EU Multi-level Governance in the Making - The Community Initiative LEADER+ in Finland and Germany

In order to fully understand the process of European integration it is of paramount importance to consider developments at the sub-national and local level. EU integration scholars shifted their attention to the local level only at the beginning of the 1990s with the concept of multi-level governance (MLG). While MLG is the first concept to scrutinise the position of local levels of public administration and other actors within the EU polity, I perceive it as too optimistic in the degree of influence it ascribes to local levels. Thus, learning from and combining MLG with other concepts, such as structural constructivism, helps to reveal some of the hidden aspects of EU integration and paint a more realistic picture of multi-level interaction. This thesis also answers the call for more case studies in order to conceptualise MLG further. After a critical study of theories and concepts of European integration, above all, MLG, I will analyse sub-national and local government in Finland and Germany. I show how the sub-national level and local governments are embedded in the EU s multi-level structure of governance and how, through EU integration, those levels have been empowered but also how their scope of action has partially decreased. After theoretical and institutional contextualisation, I present the results of my empirical study of the EU s Community Initiative LEADER+. LEADER stands for Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale , and aims at improving the economic conditions in Europe s rural areas. I was interested in how different actors construct and shape EU financed rural development, especially in how local actors organised in so-called local action groups (LAGs) cooperate with other administrative units within the LEADER+ administrative chain. I also examined intra-institutional relations within those groups, in order to find out who are the most influential and powerful actors within them. Empirical data on the Finnish and German LAGs was first gathered through a survey, which was then supplemented and completed by interviewing LAG members, LAG-managers, several civil servants from Finnish and German decision-making and managing authorities and a civil servant from the EU Commission. My main argument is that in both Germany and Finland, the Community Initiative LEADER+ offered a space for multi-level interaction and local-level involvement, a space that on the one hand consists of highly motivated people actively contributing to the improvement of the quality of life and economy in Europe s countryside but which is dependent and also restricted by national administrative practices, implementation approaches and cultures on the other. In Finland, the principle of tri-partition (kolmikantaperiaatte) in organising the executive committees of LAGs is very noticeable. In comparison to Germany, for instance, the representation of public administration in those committees is much more limited due to this principle. Furthermore, the mobilisation of local residents and the bringing together of actors from the local area with different social and institutional backgrounds to become an active part of LEADER+ was more successful in Finland than in Germany. Tri-partition as applied in Finland should serve as a model for similar policies in other EU member states. EU integration changed the formal and informal inter-institutional relations linking the different levels of government. The third sector including non-governmental institutions and interest groups gained access to policy-making processes and increasingly interact with government institutions at all levels of public administration. These developments do not necessarily result in the empowering of the local level.

Religion Explained? : A Philosophical Appraisal of the Cognitive Science of Religion

This study examines philosophically the main theories and methodological assumptions of the field known as the cognitive science of religion (CSR). The study makes a philosophically informed reconstruction of the methodological principles of the CSR, indicates problems with them, and examines possible solutions to these problems. The study focuses on several different CSR writers, namely, Scott Atran, Justin Barrett, Pascal Boyer and Dan Sperber. CSR theorising is done in the intersection between cognitive sciences, anthropology and evolutionary psychology. This multidisciplinary nature makes CSR a fertile ground for philosophical considerations coming from philosophy of psychology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. The study begins by spelling out the methodological assumptions and auxiliary theories of CSR writers by situating these theories and assumptions in the nexus of existing approaches to religion. The distinctive feature of CSR is its emphasis on information processing: CSR writers claim that contemporary cognitive sciences can inform anthropological theorising about the human mind and offer tools for producing causal explanations. Further, they claim to explain the prevalence and persistence of religion by cognitive systems that undergird religious thinking. I also examine the core theoretical contributions of the field focusing mainly on the (1) “minimally counter-intuitiveness hypothesis” and (2) the different ways in which supernatural agent representations activate our cognitive systems. Generally speaking, CSR writers argue for the naturalness of religion: religious ideas and practices are widespread and pervasive because human cognition operates in such a way that religious ideas are easy to acquire and transmit. The study raises two philosophical problems, namely, the “problem of scope” and the “problem of religious relevance”. The problem of scope is created by the insistence of several critics of the CSR that CSR explanations are mostly irrelevant for explaining religion. Most CSR writers themselves hold that cognitive explanations can answer most of our questions about religion. I argue that the problem of scope is created by differences in explanation-begging questions: the former group is interested in explaining different things than the latter group. I propose that we should not stick too rigidly to one set of methodological assumptions, but rather acknowledge that different assumptions might help us to answer different questions about religion. Instead of adhering to some robust metaphysics as some strongly naturalistic writers argue, we should adopt a pragmatic and explanatory pluralist approach which would allow different kinds of methodological presuppositions in the study of religion provided that they attempt to answer different kinds of why-questions, since religion appears to be a multi-faceted phenomenon that spans over a variety of fields of special sciences. The problem of religious relevance is created by the insistence of some writers that CSR theories show religious beliefs to be false or irrational, whereas others invoke CSR theories to defend certain religious ideas. The problem is interesting because it reveals the more general philosophical assumptions of those who make such interpretations. CSR theories can (and have been) interpreted in terms of three different philosophical frameworks: strict naturalism, broad naturalism and theism. I argue that CSR theories can be interpreted inside all three frameworks without doing violence to the theories and that these frameworks give different kinds of results regarding the religious relevance of CSR theories.