Relationships in food chains: an empirical examination of trust, commitment and communication

This report derives from the EU funded research project “Key Factors Influencing Economic Relationships and Communication in European Food Chains” (FOODCOMM). The research consortium consisted of the following organisations: University of Bonn (UNI BONN), Department of Agricultural and Food Marketing Research (overall project co-ordination); Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Department for Agricultural Markets, Marketing and World Agricultural Trade, Halle (Saale), Germany; University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute Seinäjoki Unit, Finland; Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), Food Marketing Research Team - Land Economy Research Group, Edinburgh and Aberdeen; Ashtown Food Research Centre (AFRC), Teagasc, Food Marketing Unit, Dublin; Institute of Agricultural & Food Economics (IAFE), Department of Market Analysis and Food Processing, Warsaw and Government of Aragon, Center for Agro-Food Research and Technology (CITA), Zaragoza, Spain. The aim of the FOODCOMM project was to examine the role (prevalence, necessity and significance) of economic relationships in selected European food chains and to identify the economic, social and cultural factors which influence co-ordination within these chains. The research project considered meat and cereal commodities in six different European countries (Finland, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain, UK/Scotland) and was commissioned against a background of changing European food markets. The research project as a whole consisted of seven different work packages. This report presents the results of qualitative research conducted for work package 5 (WP5) in the pig meat and rye bread chains in Finland. Ruralia Institute would like to give special thanks for all the individuals and companies that kindly gave up their time to take part in the study. Their input has been invaluable to the project. The contribution of research assistant Sanna-Helena Rantala was significant in the data gathering. FOODCOMM project was coordinated by the University of Bonn, Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research. Special thanks especially to Professor Monika Hartmann for acting as the project leader of FOODCOMM.

The Finnish Leadership Style in Transition - A Study of Leadership Criteria in the Insurance Business, 1997-2004 (summary section only)

The aim of the study was to explore the importance of evaluating leadership criteria in Finland at leader/subordinate levels of the insurance industry. The overall purpose of the thesis is tackled and analyzed from two different perspectives: - by examining the importance of the leadership criteria and style of Finnish insurance business leaders and their subordinates - by examining the opinions of insurance business leaders regarding leadership criteria in two culturally different countries: the US and Finland. This thesis consists of three published articles that scrutinise the focal phenomena both theoretically and empirically. The main results of the study do not lend support to the existence of a universal model of leadership criteria in the insurance business. As a matter of fact, the possible model seems to be based more on the special organizational and cultural circumstances of the country in question. The leadership criteria seem to be quite stable irrespective of the comparatively short research time period (3–5 years) and hierarchical level (subordinate/leader). Leaders have major difficulties in changing their leadership style. In fact, in order to bring about an efficient organizational change in the company you have to alternate the leader. The cultural dimensions (cooperation and monitoring) identified by Finnish subordinates were mostly in line with those of their managers, whilst emphasizing more the aspect of monitoring employees, which could be seen from their point of view as another element of managers’ optimizing/efficiency requirements. In Finnish surveys the strong emphasis on cooperation and mutual trust become apparent by both subordinates and managers. The basic problem is still how to emphasize and balance them in real life in such a way that both parties are happy to work together on a common basis. The American surveys suggests hypothetically that in a soft market period (buyer’s market) managers employ a more relationship-oriented leadership style and correspondingly adapt their leadership style to a more task-oriented approach in a hard market phase (seller’s market). In making business better Finnish insurance managers could probably concentrate more on task-oriented items such as reviewing, budgeting, monitoring and goal-orientation. The study also suggests that the social safety net of the European welfare state ideology has so far shielded the culture-specific sense of social responsibility of Finnish managers from the hazards of free competition and globalization.

“Empire is a state of mind” – Imagining Eurasia in Russia –

Työssäni tarkastelen venäläistä neo-euraasianistista liikettä ja tapoja joilla liikkeen aktivistit rakentavat Euraasiasta yhtenäistä kokonaisuutta ja imperiumia. Keskeisiä tutkimuskysymyksiäni ovat: Mikä imperiumi on ja mitkä ovat sen keskeisiä motivaatioita ja teemoja? Kuinka imperiumin idea rakentuu tai käsitetään ja tämän voi tulkita? Minkälaisia seurauksia voi tulkita heidän tavallaan Euraasia nähdä olevan? Materiaalina käytän haastatteluja, jotka on kerätty Moskovassa keväällä 2008, ja liikkeen kirjallisia tuotoksia (lehdet ja Internet -sivut). Neo-euraasianistisella liikkeellä tarkoitan tässä työssä Kansainvälistä Euraasianistista liikettä (Meždunarodnoe Evrazijskoe Dviženie) ja sen alahaaraa Euraasianistista Nuorisoliittoa (Evrazijskij Sojuz Molodëži). Liike perustettiin virallisesti 2003, mutta rakentaa vahvasti historiallista yhteyttä 1930 -luvun klassiseen eurasianismiin. Tämän lisäksi sen diskurssissa on paljon neuvostoliittolaisia, fasistisia, uuskonservatiivisia ja nationalistisia piirteitä. Liikkeen johtohahmo on filosofi-geopoliitikko Alexandr Dugin. Työn tausta-ajatuksena minua kiinnostaa etenkin nk. älymystön tai intelligenttien vaikutus nationalismiin tai sosiaalisia ryhmiä määrittelevien diskurssien kehitykseen ja muutokseen.Tarkastelen materiaalia diskurssianalyyttisesta näkökulmasta. Näen diskurssianalyysin sen tutkimisena, miten sosiaalista todellisuutta tuotetaan erilaisissa sosiaalisissa käytännöissä. Samalla näiden diskurssien tutkiminen, foucautlaisen perinteen myötä, tarkastelee kriittisesti niiden tuottamia (aktualisoituneita sekä potentiaalisia) valtasuhteita. Käytän työssäni myös Benedict Andersonin kuvitellun yhteisön (imagined communities) käsitettä, joka auttaa hahmottamaan tapaa, jolla tutkimuskohteeni rakentavat imperiumia yhteisönä. Aktivistien puheessa imperiumi (imperiâ) tulee esiin pääasiallisesti positiivisesti ja ”heidän omanaan,” kun taas termi imperialismi (imperializm) pääosin negatiivisena, liittyen etenkin keskeisenä vihollisena pidettyihin Yhdysvaltoihin. Esiin nousee monta toisiinsa liittyvää teemaa, jotka jaottelen viideksi pääteemaksi. Näistä tarkastelen lähemmin imperiumia ”kaikkien kansojen hyväntekijänä (poliittinen puoli)”, ulkoisen voiman lähteenä (historiallis-geopoliittinen puoli) sekä kollektiivisen subjektin luojana (imperialistis-nationalistinen puoli). Pyrin kontekstualisoimaan diskurssin ja tarkastelemaan tapoja, joilla se ammentaa motiiveja myös historiallis-kulttuurisista tavoista hahmottaa aluetta ja sen asukkaita. Käsittelen myös kansan, kansakunnan, etnoksen ja nationalismin käsitteitä ja sitä, miten ne nousevat neo-eurasianistisessa diskursissa esiin. Imperiaalisen nationalismin (imperskij nacionalizm) käsite auttaa ymmärtämään niitä tapoja, jolla liike tekee sekä pesäeroa nationalismiin että samalla hyödyntää monia nationalistisen diskurssin perusteemoja. Eräs liikkeen diskurssin keskeisistä eroista niin sanottuun nationalismin valtavirtaan on ”kansakunnan (naciâ)” käsitteen vahva negatiivinen konnotaatio. Sen vastakohtana esiin nostetaan vahvasti kansan (narod) käsite. Samalla kuitenkin etnisen venäläisen (russkij) käsitettä käytetään tavallista laajemmin ja kattavammin kuin tavallisesti, ja ennen kaikkea Venäjä nousee imperiumin keskeisimmäksi tekijäksi. Euraasialaiseen imperiumiin liitetyistä positiivistista mielikuvista käsittelen tarkemmin monikansallisuuden ja kansojen kodin ideaa, joka nousee mielestäni huomattavaksi retoriseksi taustaksi kaikessa materiaalissa. Tähän liittyy vahvasti myös saman teeman sivujuonne, eli imperiumin ”vapauttava” rooli. Tulkitsen, että liikkeen imperiumi -diskurssilla on instrumentaalinen luonne: se legitimoi aktivistien vaatimuksia varsinkin entisen Neuvostoliiton alueen suhteen. ”Euraasialaisen kansan” ajatus toimii mahdollisena Euraasiaa yhteisenä tekijänä ”Neuvostokansan” tilalla. Sen taustalla materiaalistani päätellen siintävät kuitenkin enemmänkin Venäjä ja venäläis -spesifit vaateet kuin koko Euraasia. Pohdin myös kansakunnan (nation) hyljeksimisen syitä ja käsitteen sopivuutta Venäjälle, kuten myös venäläisyyden käsitteiden kerrostuneisuutta. Kokonaisuudessaan imperiumi tuli esiin abstraktina, utopistisena ja ”totaalisena” kokonaisuutena.

United We Stand - Divided We Fall : A Standard Model of Unit Cohesion

Research on unit cohesion has shown positive correlations between cohesion and valued outcomes such as strong performance, reduced stress, less indiscipline, and high re-enlistment intentions. However, the correlations have varied in strength and significance. The purpose of this study is to show that taking into consideration the multi-component nature of cohesion and relating the most applicable components to specific outcomes could resolve much of the inconsistency. Unit cohesion is understood as a process of social integration among members of a primary group with its leaders, and with the larger secondary groups of which they are a part. Correspondingly, included in the framework are four bonding components: horizontal (peer) and vertical (subordinate and leader) and organizational and institutional, respectively. The data were collected as part of a larger research project on cohesion, leadership, and personal adjustment to the military. In all, 1,534 conscripts responded to four questionnaires during their service in 2001-2002. In addition, sociometric questionnaires were given to 537 group members in 47 squads toward the end of their service. The results showed that platoons with strong primary-group cohesion differed from other platoons in terms of performance, training quality, secondary-group experiences, and attitudes toward refresher training. On the sociometric level it was found that soldiers who were chosen as friends by others were more likely to have higher expected performance, better performance ratings, more positive attitudes toward military service, higher levels of well-being during conscript service, and fewer exemptions from duty during it. On the group level, the selection of the respondents own group leader rather than naming a leader from outside (i.e., leader bonding) had a bearing not only on cohesion and performance, but also on the social, attitudinal, and behavioral criteria. Overall, the aim of the study was to contribute to the research on cohesion by introducing a model that takes into account the primary foci of bonding and their impact. The results imply that primary-group and secondary-group bonding processes are equally influential in explaining individual and group performance, whereas the secondary-group bonding components are far superior in explaining career intentions, personal growth, avoidance of duty, and attitudes toward refresher training and national defense. This should be considered in the planning and conducting of training. The main conclusion is that the different types of cohesion components have a unique, positive, significant, but varying impact on a wide range of criteria, confirming the need to match the components with the specific criteria.

Rätt som argument : Leo Mechelin och finska frågan 1886-1912

Right as an Argument. Leo Mechelin and the Finnish Question 1886-1912 At the turn of the 20th century the Finnish Question rose up as a political and juridical issue at the international arena. The vaguely précised position of Finland in the Russian empire led to diverse conclusions concerning the correctness of the February manifesto of 1899. It was predominantly among a European elite of politicians, cultural workers and academics the issue rose some interest. Finns were active making propaganda for their cause, and they put an emphasis on the claim that the right was on the Finnish side. In the study Elisabeth Stubb compare the Finnish, Russian and European statements about the Finnish Question and analyse their use of right as an argument. The Finnish Question offers at the same time a case study of a national entity which possesses a political sphere of life but is not fully independent, and its possibilities to drive its interests in an international context. Leo Mechelin (1839-1914), the leader of the Finnish propaganda organization abroad, is used as a point of departure. The biographical stance is formed into a triangle, where Leo Mechelin, the idea of right and the Finnish Question abroad are the three cornerstones. The treatment of one cornerstone sheds a ligth on the two others. The metaphor of triangulation also worked as a method to reach "a third stance" in a scinetific and political issue that usually is polarised into two opposite alternatives. An adherence to a strict legal right could not in the end offer a complete, unquestionable and satisfactory solution to the Finnsih Question, it was dependent on "the right of state wisdom and sound insight". The Finnish propaganda abroad used almost completely alternative ways of making politics. The propaganda did not have a decisive effect on countries' official politics, but gained unofficial support, especially in the public opinion and in academic statements. Mechelin claimed that the political field was dependent on public opinion and scientific research. Together with the official politics these two fields formed a triangle that shared the task of balancing the political arena and preventing it from making unwise decisions of taking an unjust turn. The international sphere worked as a balancing part in the Finnish Question. Mechelin tried by claiming the status of state for Finland's part to secure the country a place at the official international arena. At the same time, and especially when the claim was not fully adopted, he emphasised, and in a European context worked for, that right would become the guiding light not only for international relations, but also for the policy making in the inner life of the state.

Trade Blocs and the Cold War : The CMEA and the EC challenge, 1969-1976

The coherence of the Soviet bloc was seriously tested at the turn of the 1970s, as the Soviet Union and its allies engaged in intensive negotiations over their relations with the European Communities (EC). In an effort to secure their own national economic interests many East European countries began independent manoeuvres against the wishes of their bloc leader. However, much of the intra-bloc controversy was kept out of the public eye, as the battle largely took place behind the scenes, within the organisation for economic cooperation, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). The CMEA policy-making process vis-à-vis the EC is described in this study with reference to primary archival materials. This study investigates the negotiating positions and powers of the CMEA member states in their efforts to deal with the economic challenge created by the progress of the EC, as it advanced towards the customs union. This entails an analysis of the functioning principles and performance of the CMEA machinery. The study traces the CMEA negotiations that began in 1970 over its policy toward the EC. The policy was finally adopted in 1974, and was followed by the first official meeting between the two organisations in early 1975. The story ends in 1976, when the CMEA s efforts to enter into working relations with the EC were seemingly frustrated by the latter. The first major finding of the study is that, contrary to much of the prior research, the Soviet Union was not in a hegemonic position vis-à-vis its allies. It had to use a lot of its resources to tame the independent manoeuvring of its smaller allies. Thus, the USSR was not the kind of bloc leader that the totalitarian literature has described. Because the Soviet Union had to spend so much attention on its own bloc-politics, it was not able to concentrate on formulating a policy vis-à-vis the EC. Thus, the Soviet leadership was dependent on its allies in those instances when the socialist countries needed to act as a bloc. This consequently opened up the possibility for the USSR s allies to manoeuvre. This study also argues that when the CMEA did manage to find a united position, it was a force that the EC had to reckon with in its policy-making. This was particularly the case in the implementation of the EC Common Commercial Policy. The other main finding of the study is that, although it has been largely neglected in the previous literature on the history of West European integration, the CMEA did in fact have an effect on EC decision-making. This study shows how for political and ideological reasons the CMEA members did not acknowledge the EC s supranational authority. Therefore the EC had no choice but to refrain from implementing its Common Commercial Policy in full.