Nordic Cooperation in the Post-Cold War Era: a Case Study of Institutional Persistence Pavla Landiss University of Missouri-St
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Missouri, St. Louis University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works 12-5-2012 Nordic Cooperation in the Post-Cold War Era: A Case Study of Institutional Persistence Pavla Landiss University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Landiss, Pavla, "Nordic Cooperation in the Post-Cold War Era: A Case Study of Institutional Persistence" (2012). Dissertations. 337. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/337 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORDIC COOPERATION IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA: A CASE STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL PERSISTENCE Pavla Landiss M.A. in Political Sciemce, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2007 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-St. Louis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science October 2012 Advisory Committee: J. Martin Rochester, Ph.D. (Chair) David B. Robertson, Ph.D. G. Eduardo Silva, Ph.D. Kenneth P. Thomas, Ph.D. © Copyright 2012 by Pavla Landiss All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to the Department of Political Science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis for offering great classes and providing an intellectually stimulating and friendly environment. I am grateful to my dissertation committee members – Professors Marty Rochester, Kenny Thomas, Dave Robertson and Eduardo Silva. I thank all of them for their willingness to serve on my committee and for their assistance and advice. I am particularly indebted to Marty Rochester, my mentor, for his invaluable guidance through the whole research process and for his unwavering support and encouragement. I also wish to acknowledge the following scholars, officials, civil servants and journalists in the Nordic countries, who generously offered me their time, insights, advice and assistance in obtaining information and materials relevant to my research: Niels Finn Christiansen, Åsa Eidenert, Jan-Erik Enestam, Pertti Joenniemi, Olof Kleberg, Peter Jon Larsen, Bengt Lindroth, Hans Mouritzen, Hanna Ojanen, Uffe Østergård, and Bengt Sundelius. I also thank Søren Juel Andersen, Ari Antikainen, Antti Hildén, and Ilkka Haavisto, who kindly emailed me information and materials for my research. Last but not least, I want to thank my husband Dan Landiss for his understanding and emotional support. iii ABSTRACT Long-lasting cooperation among a group of nations is rare. Scholars of different traditions disagree about the possibilities of sustained cooperation. This dissertation focuses on the cooperation among the five nations in Northern Europe sometimes referred to as the Nordics – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, plus three self-governing territories – the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and the Åland Islands. They form a distinct region with a common identity and a well developed cooperation. The overarching norm is cooperation based on respect for national sovereignty. It started emerging in the 19th century, but was formalized first after World War II. The end of the Cold War and the membership of three of these countries in the EU were seen as reasons for weakening or even the demise of the Nordic cooperation. “Why do Nordic institutions persist despite changes in the international system?” is the central research question to be explored in this dissertation. This dissertation employs the lens of historical institutionalism. Path dependency provides a convincing explanation for the persistence of Nordic institutions. The logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness complement each other and help us obtain a richer, more nuanced picture. However, path dependency may simply mean that relevant actors do nothing, which may result in sheer inertia. The concept of learning complements well the rather automatic nature of the path dependency mechanism. In the Nordic case, the new momentum of the cooperation results from revised goals and adjustments in procedures, even though the institutions continue to be strongly influenced by historical legacies. This study also argues that human agency should not be iv underestimated. In particular, social scientists and policy experts function as an epistemic community and help shape the institutions. Potential threats to this cooperation are also assessed. v CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review 14 Chapter 3: The Historical Roots of Nordic Cooperation 51 Chapter 4: The Post-World War II Nordic Cooperation and Its Main Institutions 87 Chapter 5: Persistence of Nordic Cooperation after the Cold War 133 Chapter 6: Nordic Cooperation through the Lens of Historical Institutionalism 178 References 209 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Today’s complex international system requires international cooperation. Yet, effective cooperation remains difficult to achieve, and deep disagreements continue to exist among scholars of different traditions about the prospects for successful and long- lasting cooperation among nations. This study focuses on the cooperation among the five nations in Northern Europe sometimes referred to as the Nordics – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, plus three self-governing territories – the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and the Ǻland Islands. They form a region with a well-developed cooperation. The cooperation has roots in the 19th century, but most of the Nordic institutions developed in the context of the bi-polar international system, which no longer exists. Three of the Nordics – Denmark, Finland, and Sweden – have joined the EU. Yet, the Nordic cooperation has not disappeared, and many institutions continue to thrive and even expand. These institutions, some of which have existed for more than half a century, provide a unique opportunity for a study of institutional persistence. “Why do Nordic institutions persist despite changes in the international system?” is the central research question to be explored in this dissertation. Norden and the Nordics Norden simply means the North in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish and refers to the five members of the Nordic Council. It is also a mental construct that implies commonality of interests, cultural affinity, and a common Nordic identity in addition to 1 the individual national identities. Sometimes the same region is referred to as Scandinavia. Strictly speaking, these two terms, Norden and Scandinavia, are not coterminous. As, for example, Wæver (1992a) explains, Norden is “preferred” because Scandinavia does not include Finland and Iceland, and Northern Europe is a broader term that actually includes parts of Germany, Scotland, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and parts of Russia. However, in English, the terms Norden and Scandinavia or Nordic and Scandinavian are often used interchangeably, even by Nordic scholars, for example Mouritzen (1995, 17). The Nordic countries, including Greenland, have a total area of 3.5 million square kilometers (approximately 1.3 million square miles). However, in terms of population, the whole region has just 25 million inhabitants. The population of individual countries is as follows: Denmark 5.5 million, Finland 5.3 million, Norway 4.9 million, Sweden 9.3 million, and Iceland slightly over 300 thousand (Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2010). These countries share not only their location in the North of Europe but also similar cultures and political systems. All of them are small parliamentary democracies, highly egalitarian, with well-developed welfare systems, high gross national income (GNI) per capita and high standards of living. In all of them, the levels of women’s participation in political life are high (Archer 1996; Mouritzen 1995; Christiansen 2000; Ervasti, Fridberg, Hjerm, and Ringdal 2008). They have a common religious tradition – the tradition of Lutheranism, which is still important even though the Nordic countries have been highly secularized (Østergård 1997; Sørensen 1997; Wiberg 2000; Allardt 2006; Ervasti 2008). Similarity of languages also helps bind the region together, even though the linguistic 2 proximity is only partial. Danish, Norwegian,1 Swedish, and Icelandic are all North Germanic languages. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are close enough so that their speakers can easily understand each other, especially in the written form. Oral communication requires more effort and experience. Icelandic has retained its ancient character and is very difficult to understand by others. Finnish is not an Indo-European language; it a Uralic language.2 Even though Swedish is taught in Finnish schools, it is a foreign language for many Finns. However, it has been often observed that translations between Finnish and the other Scandinavian languages are easy because, thanks to the common history and cultural similarity, most concepts and phrases have precise equivalents in the other language (Hildén 2005, 77; cf. Allardt 2006, 50; Nordiska språkrådet 2002, n. p.). The business at the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers is conducted primarily in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. Finnish or Icelandic delegates often speak either Swedish or Danish, but if they choose to use their own languages,