Browsing by Subject "state"

This thesis analyzes the digitalization policy of the Finnish government. The main attempt is to, firstly, identify the central ideas and ideologies behind the approach of the Finnish government toward societal digitalization. Secondly, the attempt is to analyze them from the perspective of the traditional ideas and ideologies of the Nordic welfare state. The underlining research question is, whether the possible approach of the Finnish government toward digitalization is compatible with the traditional ideas and ideologies of the Nordic welfare state. The method in this thesis is a combination of qualitative content analysis and historical research methods. Qualitative content analysis with a focus on an analysis of ideologies is used for analyzing primary sources. A historical perspective is used in an attempt to locate contemporary societal digitalization on a trajectory of societal transformations in post-industrial capitalist states, as well as when presenting the Nordic welfare state model. Overall, the approach of the Finnish government appears largely in line with traditional Nordic welfare state values, such as equality and inclusion. However, one of the main findings of this thesis is that the approach of the Finnish government toward digitalization is a largely apolitical and instrumentalized one. Although possible political, economic and social implications of digitalization are identified, the government appears more concerned with providing all citizens equal access to digitalization than facilitating a public discussion on the nature, form or scope of the phenomenon. While such a consensual approach may be analyzed from the perspective of the Nordic culture of conformity, one of the main arguments of this thesis is that a politicized approach to digitalization could allow for a fruitful discussion on its eventual effects on society.

In the study the present is mirrored to the past in the Russian economy with focus on similarities in the fields of investment/capital, knowledge/technology and entrepreneurship. The periods were 1894 to 1914 and 2000 to 2020. The fields appeared as central factors in programs for economic modernization in 1890s and the 2000s. It was assumed, that there would be major similarities in the studied areas in the two periods. The hypothesis was tested by applying roughly the hypothetico-deductive method while utilizing freely the theories of Anthony Giddens. The material consisted primarily of secondary sources. Major similarities in investments were the primacy of defence and the transport sector, pipelines in the 2000s and before 1914 railways. Both served the export of raw materials, grain respective hydrocarbons. The incomes from these main export products were largely invested into the transport sector and the defence of the huge territory. The state remained the main actor steering largely investments in a way that increased the defence capability of the country, the railways having a military function. In both periods a strict monetary policy was conducted. In the field of knowledge, the structures favoured creation of theoretical knowledge but not of innovations. While private entrepreneurship remained important, the state became the main actor in the economy promoting modernization. In the earlier period it implemented an economic program whose main factors were the building of railways, attracting foreign investments and maintaining high custom barriers. In the 2000s the lack of one single program was compensated by the generally greater role of the state, state companies and the huge state-owned defence industry. The custom barriers were initially lowered, but in the 2010s the policy of import substitution and devaluation of the rouble brought similarities to the former system. In both periods the wealth and military power of the country grew from the initial level. Yet the results were far from the ambitious goals set. The systems remained monopolistic, relatively inefficient and disinterested of inventions, with corruption, bribery and dishonest business practices. The border between state and private sectors was blurred. Subsidies provided mainly by the export of raw materials bolstered the systems. These features could be seen as obstacles for economic modernization. To verify whether they all are would require including more theory of economic modernization. Both in good and bad, the structures of the two periods seem so much alike even on a detailed level, that one could suspect partial imitation of the past in the 2000s. The similarities could as well be due to long-term structures of Russia, be they cultural, institutional, geographical or geopolitical. They could result either from direct continuities from earlier periods or features that re-emerge due to a change of conditions. Mentions of similar traits in other periods of the Russian history might indicate the predominance of structural causes, making quick changes difficult. A more plausible explanation would require the widening of the study to include more countries and time periods.

Taking the Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP) as a case study, this thesis contributes to the understanding of how the SDP and centre-left parties more generally were neoliberalised, this is to say how they became to embrace the idea that society is best organised through markets and competition. Drawing from the work of Stephanie Mudge, the thesis focuses on party experts, those party actors oriented towards producing truth-claims of society, hence affecting the way parties conceive the world and speak. Expert’s knowledge, however, is contingent on their social locations. They are often also situated in professional fields that tend to condition which ideas count as legitimate, making their positions explanatory relevant with regards to parties’ disposition and rhetoric. Methodologically the work draws from the tradition of historical sociology and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. The material utilised consists of (auto)biographies; past historical and social scientific research; reference works; SDP’s archival documents; and historical newspaper and magazine writings and interviews. The central argument is that Mudge’s account—taken as the work’s hypothesis—of the neoliberalisation of centre-left parties in “core countries” (the UK, the US, Sweden, and Germany) is inadequate in the case of the SDP embedded in Finland’s peripheral context. Mudge asserts that a central driver in the parties’ neoliberalisation was the interdependence between the political field of the party and the field of economics, which developed as interwar economic disruption incited an intense search within economics for novel ways to control the economy via public spending and demand management. This also led to an influx of academic economists with a “Keynesian ethic” to centre-left parties. The interdependence, however, allowed for economics’ politicisation from the 1960s onwards, this then influencing the field’s reorientation away from Keynesianism and towards monetarism and subsequently leading to the emergence and triumph of new party experts possessing a “neoliberal ethic”. Relatively stable interwar economic development, the bourgeoisie’s post-Civil War dominance in the society and academia, and the Finnish economics’ “backwardness” meant that no comparable need for seeking novel solutions existed nor was there responsiveness for the ideas developed abroad. Consequently, no interdependence between the SDP and economics developed in interwar or immediate postwar years. In the 1960s economic experts did gain a central position within the party. But these experts were not connected with the academia nor did the SDP embrace “Keynesian” prescriptions, the party and its experts instead banking on the combination of economic planning and export-led growth strategy. Neither was evidence found of economics’ politicisation as a left-wing discipline. Instead, it was oft precisely the SDP’s economic experts that critiqued “Keynesian” academic economists. In sum, arguably no interdependence between economics and the SDP developed either in this period. Instead, a new hypothesis is posited as an alternative account, namely that the SDP’s neoliberalisation can be better accounted for through the interdependence that developed between the bureaucratic field’s economic institutions and the party. Conjecturally, the interdependence, owing, among other things, to the SDP’s political appointments to the state, was politicised and the ideas of economic planning and the state’s control of the economy’s important elements were discredited in the context of the 1970s economic downturn. The interdependence, however, also led to novel kinds of experts—the state economists—gaining a powerful position within the SDP and making their interpretation of the economy common sense in the party. These experts perceived that their role in politics was to advance the “general interest” of the nation and the amorphous “people”, not any segment of it. With the export businesses hegemonic in society, in effect, this meant an emphasis on their profitability, cost competitiveness, and inflation and subsequently wage repression and budget constraint. The affinities between neoliberal notions and this policy conception and the habit in the Finnish state to conceive the world in terms of “external necessities” meant the state economists possessed great responsiveness to neoliberal ideas. While gaining preliminary support from evidence this hypothesis requires further work on several counts.

Ett av de mest robusta fynden inom personlighets- och välbefinnandeforskning är det starka sambandet mellan personlighetsdraget extraversion och positiva emotioner, lycka samt subjektivt och psykologiskt välbefinnande. Vad som kunde förklara varför extraverta är lyckligare har i årtionden ingående undersökts, om än osystematiskt och från skilda utgångspunkter. Detta har även noterats på fältet, och för att underlätta fortsatt forskning belyser denna litteraturöversikt hur frågeställningen undersökts till dags dato. Utifrån McCraes och Costas (1991) ursprungliga uppdelning i instrumentella och temperamentella modeller samt Hampsons (2012) indelning av medierande och modererande personlighetsprocesser identifieras, systematiseras och presenteras de huvudsakliga förklaringarna som förekommer i litteraturen för sambandet mellan extraversion och lycka. Resultatet består av ett konceptuellt diagram (se Figur 1 s. 20–21) med två övergripande förklaringsmodeller, sex distinkta mekanismer, tio personlighetsprocesser och tretton hypoteser som redovisas med tillhörande forskningslitteratur. Förutom en historisk överblick över tillvägagångssätt i forskningen presenteras även aktuell metodik för personlighetsprocesser. Vidare behandlas även hur resultaten är symptomatiska för den rådande problematiken kring konceptualisering, operationalisering samt metodologi inom personlighets- och lyckoforskning, samt resultatens och socialpsykologins relevans för fortsatt forskning och befrämjande av lycka och välbefinnande.