About

Kaija Schilde is Associate Dean of Studies at the Boston University Pardee School of Global Studies and holds the Jean Monnet Chair in European Security and Defense. Her primary research interests involve the political economy of security and transatlantic security. She authored the book 'The Political Economy of European Security' (Cambridge University Press, 2017), which investigates the state-society relations between the European Union and interest groups, with a focus on security and defense institutions, industries, and markets. Her research spans multiple dimensions of the historical institutionalism of security organizations, including the causes and consequences of military spending, the relationship between spending, innovation, and capabilities, defense reform and force transformation, the politics of defense protectionism, and the international diffusion of internal and border security practices. She has published articles in various academic journals and her areas of expertise include the European Union, European foreign and security policy, comparative politics, defense acquisition and technology, bureaucracy and interest groups, as well as computational modeling and simulation.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Economics
• Sociology
• Law
• Political economy
• Public administration
• Economic system
• Law and economics
• Computer Science
• Marketing
• Geography
• International trade
• Industrial organization
• Business
• Market economy

Selected publications

• Defense industrial policy in a changing international order: rethinking transatlantic burden-sharing

  Defence Studies · 2023-11-21 · 7 citations

  articleSenior authorCorresponding

  Though it is a core function of a sovereign state, governments do not navigate defense policy free from outside influences and constraints. The provision of external security requires armed forces to be adequately equipped but the distribution of material resources - defense-industrial capacity – for such equipment is not even but rather concentrated in the international system. How do alliance politics and defense-industrial policy connect? Our contribution highlights the material resources for military alliance effectiveness and emphasizes a strategic view of the relationship between these material factors and alliance burden-sharing. The sudden surge in demand for materiel resulting from Russia's invasion of Ukraine revealed the defense-industrial fault lines within the transatlantic alliance. We outline existing dependencies and interdependencies, identify trade-offs and connections between industrial policy and defense spending, and formulate policy recommendations based on our findings. Taking a political economy of security perspective, these recommendations are aimed at a better understanding of how industrial politics and alliance stability are intertwined. They suggest pathways to a new and more stable transatlantic defense-industrial bargain in an era of increased great power conflict.

  PublisherDOI

• Weaponising Europe? Rule-makers and rule-takers in the EU regulatory security state

  Journal of European Public Policy · 2023 · 20 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Law and economics
  • Business

  In contrast to the conventional wisdom that security is governed exclusively by nation states exercising political authority to generate public security goods, the European Union can also be considered a security state: it governs security indirectly by making rules incentivising and steering the provision of public security goods. To what degree, however, does the EU govern defence markets, shape the trajectory of national defence capabilities, and direct efforts towards European strategic autonomy? This paper traces the EU's attempts to regulate arms production and identifies critical junctures in EU authority as a market rule-maker over the means of force. It finds that market rule-takers—non-state defence firms—are shaped by EU epistemic authority and regulation. Specifically, EU rule-making shapes firm perceptions of relative defence market uncertainty. Firms perceiving future home defense markets as less risky due to regulatory oversight are incentivised to reduce their own current profits by self-funding innovation towards future defence requirements and procurement sales to their home states. By incentivising the non-state production of public security goods with its rule-making and relational market power, the EU is a modern regulatory security state, even in the defence domain where it has little political authority.

  PublisherDOI

• Muddying the waters: migration management in the global commons

  International Relations · 2021 · 7 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Political Science

  Advanced liberal democratic states interdict migrants on the High Seas global commons. Why have liberal states engaged in this practice over the past four decades? Deterrence and humanitarian rescue explain part of this puzzle, but they are insufficient for understanding the patterns and justifications for migrant interdiction on the High Seas. Tension between states promoting international human rights and circumventing those obligations challenges expectations of liberal state behavior. International relations scholars must incorporate the global commons when explaining state behavior; ungoverned areas create exceptional zones for states to partially suspend their standard operating procedures to execute policies furthering their interests. We argue that liberal states use the regulatory gray zones of the High Seas to ‘muddy the waters’ in order to advance their security interests. States with the highest domestic refugee protections have incentives to circumvent their own obligations, which vary over time with changes to domestic asylum laws.

  PublisherDOI

• A Political Economy of Global Security Approach

  Journal of Global Security Studies · 2020 · 18 citations

  • Political Science
  • Political Science
  • Economic system

  Abstract States have historically monopolized the provision of security for their societies. However, recent changes in the global economy combined with new sources of security and insecurity pose new and accelerating challenges that simultaneously hinder and bolster the ability of states to mobilize and extract resources for security provision. In contrast to a traditional political economy of security approach that emphasizes economic inputs shaping state power and economic tools states can use to project power vis-à-vis other states, the approach advanced in this forum stresses both domestic and transnational economic actors and market processes that affect security outcomes in both traditional security spaces and new security domains. The contributions to this forum exemplify the breadth of a political economy of global security approach while revisiting traditional areas of national security and newer security spaces and the application of the approach to both historical and contemporary phenomena.

  PublisherDOI

• The EU’s Response to the Migration Crisis: Institutional Turbulence and Policy Disjuncture

  Palgrave studies in European Union politics · 2020-12-21 · 6 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• A Political Economy of Global Security Approach to Migration and Border Control

  Journal of Global Security Studies · 2020 · 13 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Political economy
  • Political Science

  Abstract Population movements have causes and consequences for both global security and the economic and security considerations of states. Migration itself is inexorably intertwined with global security outcomes, in the form of instability, state fragility, transnational terrorism and crime, and the radicalization (or perceived radicalization) of migrants and host societies. While modern states may have monopolized the authority over legitimate movement, they have never fully captured the management and enforcement of migration flows. Instead, market actors play key roles in determining migration outcomes—including the scale, direction, and violence associated with migration flows. Migration outcomes are, thus, critically constituted by two key forces—the security priorities of states and the complementary and competing forces of privatization and profit-making. While market forces undermine state control over migration, states have buffered and further consolidated their power over mobility by harnessing private actors and markets toward migration management and border control. We situate migration management and border control as a political economy of security issue, arguing that migration outcomes cannot be explained without examining the interaction between state security imperatives, private actors, and market forces.

  PublisherDOI

• Hatchet or Scalpel?<i>Domestic Politics, International Threats, and US Military Spending Cuts, 1950–2014</i>

  Security Studies · 2019-07-02 · 3 citations

  articleSenior author

  Budgetary cuts are characterized by distinct political, organizational, and psychological dynamics in contrast to increases. Ideally, policymakers rank, prioritize, and assess among likely strategic challenges to identify the appropriate offices, programs, line items, or service branches in which to curtail spending. Targeted cuts—preserving some line items or services while cutting others—occurred during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, and Clinton administrations. In contrast, the Nixon, H.W. Bush, and Obama administrations implemented across-the-board cuts, impacting all areas of the budget uniformly, regardless of strategic priorities. We argue that the ability of the executive to target and redirect spending commensurate with national security needs are constrained by domestic interests. However, the degree to which the threat environment is diverse conditions the number of available policy options and, in turn, executive capacity to implement targeted cuts vis-à-vis parochial interests.

  PublisherDOI

• A more martial Europe? Public opinion, permissive consensus, and EU defence policy

  European Security · 2019-04-03 · 39 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  EU defence policy has been extremely popular over the past three decades, averaging around 75% public support. In fact, no other policy domain is as popular and robust as the idea of pooling national sovereignty over defence. However, public support for EU defence has been dismissed as mere “permissive consensus”, rather than genuine support. Scholars have often assumed that public opinion towards European integration is passive and shallow, especially over foreign policy issues, where the public has limited understanding of the complexity of issues. Consistent with contemporary findings about the complexity of comparative foreign policy attitudes, the authors contest the permissive consensus logic and demonstrate that European publics have held coherent preferences over the use of force at the European level. The authors conclude that the slow progress of integration in this area is due to the reluctance of elites rather than to the reticence of Europe’s citizens.

  PublisherDOI

• Migrants, Borders, and Security

  25th International Conference of Europeanists · 2018-03-29

  article1st authorCorresponding
  Publisher

• The Political Economy of Security

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2018-01-11 · 3 citations

  book-chapterSenior author

  Abstract National security has typically been studied as analytically separate and distinct from political economy. This chapter explores the economic underpinnings of national security and, in particular, the key economic dimensions of contemporary U.S. security policy dilemmas. It offers an overview of the problems associated with security policy in an era of austerity, the economic dimensions of power transition from unipolarity to multipolarity, and the security consequences of U.S. and global populist discontent. We then move beyond the traditional relationship between economics and security to discuss several important contemporary political economy dilemmas that face the U.S. security establishment. Finally, it discusses the economic dimensions of counterterrorism, counterproliferation strategies, and war mobilization.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Rosella Cappella Zielinski

  Boston University

  4 shared

• Andrew Garner

  2 shared

• Stephanie Anderson

  Duke Kunshan University

  2 shared

• Noora Lori

  2 shared

• Norrin M. Ripsman

  2 shared

• Benjamin O. Fordham

  Binghamton University

  1 shared

• Lenka Wieluns

  1 shared

• Sara Wallace Goodman

  University of California, Irvine

  1 shared

Education

• B.A.

  Lewis & Clark College

• M.A.

  University of Pennsylvania

• Ph.D.

  University of Pennsylvania