Taloustieteen ja taloussosiologian institutionalismit : esimerkkinä omistusinstituutio

Only abstract. Paper copies of master’s theses are listed in the Helka database (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Electronic copies of master’s theses are either available as open access or only on thesis terminals in the Helsinki University Library.Vain tiivistelmä. Sidottujen gradujen saatavuuden voit tarkistaa Helka-tietokannasta (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Digitaaliset gradut voivat olla luettavissa avoimesti verkossa tai rajoitetusti kirjaston opinnäytekioskeilla.Endast sammandrag. Inbundna avhandlingar kan sökas i Helka-databasen (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Elektroniska kopior av avhandlingar finns antingen öppet på nätet eller endast tillgängliga i bibliotekets avhandlingsterminaler.Instituutiot ovat viime vuosikymmeninä nousseet taloustieteen ja taloussosiologian keskeisiksi teemoiksi erilaisten uusien institutionalististen teoriaperinteiden muodossa. Kirjallisuudessa on tapana erottaa toisistaan vanha ja uusi institutionalismi. Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan näiden oppiaineiden uusiksi ja vanhoiksi institutionalismeiksi kutsuttujen lähestymistapojen erilaisia instituutiokäsityksiä ja niiden teoreettisia taustaoletuksia. Tapaustutkimuksellisena esimerkkinä käytetään eri institutionalismien teoretisointeja omistusinstituutiosta, joka on erityisen tärkeä käsittelyn kohde taloustieteen uudessa institutionalismissa. Teoriaperinteiden instituutiokäsitysten hahmottamiseen käytetään Richard Scottin jaottelua instituutioiden regulatiivisiin, normatiivisiin ja kulttuuris-kognitiivisiin ulottuvuuksiin sekä Risto Heiskalan erottamaa neljättä, pragmatistisen institutionalismin ulottuvuutta. Sen keskeisin edustaja taloustieteessä on Geoffrey Hodgsonin ja Erkki Kilpisen mukaan Thorstein Veblen. Taloustieteen ja taloussosiologian uudet institutionalismit edustavat regulatiivista instituutionäkemystä, jossa instituutiot ovat ennen kaikkea yksilöiden toimintaa rajoittavia tekijöitä. Émile Durkheimin ja Talcott Parsonsin edustamalle lähestymistavalle ja sosiologis-vaikutteiselle organisaatiotutkimuksen vanhalle institutionalismille instituutiot tarkoittavat yhteisön jäseniä sitovia normeja, kun taas Bergerin ja Luckmannin fenomenologisesta sosiologiasta vaikutteita saanut organisaatiotutkimuksen uusi institutionalismi pitää instituutioita kulttuuris-kognitiivisina merkityskehyksinä, jotka ovat toimijoille itsestäänselvyyksiä. Kaikkein laajin instituution määritelmä löytyy kuitenkin taloustieteen vanhasta institutionalismista. Sen edustajista Veblen sai vaikutteita pragmatistisesta filosofiasta. Tutkielmassa vebleniläistä lähestymistapaa kutsutaan habituaaliseksi institutionalismiksi, koska siinä instituutiot pohjaavat ennen kaikkea habituaaliseen toimintaan niin, että yksilöiden habituaalistuneen toiminnan katsotaan tuottavan instituutiot, mutta toisaalta instituutiot tuottavat yksilöt, jatkuvassa produktion ja reproduktion prosessissa. Habituaalisen institutionalismin perspektiivistä niin sanottu laskelmoiva rationaalisuus ei luonnehdi normaalisti edes taloudellista käyttäytymistä muuten kuin sellaisena eritystapauksena, joka aiheutuu toiminnan kriisitilanteista, joissa habituaalistunut toiminta kohtaa esteitä toiminnan ympäristön muuttuessa. Myös kulttuuris-kognitiivisessa instituutionäkemyksessä käsitellään tapoja, mutta siinä johdetaan tiedostamattomat tavat alun perin tietoisesta toiminnasta, mikä aiheuttaa teoreettisia ongelmia. Pragmatismissa päättely taas kulkee toiseen suuntaan niin, että tietoinen toiminta johdetaan tavanmukaisesta toiminnasta. Tutkielmassa selvitetään institutionalismien erilaisia taustaoletuksia ja pohditaan myös sellaisen mallin mahdollisuutta, missä eri instituutionäkemysten vahvuudet voidaan yhdistää. Mittapuuna tällaisessa yhdistämisessä käytetään Veblenin habituaalista institutionalismia, johon muiden institutionalismien taustaoletukset pyritään sovittamaan

The Advocacy Coalition Index : A new approach for identifying advocacy coalitions(sic)(sic)(sic)Palabras clave

Policy scholars have increasingly focused on collaborative and competitive relationships between stakeholder coalitions. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in particular has directed scholarly attention toward such relationships. The ACF defines advocacy coalitions as groups of actors who share beliefs and coordinate their action. However, previous research has been inconsistent in defining and measuring coalitions, which has hampered comparative research and theory building. We present a method called the Advocacy Coalition Index, which measures belief similarity and the coordination of action in a manner that makes it possible to assess the extent to which advocacy coalitions are found in policy subsystems, whether subgroups resemble coalitions, and how individual actors contribute to coalition formation. The index provides a standardized method for identifying coalitions that can be applied to comparative research. To illustrate the effectiveness of the index, we analyze two climate change policy subsystems, namely Finland and Sweden, which have been shown to differ in terms of the association of belief similarity with coordination. We demonstrate that the index performs well in identifying the different types of subsystems, coalitions, and actors that contribute the most to coalition formation, as well as those involved in cross-coalition brokerage.Peer reviewe

Pään sisällä vai ihmisten välisissä yhteyksissä? : Kulttuurin leviäminen sosiaalisissa verkostoissa

Peer reviewe

Ihmismieli ja sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus

Peer reviewe

Breaking the Treadmill? : Climate Change Policy Networks and the Prospects for Low Carbon Futures in Australia and Finland

The Treadmill of Production Theory (TPT) argues that in advanced capitalist societies, business organizations, trade unions, and state actors form a constellation that prioritizes economic growth over environmental concerns. We combine this perspective with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and use methods of social network analysis, survey data on key organizations in Finland and Australia, and in-depth interviews to map the policy network structures that resist low carbon transitions, and identify potential for change in these structures. We find that a coalition of economic, labor, and governmental organizations resists a low carbon transition in both countries. However, we also find several possible avenues of incremental change through changes in the network structures and the beliefs held by actors in the networks. Theoretically, this suggests that the TPT is correct in its diagnosis of the current situation, but the ACF may be a more fruitful perspective for identifying potential for change.Peer reviewe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine selectively depolarized the Finnish NATO discussion

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 dramatically reshaped the European security landscape. In Finland, public opinion on NATO had long been polarized along the left-right partisan axis, but the invasion led to a rapid convergence of the opinion toward joining NATO. We investigate whether and how this depolarization took place among polarized actors on Finnish Twitter. By analyzing retweeting patterns, we find three separated user groups before the invasion: a pro-NATO, a left-wing anti-NATO, and a conspiracy-charged anti-NATO group. After the invasion, the left-wing anti-NATO group members broke out of their retweeting bubble and connected with the pro-NATO group despite their difference in partisanship, while the conspiracy-charged anti-NATO group mostly remained a separate cluster. Our content analysis reveals that the left-wing anti-NATO group and the pro-NATO group were bridged by a shared condemnation of Russia's actions and shared democratic norms, while the other anti-NATO group, mainly built around conspiracy theories and disinformation, consistently demonstrated a clear anti-NATO attitude. We show that an external threat can bridge partisan divides in issues linked to the threat, but bubbles upheld by conspiracy theories and disinformation may persist even under dramatic external threats

Information exchange networks at the climate science-policy interface : Evidence from the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, and Portugal

Scientifically informed climate policymaking starts with the exchange of credible, salient, and legitimate scientific information between scientists and policymakers. It is therefore important to understand what explains the exchange of scientific information in national climate policymaking processes. This article applies exponential random graph models to network data from the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, and Portugal to investigate which types of organizations are favored sources of scientific information and whether actors obtain scientific information from those with similar beliefs as their own. Results show that scientific organizations are favored sources in all countries, while only in the Czech Republic do actors obtain scientific information from those with similar policy beliefs. These findings suggest that actors involved in climate policymaking mostly look to scientific organizations for information, but that in polarized contexts where there is a presence of influential denialists overcoming biased information exchange is a challenge.Peer reviewe

Climate change policy networks : Why and how to compare them across countries

Why do some countries enact more ambitious climate change policies than others? Macro level economic and political structures, such as the economic weight of fossil fuel industries, play an important role in shaping these policies. So do the national science community and the national culture of science. But the process by which such macro-structural factors translate into political power and national climate change policies can be analyzed through focussing on meso level policy networks. The Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks (COMPON) research project has studied climate change policy networks in twenty countries since 2007. Along with some findings, this paper presents some methodological challenges faced and the solutions developed in the course of the project. After a presentation of the project, we first outline some practical challenges related to conducting cross-national network surveys and solutions to overcome them, and present the solutions adopted during the project. We then turn to challenges related to causal explanation of the national policy differences, and propose Qualitative Comparative Analysis as one solution for combining different levels of analysis (macro and meso) and different data types (quantitative, network and qualitative).Peer reviewe

Shared Positions on Divisive Beliefs Explain Interorganizational Collaboration: Evidence from Climate Change Policy Subsystems in 11 Countries

Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in 11 countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them