‘We don’t do that’: A constructivist perspective on the use and non-use of private military contractors by Denmark
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836718765901 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | Hilde van Meegdenburg |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
765901CAC0010.1177/0010836718765901Cooperation and Conflictvan Meegdenburg
research-article2018
Article
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(1) 25 –43
‘We don’t do that’: A
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
constructivist perspective
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718765901
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718765901
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
on the use and non-use of
private military contractors
by Denmark
Hilde van Meegdenburg
Abstract
In this article I put forward a social constructivist perspective on state use of Private Military
and Security Contractors (PMSCs). I will argue that state outsourcing decisions are, to a large
extent, shaped by nationally shared values, understandings and dispositions. Concretely, I first
provide a detailed overview of the extent of domestic and deployed contracting by the Danish
Defence and, thereafter, based on a number of semi-structured interviews, I expose the dominant
understandings that shaped how PMSCs have come to be understood in Denmark. By so doing
I can show that the employment of PMSCs by the Danish Defence remains comparatively
limited because it is largely perceived as inappropriate and as incompatible with what it means
to be ‘Danish’. Although Denmark too has to balance its international engagements with the
limited resources allocated to defence (the typical functional pressures) Danish particular ‘soft’
neoliberalism and ‘hard’ commitments to IHL speak against using private actors to make that
possible. This means I take in the more abstract, macro-level discussions on the end of the Cold
War and the advent of neoliberalism but go beyond by asking whether, and if so how, these and
other collective experiences and understandings actually (co-)shape(d) outsourcing decisions.
Keywords
Constructivism, Denmark, foreign and defence policy, outsourcing, Private Military and Security
Contractors
Introduction
Some of my interview partners were resolute: ‘No one has talked about, debated, or even
considered using defence contractors for, for instance, guard service … in Afghanistan.
We don’t do that’ (Petersen, in interview). Others noted that the Danish ‘don’t think like
that’ (Major Malm, in interview) or that employing companies for the execution of
Corresponding author:
Hilde van Meegdenburg, Geschwister-Scholl-Institute for Political Science, Ludwig-Maximilians University,
Oettingenstraße 67, 80538 Munich, Germany.
Email: h.vanmeegdenburg@gsi.uni-muenchen.de
26
Cooperation and Conflict 54(1)
military functions is still ‘far away from the current political discourse and understand-
ing of the Danish Defence’ (Broderson, in interview).1
Following cues from Anna Leander and Andreas Kruck, who earlier mentioned the
importance of ‘national lexica’ and ‘historical practices’ (Leander, 2013: 8) and of states’
‘prior ideational contexts’ that shape interpretations (Kruck, 2014: 134), I put forward a
social constructivist perspective on military outsourcing. I aim to illustrate that more
than a logical solution to a functional problem state outsourcing, decisions and engage-
ments with Private Military and Security Contractors (PMSCs) are (co-)shaped by shared
values, understandings and dispositions. Concretely, I will show that in the case of
Denmark two particular shared understandings hold back outsourcing for military and
support services. These are, firstly, the Danish particular interpretation and translation of
neoliberalism and the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) and, secondly, their particular
stance on, and adherence to, International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In short, although
Denmark too has to balance its international engagements with the limited resources allo-
cated to defence (the typical functional pressures), Danish particular ‘soft’ neoliberalism
and ‘hard’ commitments to IHL speak against using private actors to make that possible.
Therewith, the employment of PMSCs remains comparatively limited because it is largely
perceived as inappropriate and as incompatible with what it means to be ‘Danish’.
This article thus addresses the question of how we can understand the use and non-use
of PMSCs by states in general by taking a closer look at the case of Denmark and the
Danish Defence (DD) in particular. By so doing I aim to make both a theoretical and an
empirical contribution to the literature.
Regarding the theoretical contribution, this article addresses two perceived shortcom-
ings. One, as Kruck noted, is that although most studies briefly reflect on what could explain
contracting, more often than not ‘comprehensive studies on PMSCs merely point to a mul-
titude of (more or less disconnected) reasons or drivers of privatisation’ (2014: 113).
Secondly, at the same time it can be said that functional and macro-level explanations, par-
ticularly regarding the ‘end-of-the-cold-war’ and the ‘spread-of-neoliberalism’, have domi-
nated the literature, downplaying state choice and agency. By emphasising the sociological
aspects of political decision-making, this article offers a new and different perspective on
military outsourcing that addresses both points. On the one hand, it offers a way in which the
different drivers of outsourcing can be seen as connected or coming together and, on the
other, the proposed framework encompasses, but goes beyond, the previously functional
and macro-level explanations. Therewith, this study also aims to forge a connection between
the rather isolated research on defence contracting on the one hand and constructivist think-
ing in the broader field of International Relations (IR) on the other.
Regarding the latter, the empirical contribution, I offer a comprehensive study of a so
far under-researched case: Denmark. It has been observed in recent years that the research
into the use of PMSCs has disproportionally focused on only a few cases (Berndtsson,
2014; Leander, 2013; van Meegdenburg, 2015), where the USA and the UK received
much attention. In fact, close to 90% of all studies on military outsourcing by ‘Western’
countries published between 1998 and 2012 focused on either of these two cases (van
Meegdenburg, 2015: 332–333). In addition, although researchers found that outsourcing
by the UK ‘is not as widespread as in the US’ (Kinsey, 2006: 104) many states are said,
or at least expected, to follow this trend (Berndtsson, 2014; Krahmann, 2013b). Petersohn
van Meegdenburg
27
(2010) even argued that outsourcing might well be the new international norm or stand-
ard whereby privatisation and civilian support are seen as an integral part, even a
‘requirement’, of contemporary armed forces (p. 543). So far, however, despite a more
recent diversification in cases studies (i.e. Dunigan and Petersohn, 2015; Leander, 2013),
little empirical research has been conducted to verify these expectations. This study
offers one such case. Moreover, by explicitly focusing on outsourcing during extraterri-
torial engagements (contracting during and for deployments) as well as for domestic
support functions (contracting at ‘home’) I aim to offer an encompassing overview of
contracting by the DD.
In short, this article provides an in-depth assessment of the use of military and support
contractors in an under-researched case and puts forward a framework that focuses on
understanding and explaining the particularities of that use. I will proceed in three steps.
Firstly, I briefly argue how a sociological approach to PMSCs and defence contracting
can be helpful in bringing state agency and choice – or political decision-making – into
the debate on defence contracting and why I believe this is necessary in the first place.
Secondly, I give a detailed overview of the extent of domestic and operational support
contracting by the DD to show that outsourcing in Denmark has remained sparse in both
domains. Thirdly, I will expose the dominant understandings in Denmark regarding the
use of PMSCs and argue that the use of PMSCs has remained limited because it is largely
perceived as incompatible with what it means to be Danish.
Understanding military outsourcing
To date, it is the companies themselves and the consequences of their use that have
received most attention. The at times scandalous and illegal conduct of contractors –
from hazing scandals, over-billing and fraud to violations such as human trafficking and
torture (Dickinson, 2007; Schooner, 2005; van Meegdenburg, 2017) – has led to a strong
problematisation of the contracted parties and focused attention on regulatory and
accountability issues (Leander, 2013; van Meegdenburg, 2015).
Although most studies address explanations for contracting, they frequently focus on
macro-level phenomena such as the end of the Cold War and the overall transition towards
neoliberal governance. Moreover, and in close relation to that, functional explanations
dominate the literature. Especially in relation to the end-of-the-cold-war logic – the
‘master-narrative’ as Abrahamsen and Williams (2011) called it – military outsourcing is
often presented as the logical, almost inevitable course of history; post-Cold War changes
in warfare and technology, in combination with military downsizings and the operational
requirements of new wars, are said to have created a need, or void, that has forced states
to ‘cooperate with a range of different actors’ (Kinsey, 2006: 52; see also Berndtsson,
2014: 543). Closely related are arguments regarding (post-Cold War) ‘budget...
To continue reading
Request your trial