992 resultados para 1995_07212331 TM-10 4900705
Resumo:
Austria and Finland are persistently referred to as the “success stories” of post-1945 European history. Notwithstanding their different points of departure, in the course of the Cold War both countries portrayed themselves as small and neutral border-states in the world dictated by superpower politics. By the 1970s, both countries frequently ranked at the top end in various international classifications regarding economic development and well-being in society. This trend continues today. The study takes under scrutiny the concept of consensus which figures centrally in the two national narratives of post-1945 success. Given that the two domestic contexts as such only share few direct links with one another and are more obviously different than similar in terms of their geographical location, historical experiences and politico-cultural traditions, the analogies and variations in the anatomies of the post-1945 “cultures of consensus” provide an interesting topic for a historical comparative and cross-national examination. The main research question concerns the identification and analysis of the conceptual and procedural convergence points of the concepts of the state and consensus. The thesis is divided into six main chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter presents the theoretical framework in more detail by focusing on the key concepts of the study – the state and consensus. Chapter two also introduces the comparative historical and cross-national research angles. Chapter three grounds the key concepts of the state and consensus in the historical contexts of Austria and Finland by discussing the state, the nation and democracy in a longer term comparative perspective. The fourth and fifth chapter present case studies on the two policy fields, the “pillars”, upon which the post-1945 Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus are argued to have rested. Chapter four deals with neo-corporatist features in the economic policy making and chapter five discusses the building up of domestic consensus regarding the key concepts of neutrality policies in the 1950s and 1960s. The study concludes that it was not consensus as such but the strikingly intense preoccupation with the theme of domestic consensus that cross-cut, in a curiously analogous manner, the policy-making processes studied. The main challenge for the post-1945 architects of Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus was to find strategies and concepts for consensus-building which would be compatible with the principles of democracy. Discussed at the level of procedures, the most important finding of the study concerns the triangular mechanism of coordination, consultation and cooperation that set into motion and facilitated a new type of search for consensus in both post-war societies. In this triangle, the agency of the state was central, though in varying ways. The new conceptions concerning a small state’s position in the Cold War world also prompted cross-nationally perceivable willingness to reconsider inherited concepts and procedures of the state and the nation. At the same time, the ways of understanding the role of the state and its relation to society remained profoundly different in Austria and Finland and this basic difference was in many ways reflected in the concepts and procedures deployed in the search for consensus and management of domestic conflicts. For more detailed information, please consult the author.
Resumo:
This study explores the EMU stand taken by the major Finnish political parties from 1994 to 1999. The starting point is the empirical evidence showing that party responses to European integration are shaped by a mix of national and cross-national factors, with national factors having more explanatory value. The study is the first to produce evidence that classified party documents such as protocols, manifestos and authoritative policy summaries may describe the EMU policy emphasis. In fact, as the literature review demonstrates, it has been unclear so far what kind of stand the three major Finnish political parties took during 1994–1999. Consequently, this study makes a substantive contribution to understanding the factors that shaped EMU party policies, and eventually, the national EMU policy during the 1990s. The research questions addressed are the following: What are the main factors that shaped partisan standpoints on EMU during 1994–1999? To what extent did the policy debate and themes change in the political parties? How far were the policies of the Social Democratic Party, the Centre Party and the National Coalition Party shaped by factors unique to their own national contexts? Furthermore, to what extent were they determined by cross-national influences from abroad, and especially from countries with which Finland has a special relationship, such as Sweden? The theoretical background of the study is in the area of party politics and approaches to EU policies, and party change, developed mainly by Kevin Featherstone, Peter Mair and Richard Katz. At the same time, it puts forward generic hypotheses that help to explain party standpoints on EMU. It incorporates a large quantity of classified new material based on primary research through content analysis and interviews. Quantitative and qualitative methods are used sequentially in order to overcome possible limitations. Established content-analysis techniques improve the reliability of the data. The coding frame is based on the salience theory of party competition. Interviews with eight party leaders and one independent expert civil servant provided additional insights and improve the validity of the data. Public-opinion surveys and media coverage are also used to complete the research path. Four major conclusions are drawn from the research findings. First, the quantitative and the interview data reveal the importance of the internal influences within the parties that most noticeably shaped their EMU policies during the 1990s. In contrast, international events play a minor role. The most striking feature turned out to be the strong emphasis by all of the parties on economic goals. However, it is important to note that the factors manifest differences between economic, democratic and international issues across the three major parties. Secondly, it seems that the parties have transformed into centralised and professional organisations in terms of their EMU policy-making. The weight and direction of party EMU strategy rests within the leadership and a few administrative elites. This could imply changes in their institutional environment. Eventually, parties may appear generally less differentiated and more standardised in their policy-making. Thirdly, the case of the Social Democratic Party shows that traditional organisational links continue to exist between the left and the trade unions in terms of their EMU policy-making. Hence, it could be that the parties have not yet moved beyond their conventional affiliate organisations. Fourthly, parties tend to neglect citizen opinion and demands with regard to EMU, which could imply conflict between the changes in their strategic environment. They seem to give more attention to the demands of political competition (party-party relationships) than to public attitudes (party-voter relationships), which would imply that they have had to learn to be more flexible and responsive. Finally, three suggestions for institutional reform are offered, which could contribute to the emergence of legitimised policy-making: measures to bring more party members and voter groups into the policy-making process; measures to adopt new technologies in order to open up the policy-formation process in the early phase; and measures to involve all interest groups in the policy-making process.