Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evolution of Aerospace R&D Collaboration Networks on the European, National and Regional Levels

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Networks for Regional Development

Part of the book series: Economic Complexity and Evolution ((ECAE))

Abstract

We describe the development of the European aerospace R&D collaboration network from 1987 to 2013 with the help of the publicly available raw data of the European Framework Programmes and the German Förderkatalog. In line with the sectoral innovation system approach, we describe the evolution of the aerospace R&D network on three levels. First, based on their thematic categories, all projects are inspected and the development of technology used over time is described. Second, the composition of the aerospace R&D network concerning organization type, project composition and the special role of SMEs is analyzed. Third, the geographical distribution is shown on the technological side as well as on the actor level. A more complete view of the European funding structure is achieved by replicating the procedure on the European level to the national level, in our case Germany.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
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.

    That knowledge plays a central role in innovation and production has been emphasized by the evolutionary economics literature (Metcalfe 1998; Dosi 1997; Nelson 1995) and by Lundvall (1992) within his work on the knowledge-based economy.

  2. 2.

    In this article we do not specifically address the demand side, but we use developments in it to explain changes on the supply side and the invention community. As Vincenti (1990, p.11) puts it: “performance, size, and arrangement of an airplane, for example (and hence the knowledge needed to lay it out), are direct consequences of the commercial or military task it is intended to perform”.

  3. 3.

    Subsequent years are analyzed within the main chapters, since our data starts with the year 1987.

  4. 4.

    Precursor works on bionics and other aviation specific researches led to the first flights: cf. Moon (2012).

  5. 5.

    An interesting social network analysis about the entrepreneur years of the aerospace industry is provided by Moon (2012).

  6. 6.

    This especially holds for Europe—except Germany, due to restrictions imposed by the allied forces, Germany was allowed (if at all) to produce systems and components in license. Nevertheless during the 1950s the US aircraft industry started to establish a pyramidal supply chain structure.

  7. 7.

    Not only Airbus as the manufacturer of aircraft, but also the defense and space entities were centralized under the European holding company EADS (a consortium of the national firms Aerospatiale Matra, DASA, CASA) founded in 1998/1999. All remarks assigned to facts before that time, are dedicated to different partners building a consortium since the 1970s.

  8. 8.

    Between 10 and 18 % of revenue is re-invested in R&D.

  9. 9.

    On the European OEM-level this changed in 2013, as the French government and the German Daimler AG withdrew at least in a direct manner from EADS.

  10. 10.

    We did not include FP1, since FP1 has no distinct aerospace category.

  11. 11.

    The EUPRO database is constructed and maintained by the AIT Innovation Systems Department by substantially standardizing raw data on EU FP research collaborations obtained from the CORDIS database (see Roediger-Schluga and Barber 2008).

  12. 12.

    Projects in the FP4 subprogram FP4-BRITE/EURAM 3 originally were all assigned the Aerospace Technology subject index, but these were eliminated in a later revision of CORDIS. We have included these projects for consideration as aerospace projects. No projects in FP1 were assigned the Aerospace Technology subject index; we have excluded FP1 from consideration.

  13. 13.

    www.foerderkatalog.de.

  14. 14.

    We identified all aerospace relevant projects with the help of the Leistungsplansystematik (“activity systematics”).

  15. 15.

    We do not make use of the standardized subject indices from CORDIS—they provide a broad categorization of all FP projects, but are not specific enough for categorizing the aerospace projects.

  16. 16.

    The REC efforts might not be purely driven by the environmental conscience of the aerospace industry, but driven more by underlying costs. The reduction of fuel consumption exhausted by the engines is the opposite trend to cover the increased fuel prices and demand driven on the side of the airlines.

  17. 17.

    Little difference can be observed between the knowledge specialization patterns between the European level and the level of countries, especially between the major aerospace countries (most of them parts of EADS). This may be expected, since these countries constitute the majority of the European aerospace industry as the aggregate of their historically independent national industries.

  18. 18.

    Vincenti (1990) takes a look into Rosenberg’s “black box” (Rosenberg 1982) and analyzes numerous kinds of complex knowledge levels that engineers in the aeronautical industry apply and use during the design process. He treats science and technology as separate spheres of knowledge that nevertheless mutually influence each other. Concerning the level of knowledge, Vincenti (1990, p. 226) states that engineers use knowledge primarily to design, produce, and operate artifacts (i.e. they create artifacts), while scientists use knowledge primarily to generate new knowledge (and as Pitt (2001, p. 22) states: scientists aims are to explain artifacts). Emerging feedback processes in science are due to scientists’ engagement in open-ended, cumulative quests to understand observable phenomena. Vincenti (1990, p. 8) suggests that normal design is evolving in an incremental fashion and radical changes can be seen as revolutionary.

  19. 19.

    This exceeds the purpose of this chapter, but might be a fruitful field for further research.

  20. 20.

    For the general limitation of patent data usage and patents as strategic element see Granstrand (2010). Further Hollanders et al. (2008, p. 22ff.) discuss the role of patents in the aerospace industry, whereby the main argument states that patent are of minor importance since in the aerospace industry secrecy is the main method to protect knowledge. Nevertheless we suppose that this only (if at all) is correct for the two OEMs in the past. As now weights are changing and new competitors have emerged, patent usage and relevance will increase in the future. Begemann (2008) discusses the role of patents in the aerospace industry in a historical view, beginning with the Wright brothers and continuing to the current situation between Boeing and Airbus.

  21. 21.

    Additionally the fact that satellite and space topics can be seldom commercialized contributes to the fall in the industry share.

  22. 22.

    An interesting article focusing on the anchor tenant concept was written by Niosi and Zhegu (2010). They argue that an anchor is able to spin off new firms and attracts other firms. That favors our findings in the aerospace centers as there is a high agglomeration of participating firms where at least one big player is located.

  23. 23.

    We used a threshold of 500 employees, since compared to international standards and as compared to other companies within the aerospace industry, they can be labeled as SME. The one-time participants are about 70 % of all participants; we analyze them in detail at the end of this section. The category N/A summarizes all participants out of the IND category where no information according to their sizes could be gained, plus all other categories.

  24. 24.

    E.g. the Austrian FACC, a specialist for composite airframes, taken over by Chinese Xi’an Aircraft Corporation.

  25. 25.

    To gain an even more substantial picture, the regional funded projects by local governments could also be considered, as it might be the main source of the internal R&D operations and non-funded projects with partners.

  26. 26.

    This argument is not derogated by the minor aeronautic projects, since the argument that SMEs (which are mostly responsible for the technological development in the space industry) participate more often in nationally funded projects, due to easier access to the national projects and a lower capacity to participate on the national and the European level.

  27. 27.

    Other possibilities are mergers or acquisitions, which have developed on the higher supply chain levels during the last years in an excessive manner (ECORYS 2009, p. 297; Vertesy and Szirmai 2010, p. 3; Nolan and Zhang 2003).

References

  • AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) (2005) Facts & figures. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) (2007) ASD focus. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfonso-Gil J (ed) (2007) European aeronautics: the Southwestern axis. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim BT, Isaksen A (2002) Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. J Technol Tran 27:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber MJ, Krueger A, Krueger T, Roediger-Schluga T (2006) Network of European Union-funded collaborative research and development projects. Phys Rev E 73(3):036132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2002) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progr Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begemann A (2008) Die Rolle von Patenten in der zivilen Luftfahrtindustrie aus historischer und rechtsvergleichender Sicht. Herbert Utz, Munchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi A, Giuri P (2000) When shakeout doesn’t occur: the evolution of the turboprop engine industry. Res Pol 29:847–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi A, Giuri P (2001) The long-term evolution of vertically-related industries. Int J Ind Organ 19:1053–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi S, Cusmano L (2004) Unveiling the texture of a European Research Area: emergence of oligarchic networks under EU Framework Programmes. Int J Technol Manag 27:747–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi S, Malerba F (1997) Sectoral systems of innovation: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries. In: Edquist C (ed) Systems of innovation. Frances Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekel T, Graf H (2012) Public research intensity and the structure of German R&D networks: a comparison of 10 technologies. Econ Innov New Technol 21(4):345–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugos G (2010) History of the aerospace industry. EH.net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook C (2006) The aerospace industry: its history and how it affects the U.S. economy. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • CORDIS (1998) Fifth framework programme (1998-2002). Available from http://cordis.europa.eu/fp5/about.htm

  • Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Pol 11:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1997) Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. Econ J 107:1530–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECORYS Research and Consulting (2009) Competitiveness of the European aerospace industry. European Commission, Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito E, Raffa L (2006) Evolution of the supply chain in the aircraft industry. In: IPSERA conference, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council (1998) Council decision of 22 December 1998 concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the fifth framework programme of the European Community (1998-2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2002) STAR 21: Strategic aerospace review for the 21st century, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz P (2008) Wie reagieren Hochschulen auf neue Technologien? Das Beispiel der Photovoltaik. Wirtschaft im Wandel 12:460–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken K, Leydesdorff L (2000) Scaling trajectories in civil aircraft (1913-1970). Res Pol 29(3):331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand O (2010) Industrial innovation economics and intellectual property, 5th edn. Svenska Kulturkompaniet, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekara C (2006) Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. J Technol Tran 31(1):101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J, Wang N (2012) Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies? Res Pol 41:1072–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakansson H (1989) Corporate technological behaviour: cooperation and networks. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders H, Cruysen AV, Vertesy D (2008) Sectoral innovation systems in Europe: the case of the aerospace sector. Final report, Europe INNOVA

    Google Scholar 

  • König F (2006) The German National Aeronautics Research Programme. Unpublished speech

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-Å (ed) (1992) National systems of innovation. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F (1999) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. In: DRUID conference on national innovation systems, industrial dynamics and innovation policy

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res Pol 31:247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathy F-J (2011) The aeronautic research programme of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). Unpublished speech, Aerodays Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe S (1998) Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miotti L, Sachwald F (2003) Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: an integrated framework of analysis. Res Pol 32:1481–1499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon F (2012) A social network model for Innovation in early aviation industry. In: Koetsier T, Ceccarelli M (eds) Explorations in the history of machines and mechanisms, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R (1995) Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. J Econ Lit 33:48–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R, Winter S (1977) In search of a useful theory of innovation. Res Pol 6(1):36–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi J, Zhegu M (2010) Anchor tenants and regional innovation systems: the aircraft industry. Int J Technol Manag 50(263):284

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan P, Zhang J (2003) Globalization challenge for large firms from developing countries: China’s oil and aerospace industries. Eur Manag J 21(3):285–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B (1994) Innovation and diffusion in small firms: theory and evidence. Small Bus Econ 6:327–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt JC (2001) What engineers know. Techné 5:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponds R, van Oort F, Frenken K (2010) Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. J Econ Geogr 10:231–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyka A (2002) Innovation networks in economics: from the incentive-based to the knowledge based approaches. Eur J Innovat Manag 5:152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger-Schluga T, Barber MJ (2006) The structure of R&D collaboration networks in the European Framework Programmes. UNU-MERIT working paper series, 2006-36

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger-Schluga T, Barber MJ (2008) R&D collaboration networks in the European Framework Programmes: data processing, network construction and selected results. Int J Foresight Innovat Pol 4:321–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherngell T, Barber MJ (2009) Spatial interaction modeling of cross-region R&D collaborations: empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme. Pap Reg Sci 88:531–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari M (2005) An exploration of supply chain management practices in the aerospace industry and in Rolls-Royce. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Vertesy D, Szirmai A (2010) Interrupted innovation: innovation system dynamics in latecomer aerospace industries. UNU-MERIT Working Paper 2010-059

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti W (1990) What engineers know and how they know it? Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtschaftsförderung Region Stuttgart GmbH (WRS) (2011) Kompetenzatlas Luft- und Raumfahrt. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixted B (2009) Innovation system frontiers: cluster networks and global value. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe DA (2005) The role of universities in regional development and cluster formation. In: Jones G, McCarney P, Skolnick M (eds) Creating knowledge, strengthening nations. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 167–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann V, Andres M (2001) Das Innovationsverhalten von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen. Wirtschaftsdienst 81(9):532–540, ISSN:0043-6275

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Economics, Universität Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 23, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany

    Daniel Guffarth

  2. Innovation Systems Department, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Donau-City-Straße 1, 1220, Vienna, Austria

    Michael J. Barber

Authors
  1. Daniel Guffarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Guffarth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Ben Vermeulen

  2. Innovation Systems Department, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna, Austria

    Manfred Paier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guffarth, D., Barber, M.J. (2017). The Evolution of Aerospace R&D Collaboration Networks on the European, National and Regional Levels. In: Vermeulen, B., Paier, M. (eds) Innovation Networks for Regional Development. Economic Complexity and Evolution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43940-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation