Suchergebnisse

Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire during the years 1808–1917. At this time nationalism as well as other ideologies reached Finland from Europe, which strengthened the willingness to change both in society and on a governmental level. The Fennoman movement, which was a movement focusing both on language and on nationalism, became the core of the Finnish self-perception. The goal was to define Finland as a coherent and separate country in relation to its neighbouring countries. Collecting folk poems and learning to know one's home country became essential. People saw the Kalevala poems as a way to understand and define the Finnish identity and the history of the Finnish people. Especially young people with a background in academia were intrigued by these ideas. University students collected poems all over the Grand Duchy of Finland as well as in the Russian part of Carelia, in Sweden, Norway and in Ingria. Students who collected these folk poems also wrote travelogues about their travels and all this material was handed over to The Finnish Literature Society. These documents are unique and there has not been much research done on them, especially with the focus on how the young academic generation during the age of autonomy defined their home country, their national self-perception, themselves and the commoners living in the rural parts of the country. This book reviews travelogues written by one hundred university students who travelled in the country collecting folk poems during 1836–1917. The book offers insight into how the students described Finland and what it meant to be Finnish. Travelogues can be defined as a sort of hybrid of texts. They consist of a mixture of letters, journals, biographical texts and travel books. Consequently, the image that the students depict of Finland is in this study based upon research perspectives and methods used in textual research, oral history and travel literature. The travelogues written by students previously evoked the interest of researchers who mainly studied certain traits of poem collectors, tradition bearers or poems. However, the travelogues contain plenty of information about the lives of the people who lived in the areas where the poems were collected. The descriptions of Finland in the travelogues do not represent the "real" 19th century Finland, but instead it is a story written and created by university students. The characteristics that are presented in The Land of Hope are based on how the intelligentsia perceived "real" Finnishness as opposed to the uneducated commoners living in the rural parts of the country. The most notable themes in the travelogues are the state and the future of the society and of being Finnish. Another theme is the otherization of those who were uneducated commoners. These themes describe the fears and hopes that university students had about Finland. They also show us that the travelogues were ideological texts about Finland and Finnishness that united the collectors of folk poetry. This book studies the collection of folk poetry in the context of the ideologies during the age of autonomy and it explains what the collection of poems meant and who were involved in it. Furthermore, the book gives an insight into the possibilities to pursue academic studies and it also presents the most essential sources of students' knowledge about Finland at that point of time.

Sata kuntaa riittää , Puolet pois! ja Lopulta kuntia voi olla vain 30. Tutkimuksen aiheena on 1990-luvun alusta 2000-luvun puoliväliin käyty kuntarakennetta koskeva julkinen keskustelu. Keskustelua näkökohtineen, vaatimuksineen ja osapuolineen tarkastellaan totuuden politiikan kautta. Kiinnostuksen kohteena on se, miten tuotetaan ne totuudet, joilla perustellaan kuntarakenteeseen kohdistuvia vaatimuksia. Tutkimuksen aineisto muodostuu kuntaliitoksia käsittelevistä sanomalehtikirjoituksista. Tutkimuksen perusteella kuntarakennekeskustelun solmukohdassa käydään kamppailua tehtävien, voimavarojen ja kuntarakenteiden keskinäisestä suhteesta. Kunnille osoitettujen tehtävien ja voimavarojen merkitys on kansantaloudellisesti ja jakopoliittisesti keskeinen. Voimavaroissa tai tehtävissä tunnistettu muutos käynnistää tarpeen sopeuttaa kahta muuta elementtiä. Muutosvaatimukset ovat kytkeytyneet myös poliittisen vallanjaon jännitteisiin eli puolueiden valtapoliittisiin asemiin kuntakentässä. Kamppailu oikeista tulkinnoista, määritelmistä ja näkökulmista eli totuudesta ilmenee puhe- ja ajattelutavoissa eli diskursseissa. Kuntarakennekeskustelua hallitsee puhetapa, joka on nimetty valtadiskurssiksi. Sen keskeisenä päämääränä on kuntarakenteen uudistaminen suurempien kuntien muodostamiseksi. Kysymys on kuntien toimintaedellytysten ja voimavarojen vahvistamisesta. Keskeiseksi muodostuu kuntien toimintaympäristön muutos. Valtadiskurssissa kuntarakenteen uudistaminen asetetaan rahoituksen tai tehtävien uudelleenmäärittelyn edelle. Kun kuntien tehtävissä tai voimavaroissa tapahtuu muutoksia, rakenteiden tulee sopeutua näihin muutoksiin. Kuntarakenne näyttäytyy hallittavana , sen piirteitä voidaan mitata, arvioida ja muuttaa. Vastadiskurssiksi nimetty diskurssi syntyy reaktiona vaatimukselle kuntarakenteen muutoksesta. Vastadiskurssin lähtökohdista käsin pyrkimys kuntarakenteen muutokseen ei ole perusteltu. Kunnat nähdään historialtaan ja identiteetiltään ainutkertaisina itsehallinnollisina yhteisöinä, joilla on alueellinen itsemääräämisoikeus. Kunnan kehittämistä ja palveluja koskeva päätöksenteko halutaan säilyttää mahdollisimman lähellä kuntalaisia. Kuntaliitosten nähdään johtavan kehittämistoimenpiteiden ja palveluiden keskittymiseen eli hyvinvointivaltion paikalliseen alasajoon. Toimintaympäristön muutos edellyttää sopeutumista, mutta kuntaliitosten sijaan ratkaisuksi esitetään kuntien voimavarojen lisäämistä, tehtävien vähentämistä, kuntien yhteistyön lisäämistä ja muita palvelutuotannon tehostamiseen tähtääviä toimenpiteitä. Nykyiset kunnat ovat muodostuneet useiden vuosisatojen aikana monien vaiheiden kautta. Kuntia on yhdistetty ja niitä on jaettu. Muutoksia on perusteltu eri aikoina ajankohtaisilla kuntien tehtäviin ja taloudellisiin voimavaroihin kohdistuvilla haasteilla. 1990-luvun alussa kuntarakenteen muutostarve kytkettiin byrokratiaan ja lamaa seuranneeseen kunnallistalouden kriisiin. Vaatimus palvelujen tehokkuudesta ja byrokratisoituneen hallinnon virtaviivaistamisesta muodostui hyvin keskeiseksi. 1990-luvulta 2000-luvulle tultaessa alkoi korostua seutuistuminen, kuntien keskinäinen riippuvuus ja yhteistyö elinkeinojen kehittämisessä sekä palvelujen turvaamisessa. Samalla omaksuttiin kaksi erilaista sopeutumisstrategiaa eli pyrkimys edistää sekä kuntaliitoksia että seutuyhteistyötä. Kaksikärkinen strategia edusti kompromissia tilanteessa, jossa kunnat eivät olleet halukkaita liitoksiin. 2000-luvun puoliväliin tultaessa kuntarakennekeskustelussa tapahtui kuitenkin diskursiivinen muutos. Kuntarakenteen muutosta vaadittiin entistä voimakkaammin nimenomaan palvelujen turvaamiseksi. Kuntien taloudellisen aseman eriytyminen kiihtyi muuttoliikkeestä ja kuntien rahoitusperusteiden muutosten seurauksena. Uhkana olivat myös väestön ikääntymisestä ja palveluvaatimusten muutoksista johtuva palvelukustannusten kohoaminen. Kunnat näyttivät jakautuvan menestyviin ja menettäviin. Monien kuntien edellytykset palvelujen järjestämiseen olivat merkittävästi heikentyneet. Kuntien taloudellinen vastuullistaminen ja vaatimus elinvoimaisuudesta korostuivat. Julkisen talouden sopeuttamistarpeen ja kuntien palvelukustannusten kasvun myötä tehokkuuden rinnalle nousi vaatimus tuottavuuden kohottamisesta. Toimintaympäristön muutoksiin varautumisen katsottiin edellyttävän myös elinvoimaisuutta. Aiempina vuosikymmeninä valtion rahoitusta ohjattiin voimakkaasti infrastruktuurin ja palveluverkon ylläpitämiseen syrjäseudulla ja heikosti toimeentulevissa kunnissa. Tapahtuneessa muutoksessa on kysymys siitä, että yksi totuuden politiikka korvautuu toisella. Kuntien odotetaan kantavan vastuunsa elinkelpoisuudestaan ja yhdistyvän väestö- ja elinkeinopohjaltaan ja sitä kautta entistä vahvemmiksi kokonaisuuksiksi. 2000-luvun edetessä kuntaliitoshankkeita on käynnistynyt kiihtyvällä tahdilla ja yhä useammissa niistä kunnat yhdistyvät. Kuntayhteisön historia, identiteetti ja ainutkertaisuus väistävät, kun yhdistyminen muodostuu yhden tai useamman kunnan taloudellisen aseman tai toiminnallisten edellytysten kannalta välttämättömäksi. Keskusteltaessa kuntarakenteesta keskustellaan samalla kuntien itsehallinnosta. Voimakas vaatimus kuntien elinvoimaisuudesta ja elinkelpoisuudesta merkitseekin itsehallintokäsityksen muuttumista. ; The topic of this study is the public discussion on desired local authority size and the need for municipal mergers. The study is based on the French philosopher Michel Foucault´s discoursive view of knowledge and power and an analytics of governmentality, which has evolved from Foucault´s research. The discussion on local government structure concerns information on local authorities, power and competing governmental rationalities. Governmental rationalities refer to different ways of producing truths and giving causes for social and political aims. The study is based on the conception that governmental rationalities are bound up with a discoursive struggle. This struggle is integrated into public discussion. The material of the study consists of newspaper articles on local government structure and municipal mergers. The discussion on local government structure is examined in contexts from the early 1990s and early 2000s. With regard to these two periods I analyse the changing historical conditions under which the discourses unfold. During the time that passed between the two periods the local authorities faced a major change in economic fluctuations, migration, internationalisation, the European integration and the effects of extensive public administration reforms. The discussion on local government structure is analysed in relation to the recent development of the operating environment, the metamorphosis of the welfare society and the changeable role of local authorities. An important issue in my study is what kind of discourses form the framework for public discussion on local government structure? And how do they regulate the governmental rationalities concerning the relations between the duties, resources and structures of local governments? According to my study, the debate on local government structure is in fact a defining struggle over the local authorities´ mission, resources and structure and how these are related to one another. A change detected in resources or duties triggers a need to adjust either one of the two other elements in question. The interpretations of adjustment in each case result in specific governmental rationalities of reform. There is also the question of how political power is distributed and the tensions arising from it, i.e. a struggle for political power in connection to the political parties´ differentiated position in local governments. A change in local government structure signifies new strategic positions and political strongholds. The positions of the traditional ruling parties, i.e. the Centre Party and the Social Democratic Party, produce opposite dispositions of how and on whose conditions the governmental models are outlined. The study shows that the discussion on local government structure is dominated by a power discourse that strongly emphasises a demand for restructuring in order to form larger municipalities. The power discourse strengthens a rationality that gives priority to restructuring local governments instead of financing or redefining duties. Within the power discourse the conception of local government structure turns into an instrument of governmentality and a perspective which sets aside other possible ways of representing local authorities. Local authorities are perceived as a part of the total structure of administrative units, the characteristics of which may be measured, assessed ­ and changed. A counterdiscourse arises as a reaction to the power discourse and its demand for adjustment to the change of operational environment through a change of local government structure. This counterdiscourse questions the notion of local authorities as a structure that can be steered and governed. Local authorities are seen as unique, autonomous regional institutions where decisions on their development and services must be made as close to the local residents as possible. Thus the counterdiscourse emphasises the local authorities´ territorial autonomy, which secures preserve the unique history and identity of the present municipalities. In the 1990 s the interpretation that the operating environment developed towards regionalisation was characteristic for the change management. The aim to promote regionalisation and conditions influencing regionalisation was strengthened. Regional cooperation represented a compromise between reluctance to merge and securing of industrial development needs and services. The discussion concerning local authority structures was founded upon a two-peaked strategy of adjusting, i.e. the aim was to actively further the promotion of both municipal mergers and regional cooperation. Securing services is the topic in the core of the discussions on local government structures. And this topic is enwrapped in the discourse on equality. However, equality appears to be the ambivalent precondition for the reform. In the power discourse the equal status of citizens is threatened by the differentiation of the financial situation of local authorities. A change of the local government structure arises as the solution. The counterdiscourse emphasises one aspect above all others, i.e. to secure services as close to the local residents as possible. The pursuit of scale benefits, concentration of resources and development measures and cutting down on services are considered risks in the change of local government structures. The fear for the effects of concentrated powers and for the dismantlement of the welfare society at local level will be actualised in the counterdiscourse. From the beginning of the 1990 s to the mid-2000 s there is a discoursive change in the discussion on local government structures. The discussion starts increasingly to circle around the change of operating environments of local authorities. The prerequisites of local governments to secure the services are getting questioned due to migration, changes in the population s age structure and regional differentiation. There seems to be a division into winning and losing local authorities. The financial and operating prerequisites of small and remote local authorities are considered to have weakened. Making provisions for changes in the operating environment emphasises vitality and viability. A condition is that local authorities embrace their financial responsibilities. The responsibilisation in the discoursive change is similar to the responsibilisation frequently applied in connection with the management of welfare drawing on different neoliberal practices. The mentality of liberalisation and responsibilisation can be more widely acknowledged in the development of the relations between local authorities and the state. In political rationalisation the promotion of productivity has become the counterpart of the securing of services. The rhetoric of financial necessities is more strongly than before starting to regulate the discussion. In the 1990 s the emphasis was on effectivity and claims for the streamlining of the bureaucratised governance. In the 2000 s the talk focused on productivity and the demand that more should be achieved despite decreasing resources. The concept of productivity welling from the background assumptions of economic science is problematic for the public sector. It does not measure welfare and wellbeing. Consequently the dispute is not about measures but about goals. What kind of local authorities will be given the responsibility for the services to residents and the development of their close environment? The answer to this question also implies how resources and duties are allocated to local authorities. The discoursive change is all about a reorganisation of the mutual relations between knowledge and power. One politics of truth is replaced with another politics of truth with more explanatory power and penetrating effects than the former one. The responsibilisation of local authorities and the assessment based on financial processes come in the centre of the discussion on local government structures. The definitions of local authority duties, resources and structures also contribute to the revision of local self-government. The strong claim for vital and viable local authorities actually means the articulation of a new kind of basis for the self-government.