Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:58:48.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditions of intergovernmental armaments cooperation in Western Europe, 1996–2006

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Alrik Thiem
Alrik Thiem*
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Political Science, Center for Comparative and International Studies and Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, Switzerland
*
* E-mail: thiem@sipo.gess.ethz.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Defence cooperation between Western European countries has increased considerably since the end of the Cold War. An analytical distinction can be made between political and economic cooperation, the latter having been neglected by political scientists. This study advances the debate on economic cooperation by identifying sources of variation in the European Union (EU)-15 countries’ membership rate in cooperative armaments fora aimed at restructuring the demand side of European defence from 1996 to 2006. By combining six models from three different schools of thought, the risk of confirmation bias through intra-paradigmatic reasoning is reduced. At the same time, fuzzy-set analysis opens up the space for data-driven combination effects. Two distinct combinations form sufficient paths leading to high rates of membership. Most importantly, intentions to create collective defence technological and industrial benefits combine with trust in partners’ ability and integrity to form an essential combination of conditions for governments to pursue cooperation on armaments.

Keywords

European Uniondefence policyarmaments cooperationfuzzy-set analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , 25 February 2011 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, E.Barnett, M.N. (1996), ‘Governing anarchy: a research agenda for the study of security communities’, Ethics & International Affairs 10(1): 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J.H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J.Sharp, K.T. (2006), ‘Foreign policy and the electoral connection’, Annual Review of Political Science 9(1): 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D.Akert, R.M. (2007), Social Psychology, 6th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Art, R.J. (1996), ‘Why western europe needs the United States and NATO’, Political Science Quarterly 111(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Art, R.J. (2004), ‘Europe hedges its security bets’, in T.V. Paul, J.J. Wirtz and M. Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 179–213.Google Scholar
Art, R.J. (2006), ‘Striking the balance’, International Security 30(3): 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D.A. (1980), ‘Interdependence and power: a conceptual analysis’, International Organization 34(4): 471–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, C.P. (2002), ‘Small countries and the consolidation of the European Defence Industry: Portugal as a case study’, Defence & Peace Economics 13(4): 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (1991), ‘Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan Defense Build Up’, The American Political Science Review 85(2): 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, M.A.Potter, P.B.K. (2008), ‘The relationships between mass media, public opinion, and foreign policy: toward a theoretical synthesis’, Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, S.J. (1997), ‘Shaping the rules? The constitutive politics of the European Union and German power’, in P.J. Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 49–79.Google Scholar
Burstein, P. (2003), ‘The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda’, Political Research Quarterly 56(1): 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, J.T.Moravcsik, A. (2001), ‘A constructivist research program in EU Studies?’, European Union Politics 2(2): 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, J.T. (2008), ‘Process tracing’, in A. Klotz and D. Prakash (eds), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T.D., Larson, J.M., Mordeson, J.N., Potter, J.D.Wierman, M.J. (2008), Applying Fuzzy Mathematics to Formal Models in Comparative Politics, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Clarke, K.A. (2005), ‘The phantom menace: omitted variable bias in econometric research’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(4): 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K.A. (2009), ‘Return of the Phantom Menace: omitted variable bias in political research’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(1): 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornu, C. (2001), ‘Fortress Europe – real or virtual?’, in B. Schmitt (ed.), Between Cooperation and Competition: The transatlantic Defence Market, Paris: Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, pp. 51–92.Google Scholar
Crollen, E. (2003), ‘Prospects for increased cooperation in European Defence industry policies’, European Security 12(2): 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domhoff, G.W. (2002), ‘The power elite, public policy, and public opinion’, in J. Manza, F.L. Cook and B.I. Page (eds), Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichenberg, R.C. (2000), ‘NATO and European security after the cold war: will European citizens support a common security policy?’, in B.L. Nacos, R.Y. Shapiro and P. Isernia (eds), Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
Eichenberg, R.C.Stoll, R. (2003), ‘Representing defense: democratic control of the defense budget in the United States and Western Europe’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(4): 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.Stimson, J.A. (2002), The Macro Polity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission (1996), The Challenges Facing the European Defence-Related Industry, A Contribution for Action at European Level, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, COM (1996) 10.Google Scholar
European Commission (2007), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Coordination of Procedures for the Award of Certain Public Works Contracts, Public Supply Contracts and Public Service Contracts in the Fields of Defence and Security. COM (2007) 766.Google Scholar
Evans, P.B. (1993), ‘Building an integrative approach to international and domestic politics: reflections and projections’, in P.B. Evans, H.K. Jacobson and R.D. Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J.D. (1991), ‘Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science’, World Politics 43(2): 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feld, S.L. (1982), ‘Social structural determinants of similarity among associates’, American Sociological Review 47(6): 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geller, D.S. (1993), ‘Power differentials and war in rival dyads’, International Studies Quarterly 37(2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A.L.Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, G. (2006), Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, J. (1989), ‘Bipolarity, multipolarity, and free trade’, The American Political Science Review 83(4): 1245–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieco, J.M. (1988), ‘Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism’, International Organization 42(3): 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, K. (2006), ‘Defence industrial policy in a military alliance’, Journal of Peace Research 43(4): 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, K. (2008), ‘Collaboration and European defence industrial policy’, Defence & Peace Economics 19(4): 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, T.Russett, B. (1992), ‘Public opinion and the common defense: who governs military spending in the United States?’, The American Political Science Review 86(4): 905–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P.Rittberger, V. (1997), Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, K. (2001), ‘The globalisation of defence industries’, Survival 43(2): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsti, O.R. (2004), Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, Analytical Perspectives on Politics, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L.Marks, G. (2001), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Governance in Europe, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L., Marks, G.Schakel, A.H. (2008), ‘Operationalizing regional authority: a coding scheme for 42 countries, 1950–2006’, Regional & Federal Studies 18(2): 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howorth, J. (2007), Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1993), ‘Why international primacy matters’, International Security 17(4): 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Institute for Strategic Studies (1997–2007), The Military Balance (Various Years), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jachtenfuchs, M. (2002), Die Konstruktion Europas: Verfassungsideen und institutionelle Entwicklung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L.R.Page, B.I. (2005), ‘Who influences U.S. foreign policy?’, The American Political Science Review 99(1): 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A.D. (2001), ‘The prospects for a transatlantic defence industry’, in B. Schmitt (ed.), Between Cooperation and Competition: The transatlantic Defence Market, Paris: Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, pp. 93–122.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (2005), ‘Understanding the Bush Doctrine’, in G.J. Ikenberry (ed.), American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 576–599.Google Scholar
Jones, S.G. (2007), The Rise of European Security Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I.Reiss, H.S. ([1975]1970), Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kapstein, E.B. (1991), ‘International collaboration in armaments production: a second-best solution’, Political Science Quarterly 106(4): 657–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapstein, E.B. (2002), ‘Allies and armaments’, Survival 44(2): 141–155.Google Scholar
Keohane, D.Valasek, T. (2008), Willing and Able? EU Defence in 2020, London: Centre for European Reform.Google Scholar
Kernic, F., Callaghan, J.Manigart, P. (2002), Public Opinion on European Security and Defense: A Survey of European Trends and Public Attitudes toward CFSP and ESDP, Frankfurt an Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
King, A. (2005), ‘The future of the European Security and defence policy’, Contemporary Security Policy 26(1): 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocs, S.A. (1995), Autonomy or Power? The Franco-German Relationship and Europe’s Strategic Choices, 1955–1995, Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004), ‘Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU Foreign and security policy’, International Organization 58(1): 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layne, C. (2003), ‘America as European Hegemon’, The National Interest 72: 17–30.Google Scholar
Layne, C. (2006), ‘The ‘Poster Child for Offensive Realism’: America as a global hegemon’, Security Studies 12(2): 120–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legro, J.W. (1996), ‘Culture and preferences in the international cooperation two-step’, The American Political Science Review 90(1): 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J.M.Moreland, R.L. (1990), ‘Progress in small group research’, Annual Review of Psychology 41(1): 585–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (2005), ‘The Janus Face of Brussels: socialization and everyday decision making in the European Union’, International Organization 59(4): 937–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, P. (1996), ‘Trading with the enemy: security and relative economic gains’, International Security 21(1): 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorell, M.A.Lowell, J. (1995), Pros and Cons of International Weapons Procurement Collaboration, Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
Maoz, Z. (2004), ‘Pacifism and Fightaholism in International politics: a structural history of national and dyadic conflict, 1816–1992’, International Studies Review 6(4): 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G., Hooghe, L.Schakel, A.H. (2008), ‘Measuring regional authority’, Regional & Federal Studies 18(2): 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawdsley, J. (2000), The Changing Face of European Armaments Cooperation: Continuity and Change in British, French and German Armaments Policy 1990–2000. PhD thesis. Newcastle: School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Mawdsley, J. (2008), ‘European union armaments policy: options for small states?’, European Security 17(2): 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.Schoorman, F.D. (1995), ‘An integrative model of organizational trust’, The Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1990), ‘Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security 15(1): 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Mérand, F. (2008), European Defence Policy: Beyond the Nation State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. ([1865]2007), Considerations on Representative Government C.V. Shields (eds). Marietta: Cherokee Publishing.Google Scholar
Monroe, A.D. (1979), ‘Consistency between public preferences and national policy decisions’, American Politics Research 7(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, A.D. (1998), ‘Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993’, The Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1991), ‘Arms and Autarky in modern European History’, Daedalus 120(4): 23–45.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1993a), ‘Armaments among Allies: Franco-German weapons collaboration, 1975–1985’, in P.B. Evans, H.K. Jacobson and R.D. Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 128–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1993b), ‘Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies 31(4): 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1997), ‘Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics’, International Organization 51(4): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mörth, U.Britz, M. (2004), ‘European integration as organizing: the case of armaments’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42(5): 957–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B.Copper, C. (1994), ‘The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an integration’, Psychological Bulletin 115(2): 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, D.J.Taylor, T. (2001), ‘Globalisation in the defence industry: an exploration of the paradigm for US and European defence firms and the implications for being global players’, Defence & Peace Economics 12(4): 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R.S. (1998), ‘Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises’, Review of General Psychology 2(2): 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nincic, M. (1990), ‘US Soviet policy and the electoral connection’, World Politics 42(3): 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organski, A.F.K.Kugler, J. (1980), The War Ledger, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, B.I.Shapiro, R.Y. (1983), ‘Effects of public opinion on policy’, The American Political Science Review 77(1): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papayoanou, P.A. (1997), ‘Economic interdependence and the balance of power’, International Studies Quarterly 41(1): 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, T.V. (2004), ‘Introduction’, in T.V. Paul, J.J. Wirtz and M. Fortmann (eds), Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, B.R. (2006), ‘European Union security and defense policy: response to unipolarity?’, Security Studies 15(2): 149–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2000), Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C., Drass, K.A.Davey, S. (2006), Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0, Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, T. (1991), ‘Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies’, World Politics 43(4): 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, T. (2005), ‘Neofunctionalism, European Identity, and the Puzzles of European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy 12(2): 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittberger, B. (2005), Building Europe’s Parliament: Democratic Representation beyond the Nation-State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, J.G. (1998), ‘What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge’, International Organization 52(4): 855–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, B. (2000), ‘From Cooperation to Integration: Defence and Aerospace Industries in Europe’, Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
Schmitt, B. (2003), The European Union and Armaments: Getting a Bigger Bang for the Euro, Chaillot Papers, Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q.Wagemann, C. (2006), ‘Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy’, European Journal of Political Research 45(5): 751–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J.D., Bremer, S.Stuckey, J. (1972), ‘Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965’, in B. Russett (ed.), Peace, War, and Numbers, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
Singer, J.D. (1988), ‘Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985’, International Interactions 14(2): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaperdas, S.Syropoulos, C. (2001), ‘Guns, butter, and openness: on the relationship between security and trade’, The American Economic Review 91(2): 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, S.N.Wlezien, C. (2005), ‘Opinion-policy dynamics: public preferences and public expenditure in the United Kingdom’, British Journal of Political Science 35(4): 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soysa, de I., Oneal, J.R.Park, Y.-H. (1997), ‘Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, H. (2005), ‘Cumulation from proper specification: theory, logic, research design, and ‘Nice’ laws’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(4): 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (1997-2007), Yearbook (Various Years): Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swedish Ministry of Defence (2004), Our Future Defence – The Focus of Swedish Defence Policy 2005–2007, Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
Sweeney, K.Fritz, P. (2004), ‘Jumping on the Bandwagon: an interest-based explanation for great power alliances’, The Journal of Politics 66(2): 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. (1982), ‘Weapons standardization in NATO: collaborative security or economic competition?’, International Organization 36(1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. (1990), ‘Defence industries in international relations’, Review of International Studies 16(1): 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P.E.Belkin, A. (eds) (1996), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tonra, B. (2003), ‘Constructing the CFSP: the utility of a cognitive approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41(4): 731–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Törnqvist, S. (2001), ‘Demand side collaboration and multinational procurement’, The RUSI Journal 146(2): 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, J.B. (1991), ‘Partners and rivals: a model of international collaboration in advanced technology’, International Organization 45(1): 83–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK Ministry of Defence (2005), Defence Industrial Strategy: Defence White Paper, London: UK Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. (2002), ‘The subnational foundations of the European Parliament’, Journal of International Relations & Development 5(1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. (1986), ‘What price independence? Sovereignty and interdependence in British Politics’, International Affairs 62(3): 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, S.M. (1985), ‘Alliance formation and the balance of world power’, International Security 9(4): 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, S.M. (2005), Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy, New York: W. W. Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (1959), Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (2000), ‘Structural realism after the cold war’, International Security 25(1): 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K.N. (2008), Realism and International Politics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1995), ‘Constructing international politics’, International Security 20(1): 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, A. (2000), ‘On the via media: a response to the critics’, Review of International Studies 26(1): 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, A. (2003), ‘Constructivism: the limits of bridging gaps’, Journal of International Relations & Development 6(3): 252–275.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2001), ‘In whom we trust: group membership as an affective context for trust development’, The Academy of Management Review 26(3): 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2004), ‘Patterns of representation: dynamics of public preferences and policy’, The Journal of Politics 66(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlforth, W.C. (1999), ‘The stability of a unipolar world’, International Security 24(1): 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2008), World Development Indicators, Washington, DC: The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
World Steel Association (2009), Crude steel statistics 2009. Retrieved 13 January 2009 from http://www.worldsteel.org/index.php.Google Scholar