Åbo Academy

Sven Lindman once made the paradoxical observation that political science is both a very old and a fairly new discipline.¹ The latter is more pertinent to the academic world in Finland, the first professorial chairs in the subject being established at Åbo Academy in 1918 (though, due to various circumstances not activated until 1937)² and at the University of Helsinki in 1921, and the first doctoral dissertation being discussed in 1922 when Yrjo Ruutu defended his dissertation Kansakunta (The Nation). Up to the Second World War the discipline grew, but hardly at avalanche-like speed. Ruutu's pioneering work was followed by four more dissertations,³ and the founding of the Finnish Political Science Association in the autumn of 1935 created a modest, yet firmer platform for the continued endeavors of the discipline.

Post-war development can be described in many ways. It has been maintained that the mid-1950's marked a turning point in Finnish political science; at that time new ideas broke through and interest was focused on new problems.⁴ Earlier political science research had focused on the study of the state and institutions - a study that did not exclude metaphysical elements - and it was not until the middle and the late 1950's that the interest in behavioral research began to reach Finland. Admittedly, programmatic statements to that effect can be found earlier. Jussi Teljo's inauguration spech as professor at the University of Helsinki in 1949 has often been cited as the starting point of modern Finnish political science. It is thus forgotten that as early as in the 1930's Sven Lindman's appearances constituted the first major attempt to think in terms of invariances and in terms of an inductive search for empirical theory.5 Anyhow, generally speaking it is correct to state that at the beginning of the 1960's Finnish political science had definitively entered a new phase. The amount of research also showed an increase; no less than 6 out of a total of 9 dissertations were presented during the latter half of the 1950'5.e

However, research had not advanced very far. When the Political Science
Association changed its yearbook Valtio ja Yhteiskunta (State and Society) into
a journal Politiikka (Politics) in 1959, there appeared in the first issue an article

by Jan-Magnus Jansson in which the author describes in the following words the
progress of research in Finnish political science:

Today, the mapping of political life in Finland has advanced about as far as the mapping of Africa in Livingstone's and Stanley's time. The coastal formations have been drawn up and the principal mountain chains are known; furthermore one has become familiar with some places. But all over the continent there are still immense unknowns as well as more or less imaginative interpretations that the mapmakers have put on paper while lacking exact information and relying solely on rumours.⁷

The aim of this essay is to describe in broad terms the development of political science in Finland since the above quoted evaluation was written. Of course, it is anything but easy to live up to this ambition in the limited space available here. It is inevitable that much will remain unsaid and many important distinctions and nuances are omitted. The following is a rather rough and summary description, which we hope will still bring out the essential outlines. The methodical approach of this description is twofold in order to answer two questions: what has been written and how. The first question we will try to answer primarily by presenting some quantitative data and the latter by developing certain qualitative arguments and by giving examples.

A systematic description of the study of politics obviously presupposes a choice of dimensions - for instance, Olof Ruin has proposed in an essay the following five: nature, level, region, time, and sector.⁸ It is quite obvious that these dimensions do, to a certain degree, overlap. When we prefer to choose sectoral categories here, we are conscious of the fact that they are not pure. To a certain extent they are also artificial. For instance, when a systems analytical perspective is used in the study of politics then a conventional sectoral division places studies that should actually belong to the same category into different ones; an example of this is when studies on international politics are separated from studies on intranationa'l politics, in spite of the fact that these studies answer the same type of 'systemic' questions. When, despite this, we speak here of different sectors of political science, it is because our method is essentially determined by the properties of our material.

When we here try to make some general quantitative observations we rely on the bibliographic information given for the years 1961-72⁹ in the joint yearbook of the Scandinavian political science associations Scandinavian Political Studies (hereafter referred to as SPS). Consequently we will make a content analysis of these bibliographies, and our content categories are those employed in the yearbook, i.e.: A = Political Science; B = Political Thought; C = Government and Public Administration; D = Governmental Process; E = International Relations; and F = Area Studies. The recording unit indicates individual works, the context unit the sector of politics to which the work is referred in the bibliographies, and the enumeration unit the number of pages, which for obvious reasons is a more accurate measurement than the number of publications. In order to increase the

validity of the material it has been freed of elements - publications such as committee reports and 'government papers' - which if included could bias the result. The material is then distributed along a time axis, on which the period 1961-72 is divided into six shorter periods of two years each. Thus observations are made at six points of time for every sector.

The reason we have not to any larger extent made use of the sectoral subdivisions employed in SPS is partly that they are superfluous to our requirements, and partly because the subdivisions are problematic from the point of view of validity. The material of the SPS bibliographies is plentiful and varied in the sense that it includes publications that strictly speaking do not fall within the framework of political science - we have in mind politically orientated publications in law, philosophy, sociology and history, It goes without saying that such studies are important for the understanding of politics; at the same time it is clear that they blur our attempts at drawing an autline. When studying our numerical tables one should thus bear in mind that the representativeness of our material is open to question. We have tried to correct the bias, which may arise in the description, by limiting our discussion strictly to publications within the framework of political science as an academic discipline.

1. Governmental Process and Governmental Apparatus

In trying to structure our description, we actually need, as a point of departure, a general theory of politics which can serve as a guidepost. However, we cannot fulfill this requirement. It is true that there have been many attempts to produce such a theory, bu not very successful ones, and this also holds true of the probably most ambitious attempt at a general theory, i.e. David Easton's very general and abstract systems theory.¹⁰ When we, in spite of this, make use of the Eastonian approach we are not modifying our negative judgement; we only intend to use Easton's 'theory' as a model which gives a simplified picture of a complex reality and thus makes this reality manageable. We think that Easton's model is useful and cannot be denied some merit in this respect.¹¹ Thus we are of the opinion that the Eastonian theory abstracts reality in a way which makes it possible, at least on a very general level, to organize research into categories - we are here referring to the visualization of a processual chain with the components input-conversionoutput-outcomes-input, etc.

These four relations could in fact be combined into two main categories, which would distinguish between input-oriented and output-oriented research. This raises the obvious objection that there is something between input and output that must not be left out; that input and output are variables that connect the political system to its environment, but that attention should also be paid to the system itself. To be sure, this objection is quite valid. We think that these problems can be dealt with if for both input and output we make a further distinction between a causeaspect and an effect-aspect: input has a cause-aspect in the environment and an effect-aspect in the political system and the system border lies between these two

aspects; output has a cause-aspect in the system and an effect-espect in the environment and here the system border lies between these two aspects.¹² If we present the problem in this way we should be able to make the following general classification which appears in Figure 1.

It is not altogether easy to describe the flow between the cells by using the categorization of our bibliographies, but we should to a certain extent be justified in stating that the flow from cell 1 to cell 2 - i.e. the conversion of wants to demands and/or support - is included in research registered in bibliography sector D (Governmental Process). First turning our attention to this sector we find, based on the information in Table I, that it tends to expand with time, especially when its proportion of the Finnish total output is contrasted with the corresponding proportion of the total output of the other Scandinavian countries. At four measuring points out of six the former proportion has been larger (= +) than the latter, and three of these four points are the most recent ones. The impression that this sector, dominated to a large extent by behavioral problems, still enjoys a rather strong position in Finnish political science is further strengthened when we look at the summary of doctoral dissertations during the period 1960-1975 in Table 11.

We could make a number of distinctions and systematizations as to the study of the flow from wants to input (from cell 1 to cell 2), but for our present purpose it should be sufficient to simply distinguish between (1) studies of the relationship between societal development and input; (2) studies of articulation structures; and (3) studies of political behavior. When we begin by commenting upon the first group of literature we can generally say that it has not been as prominently represented in Finland as in the other Scandinavian countries;¹³ however, this is not to say that Finnish political science is lacking in important contributions. Tatu Vanhanen has worked rather intensively in this field, and his doctoral

dissertation Puolueet ja pluralismi (D 10, 1968) deals with the relationship between social and political pluralism in ten member countries of the Commonwealth. The hypothesis that Vanhanen tests holds that the degree of pluralism in the party system correlates positively with the degree of pluralism in society, and his conclusions - which he reaches through rather crude operationalizations - are in short that such a co-variation exists in connection with modern pluralism (which is based on economic and social differences), but not in connection with a traditional pluralism (which is based on differences between communal groups). The dissertation enriches our knowledge of the social preconditions for a multiparty system, and Vanhanen has later further developed these ideas in an ambitious project where he measures the relationship between social and political variables in all independent countries of the world. The project is divided into three parts: Vanhanen has published the first part (C 22, 1975) which deals with 25 countries in the American hemisphere during the period 1850-1973. The other two volumes are going to deal, on the one hand, with European countries and, on the other, with African, Asian and Oceanic countries.

In this field there are two other doctoral dissertations in political science, both of which were discussed in 1971. Mikko Eklin writes from a functional perspective about the foundation of legal norms for economic activities (C 50, 1971), while Pekka Våånånen in his dissertation Poliittinen uudenaikaistuminen (C 7, 1971) gives a theoretical analysis of the concept of modernization and an application of the frame of reference concerning a limited empirical problem, i.e., the forms of modernization in some 70 communes in an electoral district in Southern Finland. A collection of readings edited by Voitto Helander called Vennamolaisuus populistisena joukkoltikkeerid (D 21, 1971) offers information concerning the societal origins of a populist movement.

It is natural that we find in the area of study under discussion many examples of contributions that increase our political knowledge without belonging to political science in the strict sense that we presuppose here. As an example we can mention Erik Allardt's important book Samhallsstruktur och sociala spanningar (D 30, 1965), in which the author presents a general theory of social structure and group behavior. The central idea of this theory is that social tensions result from interaction between different factors in the social structure. Social tension then causes different forms of mass behavior. Allardt defines this theory by further developing Emile Durkheim's classical theory of the division of labor. The book is a remarkable intellectual achievement, and it is of great interest to political science because throughout the book Allardt pays attention to the political aspects of the social phenomena he analyses.

We then turn to the study of articulation structures and we find that interest organizations have been the object of two doctoral dissertations. Vaino Huuska's dissertation Etujarjestojen painostuspolitiikka Suomessa (D 11, 1968) can be characterized as an introduction and a broad basic description. Huuska studies the activities of five big interest groups during the period 1945-64, and his comparative approach leads to a many-sided outline which we think could have been structured in a more theoretical way. One of the author's points of focus is relations between, on the one hand, the resources of the organizations and on the other hand, the types of pressure that they have used and their degree of success. The same purpose is found in Voitto Helander's dissertation Julkisyhteisot vaikuttajina (D 11, 1971), where the author deals with the pressure activities of three municipal central organizations for the period 1945-1968. The theoretical part of the dissertation contains a good analytical resumé of the approaches used by those researching pressure groups and their methods, but it should be added that Helander neglects the content of the activities he scrutinizes. In addition, he does not attach sufficient importance to the relationship between the organizations and state administration, which seems very interesting from the point of view of influence. Helander has also published another major work - Painostustoiminta lainsaddantoprosessissa (D 11, 1969) - where in an empirically indepth case study he goes into the activities of the pressure groups during the reform of legislation on alcoholic beverages which was completed in 1968.

Thus the study of interest organizations has been rather neglected, and we would in fact like to make the somewhat surprising statement that this also applies to the study of political parties. It is true that the party aspect has received much attention in studies of different political phenomena, but it has been rarer to focus research on the party, its organization and behavior. Raili Ruusala has studied in her doctoral dissertation the internal party arena. It is an empirically comprehensive but theoretically lean study of certain aspects of the internal democracy of the Social Democratic party (1972). In a series of essays entitled Some Forms of Party Activity l-11l (D 21, 1970, 1972, 1974) Sven Lindman has among other things studied the educational organizations and the research institutions that are connected to parties. The behavior of parties was studied by Dag Anckar in his doctoral dissertation Partiopinioner och utrikespolitik (D 21, 1971), which deals with the

debate on foreign policy in the Finnish party political press during the eventful years 1955-63. Anckar conducts his study from the angle of party strategy, and his aim is, on the one hand, to find ideological attitude patterns and, on the other, to determine the propaganda structure of editorials. As to the former he finds three patterns of interpretation — a limitative, an adaptive, and an augmentative pattern - into which the party attitudes can be fitted. In the latter case using different content analytical techniques he illustrates the aims of the debaters and their propaganda objectives. Anckar has in a more recent and more theoretical work Analys av partiers beteende (D 20, 1974) further studied party strategy, and in a case study - the origin of the Finnish party law of 1969 - he has tried to learn the factors party decisions are based upon; the study also contains an attempt to look at party behavior from a systems analytical perspective.

Kari Sulevo's dissertation about the attitudes of political parties towards Nordic co-operation 1935-69 (D 21, 1973) deals with the same general kind of problems but Sulevo approaches them from a context analytical perspective, the task being to explain party attitudes in relation to variations in the international system. However, Sulevo's sweeping frame of reference creates problems concerning important intervening variables.

The study of political activity has aroused much interest in Finland during this period, but this interest has been documented mostly in short research reports, and major works have been rather scarce. However, two doctoral dissertations have been published: Heikki Koski has studied the participation of commune members in decision-making processes and the administration of the city of Pori (C 71, 1970), and Tuomo Martikainen has presented what he calls a narrow strategic study with the aim of giving more precise interpretations of already known general ralationships concerning political activity {Political Activity: Structure, Determinants and Dynamics, D 30, 1973). Both dissertations report certain interesting observations, but we are perhaps justified in saying that neither of them are milestones in Finnish political science.

This opinion can actually be generally applied to the study of political activity in Finland, where, for example, socialization processes have not been sufficiently studied; but it does not apply to the special type of activities that have been developed in connection with elections, i.e. electoral behavior. This field has been popular in Finland, and several both extensive and more specialized studies deserve to be mentioned a few here. At the same time we ought to point out that in this respect Finland does not differ from the rest of the Scandinavian countries where election research has also occupied an important position, and that the trend has been clearly declining in the 1970'5. In Finland the enthusiasm for election research has been a phenomenon of the sixties. Our own immediate impression is that the decline has probably been stronger in Finland than in the other Scandinavian countries.

Anyhow, when we take a look at the literature of election research we may first mention Klaus Tornudd's handbook The Electoral System of Finland (D 342, 1968) and Tuttu Tarkiainen's historical study Eduskunnan valitseminen 1907-1963 (D 342, 1971), which give clear surveys of the electoral system, its institutional

frame and effect. Of the contributions that are based on ecological data we will mention three here, i.e., Onni Rantala's general study of Finland's electoral geography (D 21, 1965), Risto Sånkiaho's doctoral dissertation about the regional support fo rparties in the province of Uusimaa (D 21, 1968), and Erik Allardt's analysis of the ecology of political radicalism in Finland which has been presented at a series of international conferences (D 31, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1971). As a matter of fact Rantala's book is an introduction to a research project - the rest of which is yet to appear - and the author limits this first part to what could be called the static parts of the political map. Rantala uses the election statistics for all the parliamentary elections during the period 1907-58, and describes the strongholds of four groupings - the Agrarian party, the other non-socialist partie, the Social Democrats and the Communists. The concept of strongholds he further subdivides into terms such as core area and influence area. The basic unit of the study is the commune, the main conclusion being that in Finland many areas have become politically static but that different social changes are reducing the importance of political areas and political traditions. Sånkiaho's dissertation is composed of cross section analyses of the results of the parliamentary elections 1907-1962. The study is methodologically interesting as Sankiaho uses throughout different variants of factor analysis, thus overcoming the traditional static conception of this technique; at the same time, however, his overriding interest in methodology overshadows the substance of the dissertation and this means that his conclusions concerning the importance of different societal changes remain insufficiently elaborated.

In the field of survey research Pertti Pesonen has for a long time been the leading name. His comprehensive study of the parliamentary election of 1958 was published in Finnish and in English (D 342, 1965, 1967). The book is very rich in information and Pesonen works with great methodical precision in this panel study, using the famous classical American election studies as a model. The results obtained in the American studies are also applicable to Finland - though naturally not in every respect - and Pesonen is able to make many obervations that are typical of Finland. It is not possible to relate the findings here, but as an important detail one can mention Pesonen's conclusion about the importance of personal discussions in bringing about changes of opinion. Pesonen has also edited an anthology in which he has collected the results from an extensive research project concerning the parliamentary elections in 1966 and in 1970. We regret to say that this anthology is published only in Finnish. The contributions are qualitatively uneven, but many of them are empirically informative and important. It should also be mentioned that Pesonen has made some general reviews for international publications (C 20, 1973, D 21, 1972, D 30, 1962, D 31,1967).

When, after these admittedly insufficient commentaries we go on to discuss cells 3 and 4 in our earlier typology, we at the same time move from the bibliography sector D to sector C (Government and Public Administration). Table 111 shows that this sector has been well represented in Finnish political science, although the trend is declining. In the beginning of the period we have an obvious peak (more than half of the total output), thereafter a decline to about a third of

the total output, and at the end of the period a further decline to barely a quarter. In spite of this the sector has been able to maintain a relatively prominent position and this is due to the fact that the same declining tendency has been apparent in the other Scandinavian countries as well, where the output represented by this sector is 18 % of the total output at the most recent measuring point and 27 % for the period as a whole. Thus we can summarize by saying that the interest in this field has been declining in Scandinavia, but that the interest in Finland, as concerns quantity, has been relatively more prominent. We should, however, make the important reservation that the contribution of historical and above all public law literature is extensive in the SPS bibliographies, and our impression - which we have not controlled - is that this is especially true of Finland and in particular for the first half of the period. We should also add the observation that the numerical decline is not really accurate in relation to present political science in Finland. This observation is confirmed by our table showing the number of doctoral dissertations (Table II) and by the great interest policy analysis has aroused during the last few years (we will return soon to discuss this).

It may be appropriate to begin our brief survey of the literature in this vast field by mentioning that Jaakko Nousiainen's thorough and almost indispensable textbook about the political system in Finland was published in new editions during this period (C2l, 4th edition, 1970) and even in translations into Swedish (C2l, 1966) and English (C 21, 1970). When the Finnish Form of Government Act in 1969 was 50 years old the jubilee was commemorated by a number of publications, in which, as writers, the representatives of constitutional law appeared to be more industrious than those of political science. Sven Lindman's extensive work about the drawing up of the Form of Government Act (C 21, 1969) was, however, appropriately published for the occasion. This book is part of a work in progress concerning the history of parliament and gives a detailed description of the struggle and the arguments that took place concerning many aspects of the Form of Government Act. However, the greatest interest it offers for a political scientist is in the observations on the debate about the principles of constitutional theory that Lindman includes in his text. Lindman's volume in the historical series is complemented by Mauno Jaaskelainen's volume about parliament during the years 1919-1938 (C 321, 1969).¹⁴

It is no coincidence that we have turned to the study of parliament and its
activities. The study of conversion processes has, during the whole period, shown
a marked bias in favor of research about parliament, and in this research we are

distinguishing between two groups of studies: on the one hand we have studies
about members of parliament as a political elite; on the other hand we have studies
about the parties in parliament and the work of parliament.

The leading work in the first genre is no doubt Martti Noponen's doctoral dissertation Kansanedustajien sosiaalinen tausta Suomessa (C 321, 1964). It is a very thorough and elaborate survey of permanent value - Noponen analyzes in detail the social background of the members of parliament and other connected questions such as their occupational background, social mobility, demographic characteristics and earlier activities. The dissertation operates over a long time span, but attention is principally focused on the first two decade of independence. The study is predominantly descriptive, but it gains in theoretical relevance because of the comparisons the author continuously makes with corresponding observations about other political systems. In an article he published in collaboration with Pertti Pesonen (C 321, 1964), Noponen has also presented some of his results to a broader international public.

A further study in the field of elite research is Matti Oksanen's dissertation on the role of the member of parliament (C 321, 1969), which is based on interviews with 193 out of 200 members of the 1969 parliament. The aim of these interviews is to collect information about the political careers of the members of parliament, their role conceptions, existing role dimensions and role webs as well as the dependence of the role system on social and political background factors. The study results in a general description based on a factor model. A key conclusion of this study can be mentioned here: it is evident that the party aspect has low explanatory value and that within every parliamentary group there are role conflicts and conflicting opinions.

In Finnish political science there are a number of minor studies of 'the parties in parliament'. For instance, the anatomy of the budgetary debate, questions in parliament and the right to interpellate have been analysed in these terms. A frequent theme has been the attitude of parties to wards certain issues in parliament. We can mention two doctoral dissertations in this field. Vilho Tervasmaki describes in his dissertation Eduskuntaryhmat ja maanpuolustus valtiopaivilla 1917 -1939 (C 321, 1964) the debate on national defence in the pre-war period and the shifts in the attitudes of the parties to questions of national defence, using both qualitative and quantitative content analysis. Pekka Louhelainen presents in his dissertation Eduskunta ja elaketurva (C 321, 1972), also employing content analysis, a picture of the attitudes of the parlimentary groups and the members of parliament to the development of the pension system in the 1960'5, whereas the party aspect is not prominent in the study of the petitional right of parliament that Jaakko Nousiainen published right at the beginning of the period under discussion here. Eduskunta aloitevallan kayttajana (C 321, 1961) is a very clear description of an important aspect of constitutional practice and the role of parliamentary leadership in this practice.

Parliamentary voting offers valuable material for the study of group cohesion
and coalition patterns, and these problems have above all been studied by Pekka
Nyholm and Markku Laakso. In his doctoral dissertation (C 321, 1961) Nyholm

discusses party cohesion and voting in parliament during the period 1948-1951 as well as 1954, and uses Stuart Rice's index of cohesion to describe and summarize the conduct of the different parties and the differences in cohesion between them. Nyholm is further interested in the kinds of questions that cause a split within the different groupings. By relating cohesion to issues and strategy that are essential problems of party research, he categorizes on the basis of group combinations that have arisen in the voting. Nyholm has in another theoretically and methodologically less rigid book studied agrarian interests in parliament (C 321, 1965), and in a third book (Parliament, Government and Multi-Dimensional Party Relations in Finland, D 20, 1972) he has, in the light of the voting in parliament during the years 1951-1958, studied the relation between parliament and the cabinet with a view to giving a quantitative description of party relations in the Finnish multiparty system. In a rather extensive study Laakso has made an attempt to apply William H. Riker's coalition theory to empirical roll-call data for three parliamentary sessions; the not unexpected result of this study is that the theory as such is not valid. However, Laakso offers suggestions for developing the theory and these are worth considering. In his interesting doctoral dissertation Kansanedustuslaitos koalitio- ja valtasuhderakenteena (C 321, 1975) Laakso presents a number of essays, in which, using the coalition theory approach, he looks for connections between structures and rules of the game that could provide the study of coalition behavior with a more meaningful frame and a deeper content.

Among the other central institutions of state the presidency has been rather neglected as an object of research; however, Sven Lindman has in an article (Presidential Power in Focus, C 310, 1971) pointed out questions that call for closer study. On the other hand, the State Council and its activities have received more attention primarily because an extensive work on the history of the State Council was begun during the period. Two volumes of this history appear in offprint and are of direct interest to political scientists. The volumes are Ilkka Heiskanen's V'altioneuvoston asema Suomen poliittisessa jarjestelmassa (C 310, 1975) and Jaakko Nousiainen's Valtioneuvoston jdrjestysmuoto ja sisdinen toiminta (C 310, 1975). The latter work is a general description of the State Council as a collegial organization, and of the different ministries and their organization. The description is based on a great amount of primary data and on interviews with politicians and higher ranking officials. Heiskanen has actually had a more advantageous subject to deal with, and he succeeds in raising his analysis to a higher theoretical level. He employs concepts such as division of labor and sanctions in order to systematize the description of the relations between the State Council and other political institutions. The analysis ends with the conclusion that the position of the State Council has grown in importance at the expense of Parliament, when at the same time it can be established that part of political power has been removed from the central political institutions to political sectors outside, such as parties, pressure groups and the administration.

The political aspects of judicial power have unfortunately been a no man's
land in political science during the period under observation here. The only larger
work we can mention is written by Jaakko Nousiainen - and it deals with the

judicial regulation of the electoral system in the U.S.A. in the years 1957-1973
(D 342,1974).

When we turn from the central institutions of state to the administrative apparatus we find that we move from relatively well-trodden paths to something like a desert. The state administration was up to the 1970's an almost untouched field of research in political science, and disregarding here the so-called DETA-project - to which we shall shortly return - there is not much to report. If we mention a couple of titles these should be Matti Jaaskinen's dissertation on the system of decision-making concerning questions of poliy on alcoholic beverages in the Scandinavian countries (C 50, 1975), and Jaakko Nousiainen's and Ilkka Heiskanen's article on the politico-administrative consequences of economic planning (C 50, 1969). We find more important contributions to research on administration at the local government level, which has not actually been very popular in Finnish political science; much of what has been written has, in addition, had strong legal elements and elements directed towards practical local government matters.¹⁵ But still three doctoral dissertations have been written in the field of public administration. The first of these is Erkki Pystynen's Kunnan suuruus kunnallishallinnossa (C 71, 1965), in which the author, by studying all the rural communes in Finland tries to define the size structure of rural communes and grasp the influence of the structure on different aspects of communal administration. The second dissertation is Paavo Hoikka's Suomen kuntien sivistyshallinto (C 71, 1969), in which the author analyses the organization, development and structural relationships of educational administration in rural communes. In addition to these, there is Krister Ståhlberg's doctoral dissertation which was discussed at the end of 1975 and which was called Teori och praxis i kommunal planering (C 71, 1975). The dissertation is a welcome contribution to the scarce literature on decisionmaking theory in Finland. Ståhlberg holds that planning is motivated by a rationalistic argumentation, but that empiricism, i.e. the practice of planning, does not confirm this theory and is not capable of attaining this rationalistic model. Instead, Ståhlberg recommends another decision-making approach, so-called incrementalism, and holds that it functions better on a descriptive level and is superior to rationalism for normative reasons.

If the study of the flow from input to output has stirred continuous interest during the period, it is quite a different matter concerning the study of the flow from output to outcomes (i.e. from cell 3 to 4). It can actually be said that this study is a phenomenon of the 1970's in the same way as the study of political behavior was a phenomenon of the sixties, and it is this shift we alluded to in the title of this essay. Above all this policy analysis interest has been documented within the framework of the so-called DETA-project (in Finnish the letters stand for democracy and equality), which was begun in 1973 with the aim of studying the societal mechanisms that cause inequality in resources and need satisfaction. The prominent personalities of this project are Ilkka Heiskanen and Tuomo Martikainen, who alone and jointly with other participants in the project have published many theoretically and empirically stimulating essays and reports. However, we have to bypass these because of lack of space, and we can only say a few

words about some of the more important studies within the project. In the project plan itself, which was written by Heiskanen and Martikainen (C 71, 1975) a number of sub-projects are elaborated, aimed at such problems as the relationship between state and local government and its significance for regional services and living standards, the level of integration in commerce and industry and its significance for conslmers and consumer demand as well as the regulating effect of the public sector for societal exchange. Martikainen has jointly with Risto Yrjonen written an important book - Kollektiivihyodykkeiden tuotanto ja jakelu poUittishallinnollisesta nakokulmasta (C 50, 1974) - in which the authors create concepts and categories that are related to the special type of policy they are interested in, and further analyse how the government subsidy system to the communes actually functions. In the book Julkisen sektorin kasvu Suomessa (C 611, 1975), Martikainen has also provided a useful review and discussion of the expansion of the public sector in Finland over a very long time span.

As we are touching on these problems we cannot avoid mentioning Erik Allardt's extensive project about welfare and its distribution in the Scandinavian countries.¹⁶ The project can hardly be said to belong to political science in a strict sense, but its problems - which expressed in the terminology we have employed in this essay are mostly concerned with the flow from autcomes to wants - are still of great interest to political science. The many publications of the project must remain unmentioned here, and we have to content ourselves with a reference to Allardt's book An ha, att alska, att vara (B 20, 1975) - a title that reveals in a nutshell the welfare components included in the project's theoretically fascinating frame of reference.

2. Political Theory and International Polities

When we here speak about 'political theory' we use the expression as a diffuse umbrella concept which covers two segments of the field of political science: trie study of methodology and the study of political ideas. When we translate this into SPS terms we denote sectors A (Political Science) and B (Political Thought), and it is these two sectors that we shall first examine.

As to the first sector we observe in Table IV that it does not account for a large portion of the total output and that it has in general been less well represented in the Finnish than in the Scandinavian output. However, the difference is not marked - the proportion of this sector of total Scandinavian output is 4 % - and a certain growing trend can be noticed in the Finnish figures. (The trend is also discernible in the list of Finnish doctoral dissertations we presented earlier in Table II). The fact that the figures are so low earlier in the period is perhaps somewhat surprising, because one has the general impression that the 1960's was a period of lively discussion on method and technique in Finland. For instance, one has in a combination of different scientific climates tried to find an explanation as to why a technique such as factor analysis has been so popular a weapon in Finnish social and political science.¹⁷ It should, however, be observed that questions

of methodology and method are the object of discussion in publications that have here been referred to other sectors of political science. Consequently, a considerable part of what has been written about theory and method is not to be found in the quantities presented here. The figures refer exclusively to publications that concern methodology or method.

Of the three doctoral dissertations presented we should first mention Ilkka Heiskanen's Theoretical Approaches and Scientific Strategies in Administrative and Organizational Research (A 2, 1967), which in the opinion of many is an example of the best that Finnish political science has produced in the period under examination. Heiskanen's ambition is metatheoretical - he presents some metatheoretical criteria, discusses them, applies them to some theories in the field of administrative research, and finally attempts to draw up alternatives to the theories he has examined. A dominant theme is the contrasting of reduction and contextual strategies of theory construction, and Heiskanen arrives at the conclusion that the former type of strategy tends to lead to a theory-building with a low pragmatic and informative value. The thesis is based on an examination of a great number of theoretical concepts, models and generalizations, and Heiskanen finds a cause for the inferiority of reduction strategies in what he calls premiselike 'application assumptions'.

Hannu Nurmi deals in his dissertation Causality and Complexity (A 2, 1974) with the difficult problem of causality in social sciences and its relation to social complexity. The dissertation offers good surveys, but Nurmi's own reasoning is often rather vague and cautious, which is quite natural when we consider the magnitude of the problems he discusses. Still, a main conclusion in the dissertation is an argument in favor of a change from strategies that concentrate on 'seeing that' to strategies that focus on 'seeing as'. Nurmi offers a review of the problems that one encounters i napproaching social complexity from the perspective of general systems theory. The dissertation also contains a review of statistical techniques for causal analysis and a critique of these techniques.

Kari Palonen presents in his dissertation Aatekritiikki aatekritiikkind (B 1, 1975) an original program for the research of ideas, which he also tests with a criticism of some other researchers of ideas. Palonen puts forward antijustificationism as his most important methodological principle.

The grouping of other larger works is rather difficult - firstly there are not
many of them and secondly they have dealt with different subjects which cannot be
put within the same framework. Tuomo Martikainen's study Politiikan behaviora

linen tutkimus (A 2, 1968) is in its subject matter representative of methodologically dominating trends in Finnish political science in the 1960'5; the study also contains several good concept analyses. Jan Magnus Jansson has published a textbook characterized by a functionalistic approach, called Politikens teori (B 20, 1969, 1970), and Dag Anckar has, in one of the few systems analytical works in Finnish political science, subjected David Easton's system conception to a close and critical examination, discussing both internal and external model aspects (A 2, 1974). We can here only mention a few of the many well-written articles. Erik Allardt has written several articles that are well worth reading - for instance on the relationship between political science and sociology (A D, 1969, A 2, 1965, D 30, 1975, D 31, 1971) and conflict and consensus theorists (D 30, 1963, 1966); Heiskanen has written an interesting and disillusioned essay on the methodological discussion in the social sciences (A 2, 1971), and, jointly with Martikainen, a good review of the methodological problems of policy-analysis (A 2, 1974). Nurmi has written about, for instance, methodological decisions in comparative political analysis (A 2, 1972), about the model concept and model criteria (A 0, 1972) as well as about the concept of rationality in politics (A 1, 1975). Erkki Berndtson has in two articles examined questions related to the scientific interest of political science (A 0, 1971 and A2, 1973). The fact that all of the essays mentioned here were written since 1968 verifies what we stated above about the rising methodological trend in Finnish political science.

As we turn to the other component of 'political theory', the research of political ideas, we observe that the thesis of the difficult position of political ideas in modern political science is correct,¹⁸ and that this is especially true in Finland (Table V). The sector covers 6 % of the output in Finland and slightly more than 10 % of the output in the other Scandinavian countries; it is also true to say that its proportion of total output has continuously been rather modest and that only at one point has it covered a larger part of the Finnish than the Scandinavian output. In addition, the importance of these quantities are reduced because the bibliographies in this sector report quite a lot of propaganda literature. The minor increase that can be noted for Finland towards the end of the period under observation is thus caused by a great number of such normative elements, not by an increased scientific interest. The assumption that has occasionally been put forward, namely that the attraction which more modern fields of research have exerted has not let the study of political ideas decline in Finland, appears to a large extent to be wishful thinking.¹⁹

With regard to what we have just said it does not seem very justifiable to talk about development trends in Finnish political science in this sector. The fact that most major works analyse party ideologies - this, for instance, holds for those three doctoral dissertations that have been presented in this field - still provides the motivation for selecting this field as a focal sector. If we use Evert Vedung's well-known distinction between content-oriented and function-oriented analysis of ideas,²⁰ we could further state that the focal point rather clearly lies in the first category. Heimer Lindstrøm's dissertation Religion och politik (B l, 1973), however, represents the relational category, as the author discusses flows between religious and political idea elements in Finnish political parties during the period just before the First World War.

O'lavi Borg's and Ralf Helenius's contributions should be mentioned here. The former in his doctoral dissertation Suomen puolueideologiat makes a methodologically (content analysis) and theoretically mature contribution that has been of great importance to Finnish research on political parties, not the least because Borg in his analysis defines a basic ideological ordinal scale of political parties. Today the dissertation does not seem as technically advanced as at the time of publication - one of Borg's general aims was to test the applicability of quantitative methods to the study of political ideologies and political language - but its substance is of lasting value. Borg classifies statements in the programs by using a theoretical framework composed of, for instance, general behavioral theories and linguistic theories, and the classification is not only based on the contents of the programs but also on their structural characteristics.

In turn, Helenius in his extensive doctoral study The Profile of Party Ideologies (D 20, 1969) makes a contribution to the debate on the decline of ideologies, and he operates here with a methodologically interesting but perhaps not quite convincing distinction between manifest and latent party ideologies. Helenius employs as his theoretical basis Robert Michels's law of transgression, and this central hypothesis he tests by comparatively analysing the party programs and literature of three social democratic and three non-socialist parties in Sweden, Germany and England. In a later work - Suuret ismit 1970-luvun polittikassa (B 1, 1972) - Helenius operates with a basic idea, which in short is that the ism-formation has three segments defined as democratic, particularist and characteristic.

An earlier work by Onni Rantala (B 27, 1960) also belongs in the category of research about ideas. In this book the author tries by means of a survey to grasp the attitudinal pattern of the members of the conservative Coalition Party. The study is methodologically interesting, because it combines in a creative way qualitative and quantitative techniques. Among other publications in the field of ideological research we shall here mention two philosophically oriented works by Reijo Wilenius, the doctoral dissertation The Social and Political Theory of Francisco Sudrez (B 1,1963) and a study of Marx's early thinking (B 23, 1966); further, we want to point out Sven Lindman's analysis of the concept of nationality in Finnish-Swedish political thought (B 24, 1964), a set of problems to which Lindman has returned in a major study he is working on at the moment.

As we finally turn our attention to the study of the international system and

international relations - i.e. sector E (International Relations) in the SPS bibliographies - we can conclude from Table VI that this study has not been in the background in Finnish political science. Looking at the period as a whole, the sector has been somewhat better represented in Finland than in the rest of Scandinavia, and this has been the case at four measuring points out of six. The figures show a downward trend, but this observation must be qualified by pointing out the structure of the literature. There has been a displacement offering a qualitative counterbalance to the relative quantitative decline. During the first half of the period the literature was dominated to a large extent by legalistic studies of international organizations and by historically-oriented studies of international relations ²¹ but during the latter part of the period the development has been towards more modern approaches closer to political science. A key contributing factor has been institutional circumstances: both the founding of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the institutionalization of peace and conflict research has given rise to a growing supply of articles and books that are theoretically-oriented. At the same time more traditional and descriptive-historical studies have receded.

It ought to be sufficient for our aim to use a very rough classification of literature into 'international polities' and 'foreign policy', i. e. a division between the study of politics in the international system and the study of the foreign policy of particular countries. In the first genre we ought to take note of Goran von Bonsdorff's contribution. During the whole period the normative objective of von Bonsdorff's research has been to analyse the conditions for future world peace. We find a broad manifesto in the book called Vårldspolitiken i teknikens tidsalder (E 21, 1961). In this book von Bonsdorff systematizes the development of world politics with the aid of three periods of development and six dimensions, and the main aim is to explain world politics with an all-encompassing variable, i.e. technology, which through general societal development is supposed to play an important part in the furthering of aspirations for world peace: it creates a global process of co-ordination. In a lengthy series of articles von Bonsdorff has continued to tackle different aspects of this set of problems, and in a textbook Regionalismen i den internationella politiken (E 20, 1967) he describes the international efforts towards co-operation, which in his opinion become important ingrediens in a new and more peaceful world order. In a small book Europas val av jramtid (F 4, 1971) he discusses the conditions for a security structure in Europe employing goal/means analysis, and in a later work Makt och samarbete (E 0, 1975) he makes a study of this process of change and outlines a development where the international power system becomes a system of mutual dependence brought about by a transition to a post-industrial societal structure.

A doctoral dissertation in this field is Vilho Lukkarinen's thematically interesting The Role of Air Power in a Nation's Total Capability and in International Society (E 21, 1969); another is Raimo Vayrynen's Militarization, Conflict Behavior and Interaction (E 21, 1973). The title suggests the three basic elements that guide Vayrynen in his study of the cold war, and militarization has a dominant position in the description. It is also to this element that the most interesting results of this U.S.A.-centered study are tied, and one of the results has an almost sensational note: it appears that the relationship between militarization and conflict behavior is of a rather negative character. The result is in opposition to traditional thinking, but it is explained by another of the major conclusions of the dissertation: internal factors (particularly the military-industrial complex) have begun to play a more central role in the militarization process, and the internal forces that consider militarization as goal promoting have a larger freedom of action at times when their activities are not in the center of general interest. A third dissertation can also be mentioned: Vilho Harle's International Tension, An Application of Cohesion Theory and Event Analysis to East-West Relations during the Post-War Years (E 21, 1975). This dissertation is of theoretical value because it is a further developing and empirical testing of the classical hypothesis which states that the internal cohesion in a system increases when it is subjected to external pressure. Harle's very systematic study is an original contribution to a large international scientific debate.

When we now step across the somewhat diffuse border between international politics and foreign policy we first meet Klaus Tornudd's dissertation, which was discussed as early as 1961, Soviet Attitudes towards Non-Military Regional Cooperation (E 23, 1961). It is based on extensive research of source material in Russian. Tb'rnudd describes the development and history of non-military regional co-operation and analyses the attitude of the Soviet Union to different forms of co-operation in different periods and different situational contexts. The author's central aim is to analyse the importance of the ideological and power political motivations behind Soviet attitudes; the main conclusion is that the components cannot be isolated and that there exists a continuous interactional relationship between them. We want to call attention also to another title from the early years of the period: Risto Hyvarinen's considerably less ambitious study of Swiss neutrality (E 23, 1963). In addition, we find on this lower system level quite a great number of studies on Finnish foreign policy. However, the production is to a large extent composed of either historical studies or of normatively orientated papers.

Probably the best study in this field is Raimo Vayrynen's Conflicts in Finnish Relations (E 22, 1972). Setting out from a mainly sanction theory approach, Vayrynen analyses three conflict cases in the relations between Finland and the Soviet Union, viz. the events of 1948-49 when the communists had been left out of the government, the so-called night frost 1958-59 and the so-called Note Crisis of 1961. His aim is to try to find answers to why the Soviet Union has used sanctions, what sanction mechanisms have been used and what the effects of the sanctions have been in Finland. The study results in approximative models in which different factors are given different weight in different situations, and the

book is on the whole a good example of systematic research in the foreign policy sector which is well-known as ca question of destiny' for Finland according to Paasikivi. The same sector is also studied by Osmo Apunen in Kansallinen realismi ja puolueettomum Suomen ulkopoliittisina valintoina (E 23, 1972), in which the author maps out the post-war development of the so-called Paasikivi-line and offers, for instance, interesting and rather controversial views on the content structure and logic of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Co-operation. Of other similar studies we will only mention Klaus Tornudd's lucid review of the activities of Finland in the United Nations (E 13, 1967), Harto Hakovirta's thorough, decision-making orientated analysis of Finland's integration policy (E 23, 1973), and the collected readings in Suomen ulkopolitiikka (E 23, 1975) edited by Hakovirta and Vayrynen.

3. Some Concluding Remarks

In the above review a great number of names and titles have been mentioned, and although we have tried to systematize our description we are aware that it may seem somewhat difficult to survey. In spite of this, we are not going to make a summary in the usual sense of the word. Instead we will conclude this presentation of Finnish political science 1960-75 by offering some brief and rather loosely connected remarks of a more general nature. The commentaries express our subjective impressions of some discernible development trends.

In the beginning of this essay we quoted an evaluation of the state of political science in Finland made by Jan Magnus Jansson in 1959, and we shall here quote another evaluation made by Ilkka Heiskanen ten years later. This evaluation is characterized by a certain pessimism:

There are areas that have not been mapped out: the legislative process, party finance, public bureaucracy, the structure of power elites, etc. In many of the fields that have aroused interest, for instance, electoral behavior, party structure, interest groups and political socialization our knowledge is still very fragmentary. Moreover, it seems that the situation will not improve to any appreciable degree even within the next ten years at the present rate of research.²²

Regarding the qualitative aspects of this evaluation it is, of course, difficult to judge Finnish political science on a general level - the production includes many good contributions and a number of poorer ones. However, if we employ our bibliographical material to draw up a quantitative summary of the development, we can with the aid of Figure 2 point out that the Finnish proportion of Scandinavian total output has tended to decline continuously during the 1960'5. This observation is then bound to confirm the pessimistic overall opinion which Heiskanen put into words in the above quoted passage: in general the mapping of political life in Finland did not progress as quickly as in Scandinavia taken as a whole. However,

right from the start of the present decade the curve changes, and although the increase may partly be caused by bibliographical-technical circumstances it still seems reasonable to maintain that Finnish political science is progressing. In this context - if we once more refer the reader to our summary of dissertations in Table II - it can be noted that more than half (55 %) of all doctoral dissertations published during the period can be placed in the latter third of the period, i.e. the period following Heiskanen's statement.

The title of this essay suggests a course of development from behavioralism to policy analysis. This development may be diffuse, but we consider it to be justified in the sense that it indicates rather dominant areas of focal interest at the beginning and the end of the period. In the beginning of the period research on political man and the political group was making headway, and this approach was to dominate Finnish political science in the 1960's and put its mark on the different sectors of research in politics. At the end of the period - in the mid-1970's

- the picture is quite different: it is true that behavior-oriented research has not disappeared, but it has had to give way to interests of a broader character. When we sum up these interests under the heading policy analysis we are not just referring to the earlier mentioned DETA-project, notwithstanding that it is the most marked manifestation of this interest and, for the time being, the most concentrated research project in Finnish political science. We are also referring to underlying currents, which are still rather latent and have, as of yet, not made a distinct impression on the discipline, but are nevertheless about to gain influence ²³ We are here talking about an interest that could be given different names: we could call it the policy-oriented study of societal decisions; we could call it a newly awakened interest in the state, the role of the state and political institutions; we could call it an orientation towards interaction beween economy and politics; we could call it the attention paid to such factors as Welfare and societal needs; we could call it a realisation of the importance of taking the historical dimension into account. Expressed in a more general way, we could talk about a post-behavioral attitude, which has several manifestations and focuses on such phenomena as societal relevance and action in a different way than before.

However, behavioralism determines not just the choice of objects of research,
but also the choice of approaches to the study of politics. In this sense to talk of

rejecting behavioralism is not justified. It is worth mentioning that, for instance, the DETA-project does not shy away from characterizing its research interest as 'positivistic', more accurately 'neo-positivistic',²⁴ and at least in this sense we are justified in maintaining that the new currents are expressions of changes in attitudes to objects, not to methods. This is of course a rough and ready simplification, which should be further explained by pointing out that a growing interest in hermeneutics and in so called critical social science is manifesting itself in Finnish political science. However, at the same time, it is in our view a statement that expresses the general pattern.²⁵ The development of political science in Finland differs strikingly on this point from the development of, for instance, sociology, where European method criticism has made its influence felt to a greater extent. It is quite natural that we cannot offer a general opinion about this state of affairs in order to say whether it is 'good' or 'bad' for political science. However, as a concluding remark we ought to mention that political science has, at least for the tune being, escaped the empirical impotency which often follows upon an overheated criticism of methods.

---

NOTES

1. Sven Lindman, 'Valtio-oppi' (Political Science), in Yhteiskuntatieteiden kasikirja 11, (Keuruu, 1964), p. 953.

2. For further information, see Dag Anckar, 'Samhålle, ratt och politik. En tillbakablick på forskningen vid Åbo Akademis statsvetenskapliga fakultet' (Society, Law and Politics. Research at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Åbo Academy. En Retrospect), in Ralf Sundman (ed.), Statsvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi: forskning-ldrare-studentliv (Tammerfors, 1976), p. 23.

3. Dag Anckar, 'Dissertationer i finsk statskunskap: anteckningar kring en bibliografisk forteckning', (Dissertations in Political Science in Finland: Some Bibliographical Notes), Meddelanden från institutet for samhållsforskning, Åbo Akademi, 8:24, 1973, p. 16 (A4).

4. Jan-Magnus Jansson, 'Nya linjer i finlandsk statsvetenskap' (New Trends in Finnish Political Science), Nordisk tidskrift for vetenskap, konst och industri, No. 2, 1965, p. 47 (Al).

5. Cf. Dag Anckar, 'Staten som centralbegrepp: drag i tidigare finlandsk statsvetardoktrin' (The State in Focus: Features in Earlier Schools of Thought in Finnish Political Science), Politiikka, No. 1, 1975, pp. 12-15 (Al).

6. Anckar, op.cit., 1973, p. 8 (Al).

7. Jan-Magnus Jansson, 'Politiikan tutkimus Suomessa' (Political Science in Finland), Politiikka, No. 1-2, 1959, p. 6 (Al).

8. Olof Ruin, 'Political Science in Sweden in the Post-War Period', Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 4, 1969, pp. 173-178 (Al).

9. When completing the manuscript for this report (May 1976) the bibliographical information for the remaining years was missing, and the quantitative trends thus do not cover the whole period. The reader is invited to consult the author's verbal comments for the last fifth of the period. It should be mentioned that the author has not been strictly bound to the bibliographical classifications. In some cases these classifications are clearly false, and the author has then assigned the respective works to other bibliographical sectors.

10. David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, 1965), passim.

11. Dag Anckar, 'David Eastons politiska teori: en intern och extern modellkritik' (The Political Theory of David Easton: An Internal and External Model Critique), Acta Academiae Aboensis, Humaniora, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1974, pp. 58-91 (A2).

12. Cf. Dag Anckar, 'Partier, parapolitiska system och politiska system: till frågan om partiforskningens relevans och objekt' (Parties, Parapolitical Systems and Political Systems: On the Relevance and Objects of Party Research), Politiikka, 1975, No. 2, pp. 97-98 (D2O).

---

13. Dag Anckar, Statskunskap i Finland och det ovriga Norden: iakttageher kring sektorala intressetyngdpunkter 1961-70 (Political Science in Finland and Scandinavia: Observations on Sectoral Points of Interest 1961-70), Meddelanden från institute! for samhållsforskning, Åbo Akademi, B: 17, 1972, pp. 28-30 (Al).

14. Other volumes in this series - we cannot possibly deal with them all - concern questions such as the composition and organization of the earlier four-estate Diet and the parliamentary reform in 1906.

15. Erkki Pystynen, 'Kunnallistiede - kunnallispolitiikka' (Communal Science - Communal Politics), Research Reports, Institute of Municipal Science, University of Tampere, No. 2, 1970, pp. 21-22 (C7l).

16. For presentations of this project, see, e.g., Erik Allardt and Hannu Uusitalo, 'Dimensions of Welfare in a Comparative Study of the Scandinavian Societies', Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 7, 1972 (A2), and Stein Ringen, 'Welfare Studies in Scandinavia', Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 9, 1974, passim (Al).

17. Antti Eskola, 'Faktorianalyysi suomalaisessa sosiologiassa' (Factor Analysis in Finnish Sociology), Sosiologia, 1971, No. 6 (A2).

18. Jens A. Christophersen, 'Noen bemerkninger om politisk idéhistoria som statsvitenskapelig disiplin' (Some Reflections on the Position of the History of Ideas in Political Science), Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, No. 1, p. 92 (B20).

19. Jansson, op.cit., 1965, p. 47 (B20).

20. Evert Vedung, Unionsdebatten 1905. En jamforelse mellan arguenteringen i Sverige och Norge (The Union Debate 1905. A Comparison of Argumentation Patterns in Sweden and Norway), Kristianstad, 1971, pp. 34-36 (B20).

21. Anckar, op.cit., 1972, pp. 21-23 (Al).

22. Ilkka Heiskanen, 'Suomalainen politiikan tutkimus 1969' (Political Research in Finland), Politiikka, 1969, No. 1-2, p. 2 (A2).

23. Cf. Erik Allardt, 'Valtio-opin ajankohtaisesta tilasta ja tutkimuspolitiikasta' (On the Present State and Research Policy of Political Science) in Raimo Lintonen (ed.), Kuudennet politiikan tutkimuksen paivat Helsingissa 10-11.1.1974, Research Reports, Institute of Political Science, University of Helsinki, No. 32, 1974 (Al).

24. Tuomo Martikainen and Risto Yrjonen, 'Kollektiivihyødykkeiden tuotanto ja jakelu poliit-

24. Tuomo Martikainen and Risto Yrjonen, 'Kollektiivihyødykkeiden tuotanto ja jakelu poliittisallinnollisesta nåkokulmasta' (The Production and Distribution of Collective Goods from a Politico-Administrative Point of View), Research Reports, Institute of Political Science,

25. Cf. Erkki Berndtson, 'Arvot, tarpeet ja yhteiskuntatieteiden metodologia' (Values, Needs and the Methodology of the Social Sciences), Politiikka, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1973, pp. 243-244 (A2).