Evidence of Partisan Emphasis on EMU during 1994–1999: Comparing Finnish Parties
Marko Karttunen
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, for public examination in the lecture room XII,
University main building, on 18 April 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
Acta Politica 38
Department of Political Science
University of Helsinki
ISBN 978-952-10-5380-1 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5381-8 (PDF, http://ethesis.helsinki.fi) ISSN 0515-3093
Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2009
Political power can be better understood in the degree that language is better understood, and that the language of politics can be usefully studied by quantitative methods.
(Lasswell & Leites & Associates 1949, preface)
Abstract
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 policymaking 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.
- i
- ii
Tiivistelmä
Tämä tutkimus tarkastelee Suomen kolmen suurimman puolueorganisaation EMU-kantojen painotuseroja vuosina 1994–1999. Viitekehys pohjautuu aiempaan tutkimuskirjallisuuteen, jonka mukaan paradoksaalisia puolueorganisaatioiden integraatiopoliittisia kantoja ovat muovanneet sekä kansalliset että kansainväliset tekijät. Lähtökohtana on, että kansalliset tekijät selittävät enemmän kantojen muodostumista. Valtio-opillisessa tutkimusperinteessä tämä on ensimmäinen tutkimus, joka tutkii suomalaisten puolueorganisaatioiden EMU-kantojen painotuksia julkisten kannanottojen, erittäin salaisina pidettyjen pöytäkirjojen ja puoluejohtajien yhteenvedonomaisten tiivistelmien avulla. Tästä syystä tämä tutkimus tuo merkittävästi esiin niitä keskeisiä tekijöitä, jotka ovat muovanneet puolueorganisaatioiden EMU-poliittisia kantoja ja myös Suomen EMU-politiikkaa 1990-luvulla.
Tutkimuksessa pyritään vastaamaan seuraaviin kysymyksiin. Mitkä ovat olleet ne päätekijät, jotka ovat muovanneet Suomen Sosialidemokraattisen Puolueen, Suomen Keskustan ja Kansallisen Kokoomuksen EMU-poliittisia kantoja vuosina 1994–1999? Missä määrin painotukset ovat muuttuneet näiden vuosien varrella? Missä määrin kantoja ovat muovanneet kansalliset ja kansainväliset tekijät ulkomailta sekä erityisesti maista kuten Ruotsista, johon Suomella on ollut läheinen suhde?
Viitekehys pohjautuu puolueorganisaatioiden integraatiopolitiikkaa ja puoluemuutosta selittäviin teoreettisiin tekijöihin, joita ovat kehittäneet muun muassa Kevin Featherstone, Peter Mair ja Richard Katz. Näiden teoreettisten tekijöiden ja empiiristen tulosten avulla tutkimuksessa on asetettu työn analysointia ohjaavat hypoteesit. Tutkimusaineisto sisältää suurissa määrin primäärilähteenä erittäin salaisena pidettävää asiakirjamateriaalia, joka on analysoitu kvantitatiivista sisällönerittelymenetelmää käyttäen ja hyödynnetty haastatteluaineiston rinnalla. Siksi on luotu luokitusrunko, joka pohjautuu puoluekilpailuteorian salience-lähestymistapaan. Luotettavuuden varmistamiseksi luokitusrunko perustuu tutkimusperinteessä jo aiemmin testattuihin luokituskäytäntöihin. Validiteetin parantamiseksi tutkimus hyödyntää myös haastatteluaineistoa, joka on kerätty kvantitatiivisen analyysin jälkeen. Haastattelut ovat valaisseet tutkimuskohdetta tarkemmin ja päässeet kiinni tutkimuskohteen toimintaan ikään kuin sisältä käsin. Lisäksi haastattelut ovat tavoittaneet sen aineiston, joka on mahdollisesti jäänyt asiakirja-analyysin ulottumattomiin. Tutkimuksessa on haastateltu kahdeksaa puoluejohtajaa ja yhtä riippumatonta valtiovarainministeriön korkeaa virkamiestä. Aineistoa täydentävät myös mielipidemittaukset ja lehdistömateriaali.
Tutkimustulosten mukaan voidaan tehdä seuraavat neljä johtopäätöstä. Ensimmäiseksi, kansalliset tekijät puolueorganisaatioissa ovat muokanneet merkittävimmin EMU-poliittisia kantoja 1990-luvulla. Toisaalta kansainvälisten tekijöiden vaikutus on jäänyt vain vähäiseksi. Eniten puolueet ovat painottaneet taloudellisia tavoitetekijöitä EMU-kantaa muodostettaessa. Suurimmat erot puolueiden välillä heijastuvat taloudellisista, demokraattisista ja kansanvälisistä tekijöistä. Toiseksi, puolueet ovat muodostaneet EMU-kantojaan keskittyneellä ja ammattimaisella politiikan tekotavalla. Puoluejohto ja sen ympärillä olevat asiantuntijat sekä muutamat hallinnolliset eliittihenkilöt ovat päättäneet puolueen EMU-strategian suunnasta. Tämä vahvistaa kehitystä, jossa puolueiden politiikkakantojen painotukset lähenevät toisiaan. Kolmanneksi, tiivis yhteys näkyy erityisen merkittävästi sosialidemokraattien ja ammattiyhdistysliikkeen EMU-kantojen muodostumisessa. Puoluekartalla vasemmalla olevat puolueorganisaatiot linkittävät yhä edelleen politiikkakantojaan niitä lähellä olevien intressiryhmien kantojen kanssa. Neljänneksi, puolueet ovat suhtautuneet välinpitämättömästi yleisen EMU- mielipiteen kehitykseen. Puolueet ovat keskittyneet enemmän puoluepoliittiseen kilpailuun kuin kannattajien asenteiden seuraamiseen. Estääkseen tämän kehityksen puolueiden on opittava joustavimmiksi ja huomioitava paremmin kannattajansa.
Tutkimus esittelee lopuksi kolme ehdotusta, jotka lisäisivät puolueorganisaatioiden legitiimisyyttä politiikkakantojen muodostamisvaiheessa. Osallistumisaktiivisuutta on lisättävä kannattajien keskuudessa ja laajennettava uusiin äänestäjäryhmiin. Politiikkakantaa on avattava kannattajille heti valmisteluvaiheessa, ja uutta teknologiaa on hyödynnettävä kannattajia tavoitettaessa. Kaikkia mahdollisia intressiryhmiä on kuunneltava politiikkakannan muodostamisen aikana.
- iii
- iv
Acknowledgements
The idea for this PhD study first came to me in 1999 when I was working as a political secretary at the central office of the National Coalition Party. I observed rather quickly how the policy-making process was organised internally. The central office concentrates on administrative questions and long-term policy development, while the parliamentary members deal mostly with day-to-day policy issues. As a result, I found myself puzzled by the number of meetings and memoranda involving the many national and international party-affiliated interest groups.
Following the adoption of the European common currency, the euro, in early 2002 I started to become interested in researching the policy-making process inside the three major political parties with regard to Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Basically, there were three reasons for this. First, I was quite familiar with the development of the EMU because the subject of my Master’s Thesis was the Democratic Accountability of the European Central Bank. Secondly, as a PhD student of Political Science, I was painstakingly seeking academic studies covering EMU-related intra-party policymaking.
Unfortunately, most of this academic work took the form of case studies on EU member states and failed to give answers regarding intra-party policy-making. Thirdly, as an enthusiastic researcher I showed my research proposal to the secretaries of the three major Finnish political parties. Surprisingly, they granted me permission to explore classified party documents in their party archives. To my knowledge, these classified files had never before been opened to anyone else intending to explore intra-party policy-making concerning EMU.
The result, I hope, is that this PhD study will serve several interests. It could be used as a tool to further understanding of the policy-making of the major political parties on EMU matters, the institutional constraints on their behaviour, their strategic relations vis-à-vis each other, and their policy strategies. Most importantly, it should make a substantive contribution within the field of comparative politics. For instance, it could help to shed light on the factors that eventually shaped Finland’s EMU policy during the 1990s. Furthermore, it offers suggestions to the political parties for improving their legitimised intra-party policy-making in order to avoid conflicts with their core voters.
The study would not have been possible without the encouragement and support of my academic supervisors, friends and family. I wish to thank Professors Kyösti Pekonen and Mikko Mattila, who provided invaluable encouragement throughout the writing process. They read the work on several occasions and gave numerous suggestions for improving the text and the direction of my thoughts. Professor Pekonen sharpened my use of the Cartel party thesis and corrected several of my erroneous conclusions, while Professor Mattila provided source literature on the methods applicable to students of Political Science, and contributed ideas throughout. The friendship of both of these scholars is much appreciated.
Furthermore, I have profited from lectures and discussions with several scholars who helped me to find my way through the content-analysis labyrinth. Professor Max Bergman gave me advice on combining qualitative and quantitative data at the Essex Summer School on Social Science Data Analysis and Collection, held in Colchester, England in July–August 2003. During this time, discussions with Dr. Judith Bara helped to sharpen my skills in examining party policies in terms of salience theory. Dr Bara’s course on Socio-Legal Research Methods contributed greatly to my intellectual growth. Later on, she graciously supported my research work by sending me recent literature on content-analysis techniques. Martti Nyberg, an Economist at the Finnish Business and Policy Forum (EVA), interrupted his own research work in order to discuss mine and to provide me with the public-opinion surveys conducted by EVA during the 1990s. I thank all of these scholars for sharing their ideas and time with me.
I would not have been able to carry out this study without the financial assistance and support from various organisations. The early drafts were analysed and written when I had the opportunity to use the researcher facilities at the Library of Parliament: I am grateful to the staff for their help. I wish to thank Mr Tuomo Sohlman at the Archives of the Centre Party, Ms Hannele Toropainen at the Archives of the National Coalition Party, and Mr Petri Nurmi at the Archives of the Social Democratic Party in
v
allowing me to explore the respective party protocols. I could not have been able to carry out this study without their help and guidance. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to the interviewees who took the time to answer my questions and to check the transcripts during the interview process. Moreover, I received financial support from the University of Helsinki: the three-month scholarship granted in January–March 2008 enabled me to finish this doctoral thesis.
Six others merit my deepest thanks. Dagmar Pöntiskoski proofread this long work with professional commitment and gave me advice on the final editing of the text. My wife Ingrid, my daughter Claudia, my son Alexander knew how much this PhD study meant to me. I hope they know that they mean even more. Finally, I dedicate this PhD study to my parents Kaija and Esko. The older I get, the more grateful I am for their love and wisdom.
Helsinki 8 March, 2009
Marko Karttunen
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Major Political Parties in Finland during 1945–1999 ...................................................... 41 Figure 2: The Numbers of EMU Political Statements in the Party Documents..................................... 55 Figure 3: The Average and Total Numbers of Political Statements in the Party Documents ............... 56 Figure 4: The Development of Finnish EC Opinions, 1988–1994......................................................... 68 Figure 5: The Percentages of Voters in Favour of EU Membership in the 1994 Referendum ............. 70 Figure 6: The Development of Finnish EU Opinions, 1996–1999......................................................... 73 Figure 7: The Development of Party Opinion in Favour of EMU Membership, 1996–1999.................. 73 Figure 8: The Development of Finnish EMU Opinions, 1996–1999...................................................... 74 Figure 9: The Top Ten Issues: the Mean Percentages of All the Party Policy Documents Dedicated to
Each Issue Category during 1993.................................................................................................. 82
Figure 10: The Left-Right Positions of the Major Parties in Finland, 1945–1999.................................. 87 Figure 11: The NCP’s Average Emphasis on EMU in 1993–1999 vs. the Left-Right Scale, 1991–1999
........................................................................................................................................................ 88
Figure 12: The Centre’s Average Emphasis on EMU in 1994–1999 vs. the Left-Right Scale, 1991–
1999................................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 13: The SDP’s Average Emphasis on EMU in 1994–1999 vs. the Left-Right Scale, 1991–1999
........................................................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 14: Average EMU Emphasis on a Left-Right Scale in the Party Documents, 1994–1999 ........ 93 Figure 15: Average Emphasis on a Market Economy in the Party Documents, 1994–1999................ 94 Figure 16: Average Emphasis on a Planned Economy in the Party Documents, 1994–1999.............. 95 Figure 17: Average Emphasis on Welfare in the Party Documents, 1994–1999.................................. 95 Figure 18: Average Emphasis on Social Conservatism in the Party Documents, 1994–1999 ............. 96 Figure 19: Average Emphasis on International Peace in the Party Documents, 1994–1999............... 96 Figure 20: Average Emphasis on Decentralisation and Centralisation in the Centre, SDP and NCP
Party Documents, 1994–1999........................................................................................................ 97
Figure 21: Average Emphasis on Decentralisation and Centralisation in the SDP Party Documents,
1993–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 22: Average Emphasis on Decentralisation and Centralisation in the NCP Party Documents,
1994–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 23: Average Emphasis on Decentralisation and Centralisation in the Party Documents of the
Centre, 1994–1999....................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 24: Average Emphases on Labour Groups in the Party Documents, 1994–1999................... 105 Figure 25: Average Emphases on Agriculture and Farmers in the Party Documents, 1994–1999 .... 107 Figure 26: Average Emphases on Middle-class and Professional Groups in the Party Documents,
1994–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 27: Average Emphases on Public Opinion in the Party Documents, 1994–1999.................... 111 Figure 28: Centre Party Emphasis on Public Opinion in 1994–1999 (sum %) vs. its Supporters’
Opinions in 1996–1999 ................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 29: NCP Emphasis on Public Opinion in 1994–1999 (sum %) vs. its Supporters’ Opinions in
1996–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 30: Social Democrat Emphasis on Public Opinion in 1994–1999 (sum %) vs. their Supporters’
Opinions in 1996–1999 ................................................................................................................ 114
Figure 31: The Centre’s Emphasis on the Need for an EMU Referendum in 1994–1999 (sum %) vs. its Supporters’ Opinions Measured in 1996................................................................................. 116
Figure 32: Average Emphasis on EMU in the Party Documents, 1993–1999 .................................... 123 Figure 33: Average Emphasis on Other Parties’ EMU Policy-Making in the Centre Party’s Documents
...................................................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 34: Average Emphasis on Other Parties’ EMU Policy-Making in the NCP Documents .......... 132 Figure 35: Average Emphasis on Other Parties’ EMU Policy-Making in the SDP’s Documents........ 134 Figure 36: Average Emphasis on Economic Goals and the Market Economy in the Party Documents,
1994–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 37: Emphasis on Decentralisation in the Party Documents, 1994–1999................................. 140 Figure 38: Emphasis on Decentralisation in the Party Documents (sum %) and the Average EMU
Index, 1993–1999......................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 39: Average Emphasis on the Historical Context in the Party Documents, 1994–1999.......... 144
vii
Figure 40: Average Emphasis on the EMU Policies of Sweden and of other Foreign Countries in the
Party Documents, 1993–1999...................................................................................................... 148
Figure 41: Average Emphasis in the Party Documents on Sister Parties in Sweden and other Foreign
Countries, 1993–1999.................................................................................................................. 154
Figure 42: Average Emphasis on the National and Cross-national Contexts in the Party Documents,
1993–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 43: Average Emphasis on the Wider Political System in the Party Documents, 1993–1999 .. 160 Figure 44: Average Emphasis on the External Dimension in the Party Documents, 1993–1999....... 160 Figure 45: Average Emphasis on Internal Influences within the Political System in the Party
Documents, 1993–1999............................................................................................................... 161
Figure 46: Voting Percentages in the Parliamentary Elections in Finland 1983–2007....................... 170 Figure 47: The Development of Mass Party Membership in Finland, 1980–2008.............................. 171 Figure 48: Average Emphasis on Party-Party and Party-Voter Relationships in the Party Documents,
1994–1999 ................................................................................................................................... 173
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Theoretical Factors concerning the European Policies of Political Parties............................. 11 Table 2: Three Analytical Dimensions of Cartel Parties........................................................................ 12 Table 3: A Comparison of Elite and Mass Support for EMU in Finland in 1996 ................................... 17 Table 4: The Decision-making Structure of the NCP ............................................................................ 46 Table 5: The Decision-making Structure of the Centre Party................................................................ 47 Table 6: The Decision-making Structure of the SDP ............................................................................ 48 Table 7: Scoring a Left-Right Scale on the Basis of the Party Document Estimates............................ 58 Table 8: Reliability and Validity during the Content-analysis Process .................................................. 60 Table 9: Trade Integration and Finland’s Openness to the World Economy, 1994–2001 .................... 66 Table 10: The Post-war Integration Path of Finland before EU Membership ....................................... 69 Table 11: The Integration Path of Finland during 1995–1996............................................................... 76 Table 12: Finland’s Integration Path during 1997–1999 ....................................................................... 79 Table 13: A Summary of Finland’s EMU Path during 1994–1999......................................................... 81 Table 14: The Top Ten issues during 1994–1999: the Proportions of the Party Documents Dedicated to Each Issue Category (Mean in Percentages) ............................................................................ 83
Table 15: The Top Ten Issues in the Centre Party Documents from 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 ...... 84 Table 16: The Top Ten Issues in the NCP Documents from 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998................... 85 Table 17: The Top Ten Issues in the SDP Party Documents from 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998.......... 86 Table 18: The Leaders of the SDP Issue Groups ............................................................................... 119 Table 19: The Leaders of the Issue Groups in the Centre.................................................................. 120