Governmental rationalities and the local dimension of European politics. A study of the Interreg IV programme "Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein"

The thesis aims at investigating the local dimension of the EU cohesion policy through the utilization of an alternative approach, which aims at the analysis of discourse and structures of power. The concrete case under analysis is the Interreg IV programme “Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein”, which is conducted in the border region between Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the principality of Liechtenstein. The main research question is stated as such: What governmental rationalities can be found at work in the field of EU cross-border cooperation programmes? How is directive action and cooperation envisioned? How coherent are the different rationalities, which are found at work? The theoretical framework is based on a Foucaultian understanding of power and discourse and utilizes the notion of governmentalities as a way to de-stabilize the understanding of directive action and in order to highlight the dispersed and heterogeneous nature of governmental activity. The approach is situated within the general field of research on the European Union connected to basic conceptualisations such as the nature of power, the role of discourse and modes of subjectification. An approach termed “analytics of government”, based on the work of researchers like Mitchell Dean is introduced as the basic framework for the analysis. Four dimensions (visiblities, subjectivities, techniques/practices, problematisations) are presented as a set of tools with which governmental regimes of practices can be analysed. The empirical part of the thesis starts out with a discussion of the general framework of the European Union's cohesion policy and places the Interreg IV Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein programme in this general context. The main analysis is based on eleven interviews which were conducted with different individuals, participating in the programme on different levels. The selection of interview partners aimed at maximising heterogeneity through including individuals from all parts of the programme region, obtaining different functions within the programme. The analysis reveals interesting aspects pertaining to the implementation and routine aspects of work within initiatives conducted under the heading of the EU cohesion policy. The central aspects of an Interreg IV Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein – governmentality are sketched out. This includes a positive perception of the work atmosphere, administrative/professional characterisation of the selves and a de-politicization of the programme. Characteristic is the experience of tensions by interview partners and the use of discoursive strategies to resolve them. Negative perceptions play an important role for the specific governmental rationality. The thesis contributes to a better understanding of the local dimension of the European Union cohesion policy and questions established ways of thinking about governmental activity. It provides an insight into the working of power mechanisms in the constitution of fields of discourse and points out matters of practical importance as well as subsequent research questions.

We Are All Georgians: The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.

The politics of forest bureaucracy as a subject of comparative studies.

XVIII IUFRO World Congress, Ljubljana 1986.