Social Upheaval and Transformation of Elite Structures: The Case of Finland
| Author | Ilkka Ruostetsaari |
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00564.x |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Social Upheaval and Transformation of Elite
Structures: The Case of Finland
Ilkka Ruostetsaari
University of Tampere
The purpose of this study is to ascertain how certain important changes in Finnish society in the 1990s
altered the national elite structures and affected democracy.We examine how the patterns of recruit-
ment, interaction and cohesiveness among the elites changed in the period 1991–2001. The data for the
study were drawn mainly from postal surveys conducted among the elites and a sample of the popula-
tion in 1991 and 2001. The first research task was to establish how recruitment to various elites has
altered in terms of social stratification and education.The second was to analyse changes in patterns of
interaction between various elites as far as physical contacts and attitudes were concerned.The third was
to study the relationship between the elites and the general population on the basis of attitudinal affin-
ity.The conclusions were based on theoretical models characterising various elite structures and their
interconnections with democracy.The concept of a responsive elite is developed on the grounds of the
theory of democratic elitism. The changes in the Finnish elite structure have meant a passage towards
an inclusive structure compatible with democracy rather than towards an exclusive elite configuration.
Finnish elites have become more open and more diverse.
Whether politics is shaped more by political elites than by broad structural forces
and institutions, or whether the elites are mainly manifestations and reflections
of such forces and institutions remains a matter of fierce debate (Burton and
Higley, 2001, p. 182; see also Best and Cotta, 2000; Dogan and Higley, 1998a;
1998b; Higley and Lengyel, 2000; Higley and Moore, 2001; Knight, 1998;
Putnam, 1976).We argue, however,that the elite theory can be applied, even if
in a modified version, to the study of power in the context of an information
society, as in the case of Finland.
Social transformations during the 1990s have had significant effects on most
Finns’ lives.This paper examines the impact of these changes on Finland’s elite.
In the 1990s, Finland,a Nordic welfare state,exper ienced widespread social trans-
formations, which in the twentieth century can be compared only to World War
II. Finland plunged into the deepest economic recession in the country’s history,
that is, deeper than that of the early 1930s.The GNP decreased by more than
ten percent between 1991 and 1993,the value of the national currency fell almost
40 percent, unemployment climbed to 20 percent, and 130,000 jobs, a quarter
of all industrial workplaces, were lost.There was also a bank crisis and many busi-
ness concerns went bankrupt. In a few years, Finland fell from the ‘club of the
world’s wealthiest countries’ to below mid-level among the industrial countries
(see Kiander, 2001).
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2006 VOL 54, 23–42
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
24 ILKKA RUOSTETSAARI
Finnish society did not recover from the recession within a decade. Even though
the gross production prevailing prior to the recession was restored as early as
the end of 1996, domestic demand and employment did not regain the pre-
recession level until 2000. Private consumption exceeded the level of 1989 in
1997, while public consumption reached the 1991 level as late as 2000 (Kiander,
2001, pp. 62–5).
Apart from the ‘big recession’, ‘megatrends’ in Finnish society in the 1990s
included the collapse of the Soviet Union, and hence of the bilateral trade
between Finland and the Soviet Union. Moreover, the treaty on friendship and
cooperation between Finland and the Soviet Union,which was one of the cor-
nerstones of Finnish foreign policy, ceased to exist.Now Finland is affiliated with
the European Union (EU), with the European Monetary Union and as an
observer to the North Atlantic Cooperation Council of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation. The monetary markets were liberalised and the doctrine of neo-
liberalism was also introduced in the public sector.The public administration was
reformed according to the principles of deregulation, competition and privati-
sation.The information society was launched enthusiastically by the government.
The purpose of the present study is not to analyse the importance of the above-
mentioned individual social changes, but their cumulative effects on the Finnish
elite structure and on democracy. As these changes are intertwined, we cannot
set up a hypothesis in order to specify the causal relationship between social
changes and transformation of the power structures.
Theoretical Framework
In the classical view, represented by traditional pluralists and elitists, the coexis-
tence of elites and democracy is impossible. For instance, the principal aim of
the works of Mosca and Pareto was to abolish the myth of democracy.This black-
and-white stand was not, however, accepted by all theoreticians.The conception
that several elites or groups of leaders are compatible with democracy was called
pluralist by proponents such as Dahl, Polsby and Kornhauser. This notion also
included democratic elitism or the competitive theory of democracy as backed
by Schumpeter, Mannheim and Sartori (Parry, 1969; Schwarzmantel, 1987).
The existence of an elite cannot be attested by the fact that power is concen-
trated in the hands of a small group of people who take care of day-to-day deci-
sion-making. In fact, this is the prevailing situation in practically all modern
societies (for example, Birch, 2001, p. 186).The essential criterion for the exis-
tence of an elite is that it constitutes a cohesive,unitary and self-conscious group.
These characteristics are to be found in almost all elite definitions, and theories
of elites and empirical research on them have typically described a closed elite
in terms of the three Cs (Meisel, 1958, p. 361): group consciousness, coherence,
conspiracy, the last meaning a common will to action rather than secret machi-
nations (Parry, 1969, pp. 31–2).
© 2006 The Author
Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
To continue reading
Request your trial