Proefschrift--Leyden. / Stamp of Martinus Nijhoff on t.p. "Bibliographie": p. 131-134.

No description available.

Although an element of our quotidian existence the manner in which national identity is produced is one of the most contested problems in the contemporary social sciences. One method of examining the production of national identity is to study the mechanism through which such identities are constructed in discourse. This study considers the use of historical narratives in the construction of differing formulations of national identity in the Russian Republic of Karelia. Using the tools of critical discourse analysis this study surveys the production of varying historical narratives in the Republic of Karelia and the fashion in which such narratives contribute to producing or deconstructing competing conceptions of national identity. This thesis uses an analysis of both mass media discourse and interview data to provide a thorough illustration of the production of narratives of Karelian history on public and private levels and their use in engendering or refuting opposing notions of Karelian identity. It shall examine how various historical events and tendencies are incorporated into contrasting narratives of the historical development of the Karelian people and their Russian, Finnish and Vepsian counterparts and how such narratives are used to justify or invalidate current political and social realities. The relationship between such narratives of history and other aspects of identity production is investigated alongside the difficulties of ethnic Karelians in producing and promoting such narratives to sustain an image of Karelian national identity. It shall also demonstrate the manner in which Karelian identity can be positioned through the use of such historical narratives as closer to or more distant from Russian or Finnish national identity. The narration of a history of Karelia as an area and the manner in which this can be deployed to incorporate or distance the region from conceptions of Russian or Finno-Ugric identity is also made evident.

The master thesis describes the Finnish-Russian relations after 1995, that means the year when Finland joined the EU. The current mutual relations are considered to be excellent even in spite of Finland's negative experience from the past. The aim of the thesis is to analyze Finnish-Russian relations and to outline their individual fields. The question is whether the excellent relations will be continued or if there are any factors that could impair the development of the relations. The question might also be to which extent the experience from the past could determine some of the issues, such as Finland's joining the NATO or the Karelian question.

The study analyzes the Karelia cross-border cooperation programme and its activity under the theoretical framework of soft spaces, exploring the processes through which it overcomes the administrative and political boundaries of the Finnish-Russian ‘hard borders’. The ability of these cross-border areas to cooperate may appear to conflict with the geopolitical context in which they are embedded. The historical path, however, reveals a process where conflicts over changes of borders and political scenarios coexisted with the sharing of spatial identities and development challenges. The study demonstrates how stakeholders are motivated both by functional needs of cooperation towards regional development, as well as desires to change existent practices in the Russian side. Through informal and semi-formal processes of negotiation employed by several stakeholders, the regions attempt to overcome the clashes between EU, Finnish and Russian political and administrative discourses. Thus, it is argued that the cross-border cooperation programme constitutes a soft space in-between regional, national and supranational levels, as well as an enabler of other soft spaces in the local crossborder level.

Abstract I analysed Finnish parties’ policies for developing sources of livelihood in Northern and Eastern Finland in 1951–1970. I used the minutes of the main organs of four parties – the Agrarian League/Centre Party, the Coalition Party, SKDL and SDP – as source material. Parliamentary documents were another important source. After World War II, Finnish society had to adapt to peacetime demands. To quickly provide productive work for people and to achieve self-sufficiency in food production as soon as possible, industrial policy embraced expansion of agriculture. As the 1950s arrived it was noticed that the new small farms were unable to support the growing rural population. Thus, an attempt was made to diversify rural sources of livelihood. At the same time, the parties competed earnestly for rural votes, turning this into a very political question. With the exception of the Agrarian League, the parties put forth new programmes in preparing for the 1958 election, which formed a turning point. After the election, a coalition cabinet – Fagerholm’s Cabinet III – was formed; it then had to resign due to foreign political pressure. After the so-called yöpakkaset crisis, the most important criterion of cabinet eligibility in Finnish government politics was that the party had to have the approval of the Soviet Union. Thereafter the parties were no longer able to cooperate in developing rural areas. The parties were in agreement that rural sources of livelihood had to be developed in order to employ Finland’s growing population. They were unable to agree on how this should happen in practice. The Agrarian League sought to develop rural areas through agriculture, small industry and the wood processing industry. SDP raised industrialisation as the main employment alternative. Un-fortunately, because of questions concerning persons, the party split into two competing camps. SKDL supported increasing state-run industry and foreign trade with the Soviet Union. The Coalition Party was for entrepreneurship and trade connections with the West. Regional development policy measures started up in the 1960s were already long overdue. Despite various regional policy measures, Finland was not able to employ the rural population, and Finns moved to Sweden to find work. This can be considered an indication that the implemented policy was not successful. / Tiivistelmä Tässä tutkimuksessa käsittelen suomalaisten puolueiden Pohjois- ja Itä-Suomen elinkeinojen kehittämispolitiikkaa vuosina 1951–1970. Lähteinä ovat olleet neljän suurimman puolueen eli Maalaisliitto-Keskustapuolueen, Kansallisen Kokoomuksen, Suomen Kansan Demokraattisen Liiton (SKDL) ja Suomen Sosialidemokraattisen Puolueen (SDP) keskeisten toimielinten pöytäkirjat. Toisena keskeisenä lähdeaineistona ovat olleet valtiopäiväasiakirjat. Suomalainen yhteiskunta oli toisen maailmansodan jälkeen sopeutettava rauhanajan vaatimuksiin. Elinkeinopolitiikassa valittiin ratkaisuksi maatalouden laajentaminen, jotta kansa saataisiin nopeasti tuottavaan työhön ja saavutettaisiin elintarvikeomavaraisuus mahdollisimman nopeasti. 1950-luvulle tultaessa huomattiin, etteivät uudet pienviljelmät pystyneet elättämään maaseudun kasvavaa väestöä. Näin ollen maaseudun elinkeinojen kehittämistarve oli mitä ilmeisin Pohjois- ja Itä-Suomessa. Samalla puolueet kävivät kovaa kilpailua maaseudun äänestäjistä, joten kysymys politisoitui voimakkaasti. Käännekohdaksi muodostuivat vuoden 1958 vaalit, joihin puolueet valmistautuivat, maalaisliittoa lukuun ottamatta, uusilla ohjelmilla. Vaalien jälkeen muodostettiin laajapohjainen Fagerholmin III hallitus, joka joutui eroamaan ulko-poliittisen painostuksen jälkeen. Niin sanotun yöpakkaskriisin jälkeen suomalaisessa hallituspolitiikassa tärkeimmäksi hallituskelpoisuuden kriteeriksi muodostui se, että puolueella täytyi olla Neuvostoliiton hyväksyntä. Tämän jälkeen puolueet eivät enää pystyneet yhteistyöhön maaseudun kehittämistyössä. Puolueiden välillä vallitsi yksimielisyys siitä, että maaseudun elinkeinoja oli kehitettävä, jotta Suomen kasvava väestö saataisiin työllistettyä. Siitä ei päästy yksimielisyyteen, miten työllistäminen käytännössä tapahtuisi. Maalaisliitto pyrki maaseudun kehittämiseen maatalouden, pienteollisuuden ja puunjalostusteollisuuden avulla. SDP nosti teollistamispolitiikan keskeiseksi työllistämisvaihtoehdoksi. Valitettavasti puolue hajosi henkilökysymysten takia kahteen kilpailevaan leiriin. SKDL kannatti valtiojohtoisen teollisuuden lisäämistä ja ulkomaankauppaa Neuvostoliiton kanssa. Kokoomus oli yksityisyrittäjyyden ja läntisten kauppayhteyksien kannalla. 1960-luvulla aloitetut kehitysaluepoliittiset toimet olivat jo pahasti myöhässä. Erilaisista aluepoliittisista toimista huolimatta maaseudun väestöä ei pystytty työllistämään Suomessa, vaan suomalaiset muuttivat töiden perässä Ruotsiin. Tätä voidaan pitää osoituksena harjoitetun politiikan epäonnistumisesta.