Local responses to state-led municipal reform in the Finnish-Swedish border region: conflicting development discourses, culture and institutions

Abstract

This paper scrutinises the intersections and collisions of different development discourses in the Kemi-Tornio sub-region which lies alongside the Finnish-Swedish border within the political context of municipal reform initiated by the Finnish government in 2011–2015. By drawing on cultural political economy and institutional regional theory, this paper studies how local actors utilize different development discourses produced at (and producing) different scales to justify or contest the municipal amalgamation within the Kemi-Tornio region. In addition, the specific interest is on the how local institutional environment, and border location in particular, are mobilized and strategically used in these processes. The results, based on policy documents and qualitative interviews with key municipal actors, highlight the coexistence of three different, yet overlapping development discourses. While some municipal actors support the state-led development discourse with justification of economic reasoning, there is a strong opposing discourse emphasising the region’s history, identity and municipal self-autonomy. The latter, interestingly, resonates with the EU’s cross-border co-operation discourse; offering an alternative development strategy. Together with the path-dependent regional history, this intersection creates unbalanced power relations between municipalities both with and without a state border. Thus, this paper illustrates how different scalar discourses and institutional structures are actively utilized in municipal reform processes.

Managing people’s (in)ability to be mobile: Geopolitics and the selective opening and closing of borders

“…In this sense, all heritage, including material heritage, is intrinsically intangible, selective, and power‐loaded (Stoffelen, 2020). This example shows that this process of establishing hegemonic imaginaries that become “common sense” (Jakola, 2018) through institutionalising and reproducing them in daily life structures is an evolutionary, historically contingent, and time‐space specific process. In sum, “it is the continuing interaction between the semiotic and extra‐semiotic in a complex co‐evolutionary process … that gives relatively successful economic and political imaginaries their performative, constitutive force in the material world” (Jessop & Oosterlynck, 2008, p. 1157).…”

“…Practical cross-border tourism projects in Europe are embedded in the EU's de-centralised funding arrangements like the European Regional Development Fund with its INTERREG programme. As such, regional cross-border tourism projects use a context and discourse set on higher levels by the EU and its regional policy agenda (Jakola, 2018). While this particular institutional arrangement is specific to the EU, in many other countries global governance actors such as the World Bank, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation or donor agencies (R. Duffy, 2006) take up a similar role as the EU in providing the ideological-rhetorical frame for local (cross-border) tourism development.…”

Institucionālie risinājumi Latvijas zivju pārstrādes nozares attīstības atbloķēšanai = Institutional solutions to unlocking the growth of Latvian fish processing

“…Arī atsevišķu gadījumu ekonometriskā analīze parāda sabiedrību netehnoloģisko īpatnību atšķirību vēsturiskos pirmsākumus. Šīs atšķirības var atspoguļot kultūras pagātni, sabiedrības un varas struktūru [37]; [39]; [43]; [45]. Socioloģijā un institucionālismā izplatītais strukturālais (kultūras) skatījums nosaka, ka institūcijas ir pārākas par individuālajiem subjektiem un ir nemainīgas sabiedrību kultūras īpatnības, kas nosaka uzvedību.…”