East-West Economic Cooperation —
| Published date | 01 March 1975 |
| Author | Pasi Patokallio,Harto Hakovirta |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677501000104 |
| Date | 01 March 1975 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
East-West
Economic
Cooperation
—
Is
there
a
Finnish
Model?
HARTO
HAKOVIRTA
University
of
Tampere,
Institute
of
Political
Science
PASI
PATOKALLIO
Tampere
Peace
Research
Institute
Hakovirta,
H.
&
Patokallio,
P.
East-West
Economic
Cooperation -
Is
there
a
Finnish
Model?
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
X,
1975,
33-50.
Recent
developments
in
East-West
relations
have
in
some
connections
given
impetus
to
discussions
on
the
role
of
small
and
neutral
countries
in
furthering
cooperative
processes,
for
instance,
through
providing
examples.
The
authors
examine
the
Finnish
position
and
performance
in
this
context,
with
special
emphasis
on
economic
coopera-
tion.
Through
a
comparative
analysis
it
is
found
that
Finland
is
exceptional
in
many
respects,
and
that,
in
the
light
of
the
criteria
adopted,
she
qualifies
with
reservations
as
a
model. In
empirical
terms
this
means
that
Finland
has
been
exceptionally
active
in
trading
with
the
socialist
countries,
in
initiating
new
forms
of
economic
cooperation,
and
in
overall
responsiveness.
The
possible
implications
of
the
Finnish
model
for
East-West
cooperation
in
the
future
are
also
taken
up
for
discussion.
Harto
Hakovirta,
University
of
Tampere,
Institute
of
Political
Science.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
illuminate
the
Finnish
position
in
East-West
econom-
ic
cooperation
with
special
emphasis
on
the
potentiality
of
Finland’s
contributing
to
such
cooperative
processes
through
hes
own
example.
Our
presentation
does
not
therefore
aim
at
describing
the
Finnish
position
as
such,
but
rather
at
laying
an
empirical
foundation
for
an
assessment
of
what
we
shall
call
the
Finnish
example
or
model.
The
potentialities
of
a
small
country
like
Finland
to
influence
East-West
co-
operation
are,
of
course,
severely
limited.
Perhaps
the
most
common
instances
in
which
small-country
influence
receives
attention
are
in
the
various
concrete
mea-
sures -
initiatives,
organizational
activi-
ties,
etc. -
designed
to
further
some
co-
operative
venture
or,
say,
mediation
in
big-power
conflicts.
Thus.
for
example,
the
name
of
Finland
tends
to
come
into
the
limelight
in
connection
with
the
Euro-
pean
Conference
on
Security
and
Coopera-
tion.
In
such
a
case
it
may
be
justified
to
say
that
Finland
intentionally
strives
to
contribute
to
peaceful
developments
not
only
for
’selfish’
reasons
but
also
as
a
part
of
her
peace
policy
definable
even
on
the
basis
of
motives.
When
we
talk
about
the
Finnish
model,
or
example,
we
adopt
a
somewhat
different
approach.
Neither
Finland
nor
any
other
country
conducts
her
policy
of
economic
cooperation
in
order
to
provide
a
model
for
other
countries,
but
instead
to
fulfil
her
own
economic
objectives
within
the
frame-
work
of
her
basic
foreign
policy.
Thus,
there
is
little
point
in
talking
about
motives
when
analysing
models
of
this
kind,
but
rather
to
approach
them
from
the
perspec-
tive
of
their
possible
consequences
or
functions.
The
question
is
whether
there
is
anything
in
the
institutional
set-up
or
contents
of
a
country’s
economic
relations
that
other
countries
could
apply
in
their
respective
positions
and
thus
promote
co-
operation
between
opposed
systems.
If
a
model
is
actually
taken
into
account
some-
where
and
applied
in
practice,
one
can
34
talk
about
manifest
consequences.
But
even
if
this
were
not
the
case
it
may
be
justified
to
refer
to
a
country
and
its
policies
as
a
potential
example.
A
careful
analysis
of
a
country’s
performance
may
reveal
features
which
were
previously
ignored
but
which
nevertheless
are
worth
attention.
Any
country’s
policy
of
economic
co-
operation
is
shaped
by
geographical
and
other
circumstances
to
such
an
extent
that
it
would
not
be
reasonable
to
expect
its
total
application
elsewhere.
It
would
be
more
realistic
to
talk
about
partial
appli-
cation :
other
countries
may
pick
up
a
clue
from
the
model
or
discern
some
features
in
it
which
would
be
applicable
in
their
case
if
adjusted
to
the
special
circumstances
prevailing.
Partial
application,
however,
includes
the
possibility
of
a
country
adopt-
ing
the
main
lines
of
another
country’s
policy
of
economic
cooperation
without
necessarily
following
them
in
every
detail.
Finland’s
position
as
a
potential
model
is
conditioned
by
certai1r
facts
of
a
perma-
nent
nature.
One
is
her
special
geographi-
cal
position
and
the
foreign
policy
in-
extricably
woven
into
it.
Another
is
her
socio-economic
system.
In
security
terms
Finland
is
linked
to
the
Soviet
Union
through
the
1948
Treaty
of
Friendship,
Cooperation
and
Mutual
Assistance.
The
treaty
has
since
become
the
cornerstone
of
Finland’s
foreign
policy,
including
her
policy
of
economic
cooperation.
However,
as
far
as
her
socio-economic
system
is
con-
cerned,
Finland
is
clearly
a
capitalist
country.
In
combination
these
historically
determined
facts
provide
the
Finnish
model
with
its
unique
background.
Lately
there
has
been
more
discussion
on
the
Finnish
model
than
before.
Some
features
of
the
discussion
have
given
Fin-
land
the
impetus
to
officially
explain
that
she does
not
want
to
urge
her
model
upon
others.’
This
is
not
the
purpose
of
the
present
article
either.
We are
simply
trying
to
outline
Finland’s
relative
posi-
tion
as
regards
certain
other
possible
models
and
to
evaluate
on
the
basis
of
comparative
discussion
the
applicability
of
the
Finnish
model
and
its
consequences.
Any
analysis
of
East-West
relations
is
bound
to
run
into
terminological
trouble
due
to
the
fact
that
the
relations
between
the
two
state
groupings
manifest
them-
selves
on
different
levels:
security,
politics,
economics,
culture.
As
these
are
the
most
commonly
used
terms
in
scientific
as
well
as
popular
literature,
we
choose
mainly
to
employ
’West’
and
’Western’,
and
’East’
and
’Eastern’,
respectively,
in
our
discussion.
When
emphasizing
the
eco-
nomic
dimension
of
East-West
relations
we
may
occasionally
resort
to
the
terms
(capitalist’
and
’socialist’.
In
this
paper
we
define
the
West
as
including
the
present
OECD
member
countries
with
the
excep-
tion
of
Australia
and
New
Zealand.
By
the
East
we
mean
the
present
European
member
states
of
CMEA.
II.
THE
PROFILE
OF
A
MODEL
To
qualify
as
a
model
in
the
present
anal-
ysis
a
country
must
fulfil
certain
criteria.
First
and
foremost,
it
is
necessary
that
the
country’s
economic
cooperation
across
bloc
boundaries
compares
favourably
with
East-West
economic
cooperation
in
gen-
eral.
To
be
more
specific,
we
shall
distin-
guish
between
three
features
characteristic
of
the
profile
of
a
model:
-
A
model
must
show
a
high
level
of
transactional
activity
in
its
dealings
with
the
East.
These
transactions
must
be
mutually
beneficial.
A
model
is
there-
fore
a
transactor
with
special
qualifica-
tions.
-
A
model
must
show
initiative
in
its
dealings
with
the
East.
Initiative
is
above
all
manifested
in
a
nation
being
the
first
to
initiate
a
new
form
of
co-
operation
or
a
new
type
of
practical
arrangement.
Thus
innovation
is
in-
extricably
woven
into
initiative.
In
a
word,
a
model
is
also
a
pioneer.
To continue reading
Request your trial