Explaining EU member state participation in PESCO: A mechanism-based comparison of France and Germany

This thesis examines the mechanisms behind EU member states’ participation in the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), with a focus on France and Germany. These mechanisms are grounded in existing theories of EU integration. PESCO is seen as a policy that has strengthened EU integration in security and defence. The theoretical foundation includes liberal and realist intergovernmentalism. The former explains EU integration through state-society structures and the relative status of member states within EU governance. From these assumptions, two mechanisms are identified that inform the hypotheses: (1) the importance of the defence industry and (2) the desire for leadership in the policy process. The latter describes EU integration as a reaction to the international distribution of material resources. From these assumptions, two additional mechanisms emerge to inform the hypotheses: (3) perceptions of threats and (4) attitudes towards U.S. security guarantees. A qualitative content analysis of speeches by French and German government officials was conducted to identify the motivating mechanisms behind participation in PESCO. Realist mechanisms were most prominent in both countries. France particularly emphasised strategic autonomy in its distrust of American security guarantees and the threat of terrorism to security, which motivated its support for PESCO. Germany focused more on enhancing the EU's global status in response to security threats and burden sharing within EU-U.S. security guarantees. Liberal mechanisms played a less significant role in the speeches. For France, PESCO provides a platform for defence industrial innovation, and Germany focuses on streamlining defence industrial outputs in the EU. Both states took a leadership position in the policy process of PESCO to advance national interests. This thesis advances the understanding of PESCO from a member state perspective and EU defence integration in general. Moreover, the motivating mechanisms emphasise potential conflict areas within the controversial topic of defence for the EU. However, since only two member states were analysed, this limits the broader applicability of the findings. Furthermore, the analysis relies on public speeches, which may omit internal decision-making processes in the PESCO policy development. Future research should include more member states and consider alternative theoretical perspectives, such as constructivism and institutionalism, to identify additional motivating mechanisms for member state participation in PESCO and other EU defence policies.