Baltic Rim Economies - Baltic Port List

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Expert article 890 Baltic Rim Economies, 21.12.2011 Quarterly Review 5�2011 Future perspectives of Finnish-Russian cooperation in neighbouring areas in the field of social affairs and health By Simo Mannila Finland’s cooperation with neighbouring areas in the Russian Federation in the field of social affairs and health started in the early 1990s. The recent evaluation report (2011) points out a range of problems but tells that the results have been remarkable both from Finnish and Russian point of view. Much has been achieved and, in general, the stakeholders are very happy with the results. Now, there is a recent piece of information from the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, telling that the cooperation will not be funded after 2012. This information concerns all cooperation, not only social affairs and health, and this is also in compliance with the international trend: the EU funding as well as bilateral funding from several countries for the cooperation with the Russian Federation has been stopped or going down. The main reason is that Russia is a stable and wealthy country – a country with a marginal sovereign debt and one of those countries we should like to help the European Union out of the present financial crisis. There does not seem to be a specific reason to support Russian cooperation as it has been going on since the 1990s. The recent evaluation shows “soft security” and coping with some national threats as Finnish motives to the cooperation. These threats include, for instance, communicable diseases: Russian HIV/AIDS epidemic and spread of tuberculosis are manifold as compared to what is happening in Finland, and the better the situation is under control there, the safer we shall be here. A similar pursuit of mutual gains is behind the cooperation in the fight against drugs. The threats have also been seen in a more abstract light: social instability and, for instance, migration trends have been understood as risks for Finland, which has led into projects in the field of health promotion focusing children and youth. An obvious but rather implicit motive for the cooperation with the neighbouring areas has also been assistance to the poor. It is not obvious that the Finnish interest in national risk management or charity has been in very good compliance with the self-understanding of our Russian partners. The cooperation in the field of social affairs and health has been one of the priority areas, and its funding for 2004- 09 was altogether 17 M€, which is 15% of all funding for Finland’s cooperation with the neighbouring areas. Most cooperation has taken place on bilateral basis, but there has been a trend towards multilateral programmes such as the Northern Dimension Partnership on Health and Social Well-being and the Barents Cooperation Programme on Health and Related Social Issues. The Russian partners’ comments for the evaluation are in favour of bilateral cooperation, which is also administratively much less complex. Among the public and in press there is a common misunderstanding that Finland has been shovelling funds to the Russian Federation; in reality an overwhelming part of the funds have returned to Finland in the form of consultant fees and other forms of paid work. Due to it we have acquired a bulk of information concerning Russian society and governance. A high number of Finnish experts and civil servants have been involved in Finland’s cooperation with 44 the neighbouring areas, very many of them have otherwise had scarce relations across the Eastern border of Finland and little knowledge of what is happening there. In contemporary societies of transition up-to-date knowledge is of paramount importance. Professor Pekka Sutela has often pointed out that it is not the Russian Federation that is an anomaly of global development, the – very positive - anomalies are Finland and other Nordic countries, while Russia is a rather standard country. An insight into some key global trends is behind the corner for us, if we are willing to take a look. Finland’s cooperation with the neighbouring areas has given an opportunity for capacity building in the field of Russian and Eastern European affairs, which now is at some risk of going down. This is a time of priority setting, and the Finnish civil service has more than enough to do with the national development and corresponding EU duties. In this situation there is a risk that the interest in Russian affairs looks unnecessary and not-so-urgent, the capacity already built is devaluated, and the networks will wither away. The evaluation done states that there has been no significant thematic development in the cooperation since the 1990s. Phasing out of Finland’s present cooperation with the neighbouring areas may produce new thinking concerning the themes and forms of cooperation. Finnish- Russian exchange of information between experts and civil servants in the field of social affairs and health should also in the future be promoted. A key element of the present cooperation has been profiling of Finland as a country of high level social protection and health care. The link with Finnish export has, however, until now been more or less lacking, although private initiative in social affairs and health is now supported at the national level. Improved cooperation with e.g. the fields of economy, business and environment would have mutual benefits in the future. It is not probable that we can do without any national instruments supporting cooperation with the Russian Federation. Russian Federation is a country with a great deal of problems in the field of social affairs and health: societal infrastructure is weak, adult health poor and the sustainability of many reforms questionable. Nevertheless, it is also a country with ten time zones, GDP growth far over the EU average and world famous culture. Combining scientific and practical approaches, supporting the interests of both public and private players in the field, there is a good perspective of new efficient forms of cooperation. Simo Mannila Dr, Senior Expert International Affairs, National Institute for Health & Welfare Finland � Pan-European Institute � To receive a free copy please register at www.tse.fi/pei �
Expert article 891 Baltic Rim Economies, 21.12.2011 Quarterly Review 5�2011 Technologically-mediated communication in working life – a rich area for both basic and applied research By Maarit Valo The status and importance of basic scientific research and applied, innovation-focused research are prominent issues in today’s public discussion about science policy in Finland. Research activities that seek to generate applications and innovations are now favoured because of the economic climate in which we currently live. The Innovation Union, the flagship initiative of the European Commission, strongly emphasises the need to reinforce the European Research Area. The idea is increasingly to turn research into groundbreaking products and services. According to the Innovation Union this will be accomplished by improving financing for innovative companies, developing research infrastructures and strengthening business-academia collaboration, for example. Critical voices have risen to challenge the current keen interest in innovation-focused research. How can we secure the proper conditions for basic scientific research in Finland? Indeed, the great majority of inventions throughout time have arisen out of basic, long-term scientific research (i.e. fundamental, academic, blue sky research), motivated solely by the drive to create new knowledge. The goal of basic research is to know more and understand better, not create commercial value. Nevertheless, in the future such knowledge may prove to be invaluable for innovators. It has been claimed that in economically turbulent times it would be most sensible and long-sighted to invest in basic scientific research because that is what can be regarded as the foundation for innovations. However, basic and applied research are by no means opposites. Rather they form a continuum with a wide range of intermediate points between the two extremes. Besides, all kinds of research are needed in order to strengthen Finland’s academic standing. In the development plan for education and research for 2011–16 published by the Ministry of Education and Culture, the need for a national science strategy in Finland that acknowledges both the value of basic research and the goal of supporting innovation development is clearly stated. Both basic scientific research and innovation-focused research are also needed to resolve challenges in our everyday working life. A good example is technologicallymediated communication at work. Today we increasingly use diverse technologies to communicate with our professional contacts, in colleague relationships, in teams and working groups, and for management and leadership purposes. Communication technologies – such ”social software” as instant messaging, audio conferencing, videoconferencing, and web conferencing – allow us to be in contact with one another in distance work and distributed organisations. Colleagues can be situated in different countries and represent different cultures and/or nationalities. In the Baltic area, in Europe and worldwide there are an increasing number of organisations where international and intercultural virtual teams are commonplace. Virtual teams are collaborative groups that are geographically and culturally distributed and rely on technologically-mediated communication. Members may occasionally meet face-to-face, but most of their interpersonal contacts are conducted through communication technologies. The early stages of research on technologically-mediated communication were coloured by profound doubts about the usefulness of online interaction. In the 1970s and 1980s it was thought that exchanging messages via computers was inefficient, impersonal, unfriendly or even hostile. It was generally believed that technical limitations (often referred to as reduced cues, cues filtered out, low social presence) 45 prevented computer-mediated contacts from being satisfactory or productive. Face-to-face interaction was considered to be the ideal form of communication in all circumstances. Today we know better. Research has shown that the characteristics of technology do not hinder, restrict or disturb communication processes or outcomes. Technology does not determine the ways we interact with one another; rather, we are quite flexible and inventive in using technological devices and crossing the barriers they originally were thought to create. Numerous studies have revealed that worthwhile online interaction depends more on social and cultural factors as well as on interpersonal and group dynamics than on the technology itself. Communicative functions and the tasks in question are also decisive. Research on virtual teams has shown that the quality of teaming is conditional on a large number of factors, technology being only one of them. Even the simplest asynchronic e-mail may be experienced as an effective and rewarding tool. Moreover, communication technologies are now mobile and ubiquitous, offering more possibilities than ever before. In research on technologically-mediated communication, studies on technology users’ reactions and behaviour are at the heart of basic scientific research. Out of pure curiosity, researchers have observed and analysed the ways people interact with one another via technologies. Much of this research has been conducted in experimental laboratory settings by analysing ad-hoc groups of university students. However, findings on interactional processes depend considerably on the context in which the studies have been conducted. This is why more research should be carried out in working-life contexts, for example in real virtual teams. Basic research on technologically-mediated communication could truly benefit from closer ties to applied research activities. Communication technologies involve a large number of devices and software, and it is of crucial importance to develop them on the basis of users’ experiences. Solutions that will support collaborative interaction, facilitate teamwork, develop team leadership and enhance knowledge management in virtual contexts are waiting to be invented. Basic research and innovation-focused research should seek more collaboration for their mutual benefit. Maarit Valo Professor, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä Chair of the Finnish Union of University Professors Finland � Pan-European Institute � To receive a free copy please register at www.tse.fi/pei �
Page 1 and 2: Baltic Rim Economies Quarterly Revi
Page 3 and 4: Baltic Rim Economies Quarterly Revi
Page 5 and 6: Expert article 853 Baltic Rim Econo
Page 47: Expert article 889 Baltic Rim Econo
Page 87: To receive a free copy, register at

Baltic Rim Economies - Baltic Port List

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?