of a coherent European space policy. Over the last years, ESA has developed a methodology to track the development of national space policies of its member states and collaborating state. The “Member States Observatory” is a basic resource for understanding the complexity of the European national space strategies available to the national delegates, ESA experts and employees alike. This chapter presents the findings and methodology of two surveys conducted as part of this PhD research in 2014 and 2017, in order to identify the main space strategy drivers in development of the ESA member states national space sectors.

The analysis has found four main areas and multiple subtopics which can be used to classify the level of development and the focus of a national space strategies. These main areas are:

structure of governance, strategic priorities, motivations, and

areas of sustainability. Furthermore, a concentration ration of

the European space industry is calculated accordingly to the

Herfindahl-Hirschman index using the ESA industrial

database from 2013.

13 2.1 Introduction

Understanding the past and current strategy, policy, and governance structures of European Space Agency (ESA) members states is playing a key role in preparing and elaborating a coherent approach to European space policy and programs. There have been limited systematic efforts to facilitate the exchange and coordination of national space strategies and programs. Influencing factors that drive national space policies and shape national space governance in Europe are poorly understood and a challenging domain of research (e.g., Hoerber & Stephenson, 2015; Hoerber & Sigalas, 2016).

This significantly reflects the complexity of actors, organizations and programs that shape European space policy.

Additionally, the space sector relies on institutional markets with limited room for global competition. The role of institutional (governmental) funding defines the structure of the industry, entrepreneurship and competitiveness (Lemola, 2002; Henry et al., 2003; Ribeiro-Soriano & Galindo-Martín, 2012). The European space industry competitiveness relies on the stable support of public investments, fundamental for the financial sustainability and product/technology development.

Framing theory can be used to investigate public policies and governance of space activities (Baumgartner, 2015; March & Olsen, 1996; Mörth, 2000; Sabatier, 2011;

Wallace & Young, 1997). The space sector is particularly interesting and dynamic, as it includes horizontally (across different public policies) and vertically (from member states to respective international governmental organizations - IGOs) many frames in which policies emerge. Therefore, the main research question of this study is: How is the European space policy (the macro-perspective of the space sector) framed and what are the strategic and motivation elements for performing public space investments?

At the top of the organization of the space sector, ESA

brings actors together under a specific setting as an

intergovernmental organization, which steers a peaceful,

14

scientific, industrial and cooperative frame. At a lower level, European member states, formulate and shape at national/ESA/and European Union (EU) levels their policy formulation process. The number of European member states composing a space strategy and policy and defining their space governance for the first time is on the rise, whilst others may consider revising theirs with the current changing of the European space landscape. With the increase of member states engaging in space, the process dynamic and its outcome will change as new frames emerge and are added to the political bargaining process. The space sector relies above all on institutional markets with limited room for global competition.

Actors, such as the newcomers to the institutional environment, are not able to calculate all options and associated uncertainties, therefore, they use institutions and their rules as guidance.

In recent years, ESA with support of external academic experts

developed a methodology to track the national space policies of its member states and collaborating states. Several studies published in collaboration with ESA and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU Amsterdam) already focused on a practical outcome of a broader collaborative investigation on the ESA member states (e.g., Adriaensen et al., 2015;

Giannopapa et al., 2015; Sagath et al., 2018a & 2018b). The main outcomes of this collaborative approach represent two executive studies, referred to as the ‘Countries Overview: Info Notes on Member States’. These studies were published in 2014 and 2017 in form of ESA internal reports.

Their main

2

As part of this PhD project under the title “Valorization in the space

sector: The interplay of institutional pressures, technology transfer mechanisms, entrepreneurship and innovation” (by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, School of Business and Economics, in collaboration with The Netherlands Space Office and ESA).

3

European Space Agency. (2016). ESA member states national strategies

and plans – Countries overview. ESA/C(2016)37. Paris: European Space

Agency, 52 p.; European Space Agency. (2017). ESA member states

national strategies and plans – Countries overview. ESA/C(2017)109.

15 purpose is to create a comprehensive information collection considering space policy and governance trends and make it available to the member states’ delegates, ESA experts and employees. These Country overviews provide a guideline for understanding the complexity of the European national space strategies, policies and governance.

Presenting the main research outcomes of these collaborative investigations on ESA member states’ space policies, the main objective of this study is to identify the strategy drivers that shape and develop the ESA member states national space sectors. This study addresses the macro- perspective (ESA and national level) of how the industrial, political and programmatic capabilities of the European space sector are shaped. The analysis has found several unified frames that are typical for ESA member states in space activity governance, priorities, and motivations for engaging in the space sector. Moreover, to provide insights in how the European space industry is concentrated, a concentration ratio of the European space industry is calculated with the Herfindahl-Hirschman index using the ESA industrial database from 2013. In sum, this chapter presents both the macro-perspective (ESA and national level) of public policies and the concentration of the European space industry, thus providing the background for the other studies in this dissertation.

2.2 Research setting

The understanding of complex relations and objectives of European states in space is crucial for the sector’s development, especially when it comes to the intergovernmental organizations responsible for the national program and industry development such as ESA. One of the most defining legal provisions that directly affects ESA as the responsible organization for European space sector

Paris: European Space Agency, 60 p. The Info note on The Netherlands is

presented in Appendix 1.

16

development is Article II of the ESA Convention. This article describes the purpose of the Agency and gives it policy formulating power.

ESA’s policy formulating power can be achieved “by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by recommending space objectives to the member states, and by concerting the policies of the member states with respect to other national and international organizations and institutions; by elaborating and implementing activities and programs in the space field; by coordinating the European space program and national programs, and by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the European space program, in particular as regards the development of applications satellites; by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its program and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the member states” (European Space Agency, 2003, p. 13-14).

Since the creation of ESA, the number of its member states has more than doubled. This constant increase of ESA member states clearly demonstrates its leading role for the European space sector’s development. ESA was created in 1975 by ten founding members states and now (2019) there are twenty-two and its number is still growing. Currently, ESA is expanding its membership to the countries which have joined the European Union since 2004. The Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Estonia and Hungary have become full members of ESA between 2008 and 2015. Others like Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, or Slovenia are soon to start their negotiations to become full ESA member.

A current overview of the ESA integration process can

be found in Table 1. To summarize, the ESA integration

process includes a different set of actions on a bilateral basis

(Table 2). Typically, the first step is the signature of an

agreement with the European Space Agency concerning the

Space Cooperation for Peaceful Purposes. Following an

official government request and a positive national industrial

17 and capability assessment by ESA, the subsequent step is the signature and implementation of a European Cooperating State Agreement (ECS). This agreement includes a detailed Programmatic Chart of the Plan for European Cooperating States (PECS).

Finally, a classification of ESA member states is established according to their ESA budget contributions and their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Figure 1 shows the 2016 budgets of ESA member states compared to GDP, identifying the eleven smaller member states in the left scatter graph, with an annual budget below €30 million and typically a GDP below €300 (except for Poland). The categorization is based on contribution to ESA in absolute numbers, not relative to the member states’ GDP.

Figure 2.1: ESA Member States 2016 ESA budget (MEUR)

and 2016 GDP (BEUR) (Sagath et al., 2018b)

Co u n tr y EU As so ci a tio n o r Fre e tr a d e Ag re e m e n ts

EU Ac ce ss io n ES A Co o p . Ag re e m e n t ES A ECS Ag re e m e n t ES A PECS ES A Co n v e n tio n Ind u str y In ce n ti v e S ch e m e Au stria - 1 9 9 5 - - - 1 9 8 6 - Belg iu m - 1 9 5 7 - - - 1 9 7 8 - Bu lg a ria 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 2 1 - - Cro a ti a 2 0 0 5 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 8 - - - - Cze ch Rep . 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 4 1 9 9 6 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 5 Cy p ru s 1 9 7 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 6 - - - De n ma rk - 1 9 7 3 - - - 1 9 7 7 - Esto n ia 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 -2 0 2 1 Fi n la n d - 1 9 9 5 - - - 1 9 9 5 - Fra n ce - 1 9 5 7 - - - 1 9 8 0 - Ge rm a n y - 1 9 5 7 - - - 1 9 7 7 - Gr ee c e 1 9 6 1 1 9 8 1 - - - 2 0 0 5 - Hu n g a ry 1 9 9 4 2 0 0 4 1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 -2 0 2 1 Ire la n d - 1 9 7 3 - - - 1 9 8 0 - Ita ly - 1 9 5 7 - - - 1 9 7 8 - Isr a el 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 1 - - - - L a tvia 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 7 - - L it h u a n ia 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 - -

T ab le 2. 1 : C oope ra ti on a nd int eg ra ti on pr oc ess t o ES A inc ludi ng int eg ra ti o n to EU (upda ted f rom: S ag ath et al., 2018a )

Co u n tr y EU As so ci a tio n o r Fre e tr a d e Ag re e m e n ts

EU Ac ce ss io n ES A Co o p . Ag re e m e n t ES A ECS Ag re e m e n t ES A PECS ES A Co n v e n tio n Ind u str y In ce n ti v e S ch e m e L u xe mb u rg - 1 9 5 7 - - - 2 0 0 5 - M a lt a 1 9 7 1 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 2 - - - - Ne th erla n d s - 1 9 5 7 - - - 1 9 7 9 - No rwa y 1 9 9 4 - - - - 1 9 8 6 - Po la n d 1 9 9 4 2 0 0 4 1 9 9 4 a n d 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 - 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 -2 0 1 9 Po rtu g a l - 1 9 8 6 - - - 2 0 0 0 - Ro ma n ia 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 7 1 9 9 2 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 9 S lo va ki a 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 2 0 - - S lo ve n ia 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 - S p a in - 1 9 8 6 - - - 1 9 7 9 - S we d en - 1 9 9 5 - - - 1 9 7 6 - S wit ze rla n d 1 9 7 3 - - - - 1 9 7 6 - Un it ed Kin g d o m 1 9 5 5 1 9 7 3 - - - 1 9 7 8 - T u rk ey 1 9 6 4 - 2 0 0 4 - - - - Uk ra in e 1 9 9 8 ( 2 0 1 7 ) - 2 0 0 8 - - - -

E SA inte g ra tio n m ec ha nis m s Descript io n o f m ec ha nis m 1) F ra mewo rk A g ree men t - Fo rm al ag ree m en t b et w ee n E S A an d s tate o n i n te n tio n to b ec a m e an E S A m e m b er s tate. - On ly allo w s th e ex c h a n g e o f e x p er ts f ro m b o th s ig n at u re p ar ties . - No b u d g etar y o r p ro g ram m ati c co n tr ib u tio n s. - Af ter f iv e y ea rs a d ec is io n to s ig n a n E C S a g ree m en t m a y b e m ad e b y t h e state. 2) E u ro p ea n C o o p era tin g S ta te A g ree men t ( E C S )

- T his in teg ratio n step in te nd s to p re par e th e co un tr ies’ s pac e ac to rs f o r a fu tu re su cc e ss fu l ac ce ss io n to th e E S A C o n v en tio n . It fo cu ses o n d ev elo p in g co n cr ete co llab o ratio n ac tiv ities at p ro jec t lev el an d s tr en g th e n in g t h e n atio n al ex p er tis e a n d ca p ab ilit ies in n o n -m e m b er s tat e co u n tr ies. - P ro v is io n o f p o liti ca l an d p ro g ra m m atic g u id eli n es fo r in v est m e n ts i n th e n at io n al sp a ce sec to r, s u p p o rt f o r fu rt h er d ev elo p m e n t o f th e n atio n al sp ac e p o licy . - T y p icall y f o r fi v e y ea rs w ith p o ss ib le ex te n sio n - P rim ar y ai m i s to ac h ie v e a d etailed u n d er sta n d in g o f th e n atio n al scien tif ic in ter es t an d ca p ab ilit y to g et h er w ith t h e in d u str ial b ase o f th e E u ro p ea n s p ac e sec to r. - C o n tai n s m ea su res to s ec u re an d in cr ea se n o n -m e m b er s tate in d u str y p ar ticip atio n d u ri n g t h e E C S p er io d in th e su p p ly ch a in n et w o rk s o f th e E S A m e m b er s tates. - E C S co u n tr ies h a v e th e p o ss ib ilit y to p ar ticip ate in E S A ac ti v itie s an d p ro g ra m s an d b ec o m e fa m iliar w it h th e E S A r u le s an d p ro ce d u res.

E SA inte g ra tio n m ec ha nis m s Descript io n o f m ec ha nis m 3) P la n fo r th e E u ro p ea n C o o p era tin g S ta te (P E C S )

- P u rp o se is to p ro v id e th e p o ss ib ilit y d ir ec tl y p ar ticip atio n o f n o n -m em ber s tate s’ s pac e in d u str y i n E S A p ro jec ts . - Id en tif icat io n o f p o ten tial ca p ab ilit ies an d g u id in g it to w ar d s th e E SA p ro ce d u res an d stan d ar d s o f in d u str ial an d s ci en ti fic co llab o ratio n . - Af ter th e rati ficatio n o f th e E C S ag ree m e n t, E S A co n d u ct s an in d u str ial as ses sm e n t in ea ch E C S c o u n tr y . - P E C S ca lls f o r p ro p o sals ai m ed at attr ac tin g p o ten tial in d u str y a n d i n sti tu te s to e n g a g e in E SA p ro jec ts . - T h e E SA P E C S o ff ice w it h t h e E SA E x ter n al R el at io ns o ff ic e ar e th e A ge nc y’ s liais on s w it h th e E C S co u n tr y . It is e n g a g e d in th e selec tio n co m m ittee th at d ec id es o n th e p ro jec ts th at w o u ld b e a w ar d ed af ter th e P E C S c alls . - T h e P E C S C o m m it tee m ee ts t w ice a y ea r to d is cu ss a n d ap p ro v e th e n e w P E C S p ro jec ts in ac co rd an ce w it h d ec is io n s o f p ar ticu lar E S A P ro g ra m B o ar d s an d C o m m ittees re sp o n sib le fo r o n -g o in g p ro jec ts u n d er w h ich t h e co llab o ratio n is f o res ee n . - T h e fin al d ec is io n o n ap p ro v ed PECS p ro g ram co llab o ratio n is m ad e b y th e E S A I n d u str ial P o licy C o m m ittee to g eth er w ith d eleg atio n i n o rd er to alig n P E C S p ro jec ts w it h th e ex is ti n g E SA p ro jec ts . - On ce t h e P E C S P ro g ra m m ati c C h ar t is ap p ro v ed , in cl u d in g t h e res u lts o f th e su cc es sf u l P E C S ca lls o n p ro jec t p ro p o sals, all E SA Dir ec to rates ar e in v ited to p rese n t th eir ac tiv iti es an d p ro v id e u p d ates a b o u t E SA p ro g ra m s. - T h e b u d g et to b e allo ca ted b y an E C S fo r co llab o ratio n w it h in th e P E C S i s at a m in im u m o f €1 m illi on p er y ea r (at 20 01 ec on om ic co nd itio ns ) fo r a m in im um p er io d of 5 y ea rs . Af ter 5 - y ea r p er io d o f PECS th e E C S state ca n i n itiate th e ac ce ss io n to E SA C o n v e n tio n .

E SA inte g ra tio n m ec ha nis m s Descript io n o f m ec ha nis m 4) A ss o cia te Memb er S ta te - P ro v is io n o f th e p o ss ib ilit y to f le x ib ly e n g a g e in E S A ac ti v it ies an d p ro g ra m s. - A cc o rd in g to th e E SA C o n v e n tio n ( A rticle XI V) , th e d ec is io n o n Ass o ciate m e m b er sh ip req u ir es t w o -t h ir d m aj o rit y o f th e E S A C o u n cil. - T h is t y p e o f a ss o ciate d m e m b e rs h ip i n E S A al lo w s to ca rr y o u t o p p o rtu n ities f o r p ar ticip atio n in o p tio n al p ro g ra m s w ith o u t t h e o b lig atio n o f th e m a n d ato ry co n tr ib u tio n s. - T h e ch o ice o f p ar ticip atio n is b ased o n n atio n al in ter es ts , sci en ce an d tec h n o lo g y ( S & T ) an d in d u str ial ca p ab ilit ies. - T h e n atio n al d eleg ate s ar e rep resen ted at th e E S A C o m m itte es a n d P ro g ram B o ar d s. 5) A cc ess io n A g ree men t to th e E S A C o n ve n tio n

- T rig ger ed b y th e resp ec ti ve go ver nm en t’ s req u est to t h e Dir e cto r Gen er al o f E S A . - E SA C o u n cil m u st a p p ro v e u p o n p ro p o sal b y th e Dir ec to r G en er al. - T h e A cc ess io n A g ree m en t co n tai n s a n u m b er o f m aj o r p ro v is io n s in clu d in g : th e a m o u n t o f th e e n tr y f ee , estab li sh ed b y E S A C o u n cil ; th e T ran sitio n al A rr an g e m en ts , in p ar ticu lar t h e p ro v is io n s fo r a n I n d u str ial I n ce n tiv e Sc h e m e ( II S); th e r ec ip ro ca l d u ties a n d o b lig atio n s d u rin g th e T ran sit io n al P er io d ; an d th e fac t th at at th e en d o f th e T ran sitio n al P er io d , th e g eo g rap h ic ret u rn statis tics o f th e m a n d ato ry p ro g ra m a n d ac tiv ities fo r th e g iv en n e w m e m b er s ta te w ill b e d is co n ti n u ed . - T h is ass es sm e n t fo cu ses o n tech n o lo g y a n d in d u str ial c ap ac ities (p ast an d o n -g o in g ), in cl u d in g th e size an d ex te n si o n o f th e in d u str ial lan d sca p e in v o lv ed o r in ter ested in s p ac e activ itie s.

E SA inte g ra tio n m ec ha nis m s Descript io n o f m ec ha nis m 6) In d u str ia l In ce n tive S ch eme (I IS ) a n d Tr a n sitio n P erio d

- Ass o ciate d w ith ea c h n e w m e m b er s tate an d ai m s to cr ea te, s u p p o rt an d f o ster in d u str ial ca p ac ities , in o rd er to ac h ie v e stab le in d u str ial r etu rn f o r th e m e m b er s tate a fter t h e tr an siti o n p er io d . - W ith in th e II S, th e ac ti v itie s rec o m m e n d ed fo r im p le m en tatio n fo llo w E S A sta n d ar d p ro cu rem e n t r u les a n d p ro ce d u res. T h e tr an sitio n p er io d is a t le ast fi v e y ea rs an d t h e b u d g et allo ca ted to th e II S is u su al ly f ix ed to 4 5 % o f th e m an d ato ry co n tr ib u tio n o f th e n e w m e m b er state (m a n d ato ry co n tr ib u tio n is ca lcu la ted ac co rd in g th e G DP o f m e m b er s tate s) . - An I IS T ask Fo rce co m p ris e d o f rep resen tativ e s fr o m E S A a n d th e n e w m e m b er s tate is task ed w it h ad v is in g o n s p ec if ic m ea su res to b e im p le m en te d u n d er th e II S. - T h e co n tr ac ts ar e aw ar d ed th o u g h C all s fo r Ou tl in e P ro p o sals (C A P ). A cc ep ted p ro p o sals m u st h a v e a so lid tech n ical /s cien tific co n ten t, fall w it h in th e o u tli n ed p ro g ra m m at ic o b jec tiv es a n d s h o u ld b e w it h in th e b u d g et allo ca tio n o f th e g iv e n C A P . T ab le 2. 2 : ES A me cha n ism s for int eg ra ti ng n ew membe r sta tes (Sa ga th et a l., 2018a)

Do m a in O bje ct iv e In d u str ia l retu rn in clu d in g m a n d a to ry a ctivities

Fo r th e o v er all in d u str ial retu rn , a tan g ib le v al u e h as to b e re ac h ab le fo r ea ch n e w Me m b er State, in cl u d in g f o r scie n ce an d o th e r m a n d ato ry p ro g ra m s. N a tio n a l S p a ce S tr a teg y T h e ea rly d ef in itio n o f a n atio n al sp ac e str ate g y p ro v id es a to o l th at p rio ritize p ro p o sals fo r E SA p ro g ram s (m an d ato ry a n d o p tio n al) , as w ell as in n at io n al sp ac e ac ti v it ies. It in tr o d u ce s tr an sp ar en c y re g ar d in g n atio n al o b jec tiv es p ro v id in g a fr a m e fo r in stit u tio n al an d p riv ate in v e st m e n t. F o rma l su p p o rt str u ctu re T h er e is an ess en tia l n ee d o f a fo rm al str u c tu re ac ti n g i n s u p p o rt o f th e d eleg atio n f o r a sm o o th p ar ticip atio n in E S A . A f o rm a l str u ct u re, o r ev en a n atio n a l p ro g ram , w ith r eso u rce s p ro p o rtio n al to r esp ec tiv e E S A s u p p o rts th e liais o n w it h i n d u str y . S u b scrip tio n to o p tio n a l p ro g ra ms Def in itio n o f p rio rities an d o f o p tio n al p ro g ram s to w h ic h ea ch s tate d ec id es to p ar ticip ate in , is an ess e n tia l ele m e n t in o rd er to cr ea te an d fo ster ca p ac ities w it h th e p u rp o se o f g ra d u all y ac h iev in g a b alan ce d p ar ticip atio n o f in d u str y to selec te d E SA p ro g ra m s, an d n o t o n ly to m an d ato ry ac tiv it ies. S p a ce I n d u str ia l A ss o cia tio n A n atio n al sp ac e in d u str ial ass o ciatio n co alesces d is p ar ate n atio n al in d u str ial in ter es ts an d p ro v id es an in ter lo cu to r to th e n atio n al d eleg atio n to id en tif y p rio rities an d g u id eli n es. It als o ser v es a s ad v is o r an d ca n b e u sed as a n i m p o rta n t p la y er in t h e tas k s o f in d u str ial liai so n .

Do m a in O bje ct iv e A ca d emia a n d in d u str y In a n e w m e m b er state w ith litt le e x p er ien ce in sp ac e a ctiv itie s, ac ad e m ia te n d s to p lay a d is p ro p o rtio n ate ro le d u e to m atu re resear ch an d s cie n ti fic c ap ab ilit ies. Ho w e v er , fo r su sta in ab le p ar ticip atio n in E S A , th e p ar ticip atio n o f in d u str y is es sen tia l. S p a ce h a rd w a re T h e ac h iev e m e n t o f th is o b je ctiv e is u su all y ea sy to q u an tif y : it ref lects w h et h er th e n a tio n al in d u str y a n d ac ad e m ia w er e a b le to ac q u ir e th e ca p ab ilit ies, f ac ilit ie s an d k n o w -h o w d u ri n g t h e tr an sitio n p er io d to d ev elo p s p ac e h ar d w ar e p er tin e n t to all E S A p ro g ra m s. S u p p ly ch a in T h e ac h iev e m en t o f th is o b jec tiv e ref lec ts w h eth er n atio n al in d u str y h as m an a g ed to estab lis h a stab le relatio n sh ip w it h o th er E u ro p ea n s p ac e in d u str ies, o n a co m p le m e n tar it y b as is . T ab le 2. 3 : ES A G uidelines towa rds f ull membe rs hip (E urope an S pa ce A ge nc y , 2012)

26

A prospective member state joining ESA enters a transition period lasting between five to nine years with the aim to meet certain objectives, which are listed in Table 3 (European Space Agency, 2012). Member states that have joined ESA for a period less than ten years are considered new member states. ESA has several tools how to develop member states’ space sectors. For example, ESA is guaranteeing the return of investments made by its member states’ in form of annual budget contributions. The application of the industrial return principle, also known as the geographical return principle, the ability to choose which optional (selective) program a country will contribute to, and the recommendation for a coherent industrial policy by ESA, play together a crucial role in developing and creating space sector capabilities in all ESA member states.

2.3 Methodology

Understanding the way of space governance and policy priority creation and implementation of member states is a complex issue as there is significant variation across ESA member states. In this study, they are framed to cover four thematic areas: space governance; technology domains; areas of sustainability; and motivation for engaging in the space sector. Each member state differs on these aspects; some engage in space activities exclusively through ESA, while others also have a dedicated national space program. Some states consider ESA as their primary space agency, while others establish a dedicated national agency with respective programs. The examples of ESA Member States’ strategies considered for the data collection are presented in Appendix 2.

After collecting the data (e.g., national space strategies) and creating a concise overview of each member state, a content analysis was performed (e.g., Ahuvia, 2001;

Krippendorff, 2004). The common frames found across the

multiple national strategies were aggregated and organized

according to the differences in management at the level of

national space governance, priorities, domains, and motivators

27 for space associated with each member state of ESA.

Furthermore, member states provided additional information during the workshops that took place in October 2013 and September 2017 at ESA on ‘Exchange of national strategies and plans’ and via consultation with stakeholders. These consultations were conducted when the content of the draft of a particular ESA member state’ info note was presented to the stakeholder before the final publication. This approach secured the accuracy of the information.

2.4 Research results

2.4.1 ESA member states space governance

Each ESA member state has a unique governance structure when it comes to space (e.g., Giannopapa et al., 2015).

Through framing, policy makers and others select, emphasize and justify the proper governance and decision-making processes (Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2008; Daviter, 2007).

The space governance structure determines in particular who (e.g., ministry or public agency) has decision-making powers over a certain policy related to space activities. It allows to visualize how the integration of various stakeholder interests is facilitated. Each member state participates in number of organizations engaged in space activities and international agreements. These organizations in Europe include ESA, the European Organization for Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), the European Union Satellite Centre (Satcen), the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA), the European Defense Agency (EDA), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).

Different ministries focus their attention on different

aspects of space policy seeking to support their positions

(Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2008), thus various governance

models are identified depending on the responsible ministries

for space. The analysis has found that the typical ministries

involved in overseeing cooperation via international

28

organizations are related to science, technology, research and education; economy; industry, innovation; transport and communications; defense; environment; energy; foreign affairs; and in some cases the prime ministers’ offices.

Figure 2 shows the ministries responsible for space in ESA member states. Regarding the ministry responsible for ESA, traditionally, education or science ministries are in charge. Other states opted to cover space under the ministry of economy or industry and innovation. Recognizing the transverse nature of space and its potential role for number of sectorial policies, transport or environment have been selected to take the lead in space. Furthermore, ESA space governance is frequently shared and/or delegated to multiple ministries, for instance transport and (tele)communications, environment, energy or defense. In practice, typically a single ministry has the leading responsibility for ESA space activities with one or multiple other ministries with secondary space responsibilities.

29 Figure 2.2: Ministries responsible for space in ESA twenty-

two member states (European Space Agency, 2017) Figure 3 shows an archetype model of space governance, including ministries and other governmental agencies overseeing collaboration with international organizations. In many cases the national institute for meteorology, which is often located under the umbrella of the Ministry of Environment, constitutes the delegation to EUMETSAT. Delegations to EDA and EUSC (now Satcen) are under the responsibility of the ministry of defense, and the ministries of foreign affairs are charged with UNCOPUOS.

Aspects related to satellite communications often resort under the competence of the ministry of transport and/or communications. This is reflected, in turn, by the implementation of policy and regulations by telecommunications agencies and representation of the concerned states by these agencies in international organization dealing with telecommunications.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 EDUCATION /

SCIENCE / RESEARCH

TRANSPORT / COMMUNICATIO

NS / INFRASTRUCTUR

E

INDUSTRY / BUSINESS / INNOVATION

ECONOMY

PRIME MINISTERS

OFFICE FOREIGN

AFFAIRS ENERGY

DEFENCE ENVIRONMENT

ESA EUMETSAT GSA / GALILEO

ITU COPERNICUS UNCOPUOS

EDA EUSC