Foreign Policy Elites, Ideology and Decision-Making
| Author | Aira Kalela |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677601100205 |
| Date | 01 June 1976 |
| Published date | 01 June 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Foreign
Policy
Elites,
Ideology
and
Decision-Making:
A
Case
Study
of
the
Finnish
Elites’
Image
of
the
Third
World
and
their
Participation
in
Decision-Making
AIRA
KALELA
Institute
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Helsinki
Kalela,
A.
Foreign
Policy
Elites,
Ideology
and
Decision-Making:
A
Case
Study
of
the
Finnish
Elites’
Image
of
the
Third
World
and
their
Participation
in
Decision-
making.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
XI,
1976,
221-239.
The
structure
and
content
of
the
Finnish
foreign
policy
elite’s
ideology
concerning
the
issue
area
of
relations
with
the
Third
World
and
development
cooperation
is
dis-
cussed.
The
purpose
of
the
analysis
is
to
increase
the
understanding
of
the
nature
of
foreign
policy
formation.
Both
potential
and
actual
elites
are
studied.
First
the
criteria
by
which
the
potential
elite
can
be
defined
are
discussed
and
then,
in
order
to
discover
the
actual
elite,
various
means
of
influence
are
analysed.
The
various
elements
of
the
ideology
of
the
elite
are
studied
in
detail.
The
relationship
between
the
content
of
the
ideology
and
the
functional
and
structural
position
of
the
elite
as
well
as
its
general
societal
ideology
is
also
analysed
in
order
to
discover
the
factors
which
influence
the
content
of
the
ideology.
Aira
Kalela,
Institute
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Helsinki.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The
nature
of
the
foreign
policy
decision-
making
process
has
changed
in
the
course
of
recent
decades.
Internal
factors
in
the
State
and
the
expansion
of
international
relations
have
both
had
a
bearing
on
this
development.
The
structural
changes
that
have
occurred
in
the
process
have
brought
about
a
substantial
increase
in
the
size
of
the
corps
of
civil
servants
preparing
and
executing
the
decisions.
Some
deci-
sion-making
has
been
shifted
to
a
lower
level
in
the
hierarchy,
since
the
increase
in
the
number
of
decisions
has
led
to
their
partial
delegation
from
the
actual
decision-makers
to
the
administration,
and
from
higher
administrative
organs
to
lower
bodies.
Furthermore,
the
extension
of
functional
international
cooperation
to
all
fields
of
societal
activity
has
meant
the
transfer
of
the
preparation
and
im-
plementation
of
decisions
as
well
as
of
decision-making
itself
to
the
charge
of
other
officials,
apart
from
the
traditional
foreign
affairs
administration.
These
structural
changes
have
meant
a
decen-
tralization
of
the
administration
of
ex-
ternal
affairs,
on
the
one
hand,
and
a
bureaucratization
and
technocratization
of the
decision-making
process,
on
the
other.’
National
prosperity
depends
to
an
increasing
extent
on
the
results
of
inter-
national
collaboration.
The
extension
of
the
effects
of
cooperation
to
every
sector
of
society
has
increased
the
public
inter-
est
in
international
affairs.2
Various
or-
ganized
interests
attempt
to
influence
the
direction
of
cooperation
and
the
distri-
bution
of
the
material
and
ideological
values
connected
with
it,
but
there
is
still
not
necessarily
any
general
awareness
of
the
influence
of
all
the
questions
belong-
ing
’purely’
to
the
field
of
international
economic,
technological
and
cultural
co-
operation
on
the
State’s
internal
distri-
bution
of
resources
and
values.
The
increase
of
social
interest
in
international
relations
has
given
rise
to
a
discussion
about
the
democratization
of
the
foreign
222
policy
decision-making
system,
which
is
also
linked
with
efforts
to
increase
demo-
cratic
participation
in
general.
The
study
and
development
of
various
participation
systems
has
been
of
topical
interest
in,
for
example,
the
Nordic
countries.3
3
On
the
one
hand,
demands
put
on
the
foreign
policy
decision-making
process
have
increased;
on
the
other
hand,
the
process
itself
has
assumed
a
form
such
that
the
number
of
potential
or
actual
participants
has
actually
grown.
One
cannot
any
more
study
the
foreign
policy
decision-making
process
by
merely
ex-
amining
the
actual
decision-making
act
or
the
official
decision-makers.
On
the
contrary,
the
formulation
of
foreign
policy
is
the
result
of
a
prolonged
influence
pro-
cess.
Those
persons
who
potentially
or
actually
wield
power
in
the
foreign
policy
decision-making
process
are
defined
here
as
the
foreign
policy
elite.4
Although
the
developments
outlined
above
have
in-
creased
the
number
of
potential
partic-
ipants
in
the
foreign
policy
decision-
making
process,
the
actual
number
in
a
system
like
that
of
Finland
is
relatively
limited.5
In
the
following
the
Finnish
foreign
policy
elite
will
be
analysed.
It
is
intended
to
study
its
composition,
its
size
and
its
structure.6
The
study
of
the
elite’s
struc-
ture
is
fundamentally
linked
with
the
question
of
how
uniform
it
is
and
what
views
it
represents.
An
investigation
into
the
image
of
the
elite,
i.e.
its
ideology,
will
help
one
to
understand
the
back-
ground
to
the
activities
of
the
participants
in
the
foreign
policy
decision-making
process;
but
the
image
is
primarily
an
interesting
reflection
of
the
structure
of
the
elite.’
7
On
the
basis
of
ideological
differences,
conclusions
can
be
drawn
about
the
structure
of
the
elite
and
about
the
character
of
its
activities.
However,
the
ideology
of
the
elite
is
not
necessarily
directly
reflected
by
its
opinions
nor
by
its
practical
activity.
The
real
elite
has
a
tendency
to
adopt
a
pragmatic
way
of
thinking.8
It
is
intended
here
to
try
to
explain
how
factors
connected
with
the
position
of
the
elite
in
the
decision-mak-
ing
structure
influence
the
content
of
its
ideology,
and
how
ideological
differences
with
respect
to
a
specific
’sub-field’
of
foreign
policy
are
linked
with
societal
ideology
in
general.
This
’sub-field’
relates
to
questions
of
underdevelopment
and
development
aid,
and
was
chosen
as
the
subject
of
the
study
because
of
a
desire
to
thoroughly
investigate
the
elite’s
views
on
foreign
policy
in
a
relatively
neutral
issue-area.
If
the
elite’s
ideology
with
respect
to
the
developing
countries
is
linked
with
its
general
social
thinking,
then
one
can
use
it
as
a
basis
for
con-
clusions
about
the
content
of
the
remain-
ing
ideology
as
well.
II.
THE
FOREIGN
POLICY
ELITE
AND
THE
DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS
1.
Definition
of
the
Elite
’
Foreign
policy
elites
have
been
defined
in
the
foregoing
as
persons
who,
poten-
tially
or
actually,
wield
influence
over
the
formulation
of
foreign
policy.9
In
other
words,
the
definition
is
based
on
the
elite’s
activity
and
its
power
of
influ-
ence.10
In
the
literature
dealing
with
social
elites,
definitions
based
on
status
or
class
are
well
known.
According
to
these
an
elite
consists
of
a
privileged
class
or
is
distinguished
by
possessing
a
certain
status.&dquo;
The
former
definition
is
narrower
in
character,
since
not
all
the
members
of
an
elite
distinguished
on
the
basis
of
status
or
class
necessarily
use
their
influence.
The
former
definition
excludes
the
’inactive
elite’
through
which
it
is
not
possible
to
wield
influence
or
which
does
not
itself
attempt
to
influence
the
formulation
of
foreign
policy.12
Con-
versely,
a
definition
based
on
influence
or
activity
would
allow
an
elite
to
contain
To continue reading
Request your trial