Matti Laurila : Jääkäriupseeri, suojeluskuntapäällikkö, rintamakomentaja

Matti Laurila (1895 1983) This is a biographical research of a Jaeger officer, a Civil Guard Chief, a Field Commander Matti Laurila. A broader practice of qualitative methods was utilized in the research. The main aim is a permanent reconstruction and reinterpretation of past events through the experiences of the study object. The life and times of Laurila are intertwined with the crucial events that led to the Finnish Declaration of Independence. Afterwards he helped to ensure that the young republic also stayed independent. As a Jaeger in the winter of 1917 Laurila witnessed an incident he would never forget. After disobeying a direct order, Sven Saarikoski from Lapua was shot dead by his commanding officer, K. A. Ståhlberg, on the ice of the river Aa. Laurila faced the horrors of war at closer quarters, for he lost his father and his brother in the battle of Länkipohja on 16th March 1918. This battle was a major turning point for Laurila and profoundly influenced the rest of his life. The relationship between Laurila and his superiors was problematic almost throughout his military career, haunted as he was by the memory of Sven Saarikoski's execution and the losses in Länkipohja The position of Laurila as an authority in South Ostrobothnia was a key factor in preventing the extreme right from rallying enough Civil Guard troops to escalate the embryonic Mäntsälä rebellion of 1932. After the rebellion Laurila routinely opposed anything he saw as a threat to the independence of the Civil Guard. He would flatly refuse to even consider the integration of the Civil Guard into the national defence force. His uncompromising stand in this matter annoyed some among the higher ranking officers. After the Winter War Laurila got himself into a dispute with Jaeger Colonel H. E. Hannuksela that would have long-lasting consequences. The conflicts between them became widely known in the attack phase of the Continuation War in 1941 at the latest. Laurila had to give up his military career at the end of 1944. In the years that followed he did what he could to ensure that the South Ostrobothnia Civil Guard patrimony remained in the province. Laurila's position as a respected authority in South Ostrobothnia remained unchanged until his death.

Hyvän hallinnon muunnelmat : Julkisoikeudellinen tutkimus

This doctoral thesis analyses the concepts of good governance and good administration. The hypothesis is that the concepts are radically indeterminate and over-inclusive. In the study the mechanisms of this indeterminacy are examined: why are the concepts indeterminate; how does the indeterminacy work and, indeed, is it by any means plausible to try to define the concepts in a closed way? Therefore, the study focuses on various current perspectives, from which the concepts of good governance and good administration are relevant and what kind of discursive contents they may include. The approach is both legal (a right to good administration) and one of moral philosophy and discourse analysis. It appears that under the meta-discourse of good governance and good administration there are different sub-discourses: at least a legal sub-discourse, a moral/ethical sub-discourse and sub-discourses concerning economic effectiveness and the promotion of societal and economic development. The main claim is that the various sub-discourses do not necessarily identify each other s value premises and conceptual underpinnings: for which value could the attribute good be substituted in different discourses (for example, good as legal, good as ethical and so on)? The underlying presumption is, of course, that values are ultimately subjective and incommensurable. One possible way of trying to resolve the dynamics of possible discourse collisions is to employ the systems theory approach. Can the different discourses be interpreted as autopoietic systems, which create and change themselves according to their own criteria and are formed around a binary code? Can the different discourses be reconciled or are they indifferent or hostile towards each other? Is there a hegemonic super discourse or is the construction of a correct meaning purely contextual? The questions come back to the notions of administration and governance themselves the terms the good in its polymorphic ways is attempting to define. Do they engage different political rationalities? It can be suggested that administration is labelled by instrumental reason, governance by teleological reason. In the final analysis, the most crucial factor is that of power. It is about a Schmittian battle of concepts; how meanings are constructed in the interplay between conceptual ambiguity and social power. Thus, the study deals with administrative law, legal theory and the limits of law from the perspective of revealing critique.

Hyvinvointivaltion läpimurto : Pienviljelyhegemonian rapautumisen, kansalaisliikehdinnän ja poliittisen murroksen keskinäiset suhteet suomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa 1950-luvun loppuvuosina

A Breakthrough of Welfare State. The inter-relationships of the civic movement, political transformation, and eroding of a hegemony based on small scale farming in the Finnish society in the late 1950's. The unusually rapid and powerful structural change; the non-parliamentary civic movements of 1956 - 1963; and the left majority in the Finnish parliament between 1958 - 1962 all took place as the Finnish welfare state started to develop. The aim of my research is to analyse the inter-relationships of these processes. The research describes the way the former semi self-sufficient, semi-proletarian and labour-intensive form of production - a simple and discriminatory system in itself - made it possible for the majority of the population to survive through hard work. For some it even provided a possibility to prosper. The waning vitality of semi self-sufficiency and small scale agriculture triggered a political ferment and started a period of searching for something new. The process was so intense that it broke up most of the parties and tore down the old consensus that was based on the power of economic and political elite. The most crucial battle of the great transformation was waged over the nature of the state: Should we build a welfare state and construct social security systems, or should we revert to the old night watchman state and, for example, cancel the modest forms of redistribution of income carried out in the 1950's? The people joining the civic movements were either cottagers of the impoverishing countryside or, quite often, people who had come from the countryside and thus had grown up under conditions of some form of solidarity that included taking care of one's own family. The Finnish social insurance developed in the midst of a change in the structure of production of the society, and it became a compromise to satisfy the needs of both the waning society of small scale agriculture and the rising proletarian society based on wage labour. The hodgepodge of political schemes and use of power became a battle between different notions of the economy and the state; the distribution of national income; and the position of Finland in the international context. This battle created a shape of an interregnum - a period of transformation including two notions of society, two alternative paths for the future and the logic of a correctional move. The transformation of Finland from a poor developing country into a prosperous society has been praised as a success story. In 1956 - 1959, when the old form of governance based on the interests of small scale agriculture and wood processing industry was in decay, and when the future seemed uncertain, the projects to reduce social benefits and efforts to distribute national income even more unequally than before led to a powerful counter-movement by citizens and started an hegemonic change and a equal socia development.