This paper describes some general social research issues related to what is
defined as one of three themes within the broader MOST (Management of Social
Transformations) umbrella. This theme in question, "Coping locally and
regionally with economic, technological and environmental transformations," was
chosen as the focus for a Sub-regional meeting, hosted by the University of
Tromsø in March 30-31, 1995.
In this meeting researchers from Nordic countries, Russia and Canada
discussed research priorities and strategies for the northern region. An
important aim with the meeting was to foster international participation and
collaborative research projects across social science disciplines within the
MOST framework. A working paper was distributed to the participants in advance.
The working paper contained preliminary ideas and suggestions for research, and
was discussed in plenary and group sessions during the meeting.
The present paper is revised in accordance with the conclusions that we
arrived at. Also, in revising this paper we have integrated ideas and views that
were expressed by the participants in their presentations at the meeting. The
meeting reached a consensus that the issue of globalization and its impacts on
northern peripheral districts should be a main focus of a coordinated research
effort.
Table of
contents
Increasingly, global economic,
technological and environmental forces shape local future, albeit in ambiguous
and unpredictable ways. At the regional, community, firm, and household level,
these forces provide new constraints and opportunities for economic growth. Yet,
they also pose serious threats to cultural values and traditional socio-economic
adaptations.
However, globalization is not a deterministic process. Neither is it only
defined by external forces. Rather, the future of local communities is shaped
through an interplay between what occurs at global and local levels. Thus,
analytically, the focus on globalization should be a dialectic one. As Anthony
Giddens puts it: "The globalizing tendencies of modernity are simultaneously
extensional and intensional - they connect individuals to large-scale systems as
part of complex dialectics of change at both local and global poles." In a
similar fashion, Eikeland argues that with globalization the focus must not only
be on the "locale" but also on the relations and interactions that occur among
localities and regions. We believe that this dialectic should be a main focus of
the MOST research program for the northern region. Global forces require and
evoke response at the local and regional level. Even the most peripheral
communities and regions in the north now find themselves in a situation where
they must learn to live within a world that has become increasingly global.
Isolationism will hardly suffice as a strategy for survival. Before one can hope
to find answers to the more applied, policy oriented questions, such as how
communities and regions most effectively can relate to the ambiguities of
modernity, we must begin empirically by analyzing how communities and regions
currently are making out. We expect that there are lessons to be learned from
comparing failures and successes, and that a circumpolar, comparative research
approach will be the most productive.
Globalization has several effects on communities, such as those identified by
Pascal Byè in a MOST working document: First of all globalization produces
social change as local economies are absorbed within world capital and commodity
markets dominated by multinational companies. Secondly, globalization results in
the shattering of the specificity of cultural identity and value systems, partly
as a function of international media. A third effect is urbanization and the
disturbed balance between man and nature.
These trends can be identified wihin peripheral areas and different cultural
settings of the north. While in some places, and at certain periods,
globalization offer new employment opportunities and increased social welfare,
the more common pattern is one of increasing socio-economic, and ecological
imbalance. One effect is the concentration of power, capital and information in
"successful" urban regions, coupled with the economic and demographic decline of
rural regions. Indeed, many rural communities in the north now find themselves
on the brink of extinction as the natural resources they rely on have been
exposed to over-use for years. In fisheries, for instance, a fleet of
industrial, large scale trawlers operating outside national territorial borders,
is largely responsible for a crisis with a destructive effect on coastal
communities. Hardly nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the case of
Newfoundland, Canada.
However, the impacts on peripheral regions by excessive industrial
concentration, computerized communication networks and the economic and cultural
dominance of the urban centers are likely to be countered in a variety of ways.
Rather than finding peripheral communities as passive recipients, the global
challenge will generate a local response. This response may not simply be
reactive. It may also involve entrepreneurship. While market saturation
resulting from a global flow of cheap products of mass production may prohibit
backward regions from becoming economic strongholds on a global scale, new and
more localized market niches are likely to appear with opportunities for
innovation and growth. Conditions inhibiting or enhancing peripheral communities
to fully exploit such opportunities, is an important research topic.
Furthermore, communities, social groups or classes may react differently as they
operate under complex and diverse institutional constraints. The socio-economic
differentiation that may thus result from globalization, is another area for
social research.
Notably, globalization is not restricted to the economic sphere only. It also
pertains to culture. It affects peoples' identities, self-image, and their sense
of belonging. The "global village" is an imagined community, it exists in the
minds of people. A MOST research program for the northern region must also have
a focus on the symbolic aspects of globalization, and how it is perceived within
different social strata and sub-groups. The role that children and young adults
play as "change agents" in this respect is a particularly interesting
phenomenon.
Globalization is not a synchronous force. It may proceed differently from
area to area, due to the relative abundance of natural resources, the standard
of communications, the level of education, the existence of trade barriers, and
the economic situation in general. Neither is globalization a one-way street. In
fact, in some regions of the north trends point in the opposite direction, i.e.
from a globally oriented economy to a more localized one. This is best
illustrated in the case of Russia, where crisis and privatization have radically
changed the focus of industrial production. As Jørgen Ole Bærenholdt points out:
"Former centers of fish supply for the large Soviet market based on
technologically complex high sea fisheries have been dismantled. Today,
Northwestern Russian fisheries has been marginalized into the periphery of raw
material suppliers for the economic centers of fish processing and consumption
within the European Union."
Regional economies based on fisheries resources have always been very open.
In parts of the north, trading linkages to the outside world have existed for
generations. Therefore, globalization should not necessarily be considered as a
recent trend. In the case of Newfoundland, Sinclair (op.cit) argues:
It is tempting to think of globalization as a late twentieth century process
that only recently has incorporated hinterland areas. However valid this
characterization may be for some places, it is misleading for rural
Newfoundland, where for centuries, survival has necessitated an accommodation
with the international economy. Newfoundland's fish production was directed to
Europe, the Caribbean and Brazil at various periods and these trade links were
essential to provide a base for local subsistence activities that made extensive
use of natural resources on land and sea. That fuel, food and shelter were
largely generated in the informal economy does not diminish the importance of
the global connection prior to the twentieth century. What happened elsewhere
condition what happened locally. Nor should we forget that the commercial
extractive economy developed beyond fish to include forest products, electric
power and various minerals.
While economic globalization is legitimized with respect to increased
efficiency of production and optimization of social welfare for the global
community as a whole, it also means that economic processes are becoming
increasingly abstracted from the concrete social and geographical contexts. In
the words of Anthony Giddens (op.cit.), this is the process of disembedding:
i.e. a process whereby economic activities are "lifted out" of the local context
within which they occur and become reconstructed across spatial boundaries. The
effects on peripheral regions of this disembedding process is at best uncertain:
There are many examples of ecological disasters, destruction of productive
capacity through asset stripping, exposure to international economic crime etc.
The prevalence of these phenomena within our region is a matter for empirical
research. So also are the less tangible consequences; such as the erosion of
social solidarity and traditions of economic cooperation, the weakening of trust
and familiarity within social relations that exist within local communities. The
loss of such crucial values may destroy the attractiveness of living in
peripheral communities. Important also is the negative influence of the
investment climate that is so important for economic development.
Table of
contents
The globalizing economy
is not an automatic outcome of a "natural" process, Rather, it is the
accumulative result of deliberate choices, by private entrepreneurs, local
business enterprises, multi-national corporations, nation states and
international organizations. These choices are guided by specific motives and
interests, and can be evaluated in terms of overall goal attainment, economic
efficiency, distributional effects on social welfare, regional development and
the like.
While many of the problems created by globalization for local communities are
sufficiently complex so as to require government support at national and even
supra-national levels, models of governance based on top-down assumptions are
increasingly seen as inadequate. More than ever, the local consequences of
globalization call for a participatory and consequential dialogue between local
communities and centralized states. For the periphery, conventional
macro-economic planning schemes, such as those that are inspired by Keynes, will
not suffice. Neither will traditional strategies with emphasis on heavy
manufacturing industries. The economic and ecological failures of such
investment policies are clearly identifiable in peripheral regions of the north.
Also, the "structural adjustment" response, providing basic infrastructure to
attract potential new investors to marginal areas in decline, will at best be a
necessary condition, but hardly a sufficient one. These responses are typically
hierarchical, i.e. implemented from the top down. Also, they often strongly
influenced by dominating political ideologies and the relative strength of
centrally based actors like business lobbies, trade unions and conservationist
organizations. How such external policies and planning initiatives are shaped,
how they change over time, and how they affect marginal communities in
responding to the global challenges, are questions well suited to a collective
research endeavor such as the MOST program.
As pointed of by the Brundtland Commission and the UNCED meeting in Rio,
there is a strong case for user-involvement and participatory planning of local
communities, non-governmental organizations, and ethnic groups in resource
conservation and exploitation. The arguments for popular participation are
several: To be socially just, strategies for sustainable development must allow
inputs from the local level. Also, to be effective, governance systems must be
regarded as legitimate by groups affected. In democratic societies, people are
unlikely to support and finance regulatory schemes if their role is strictly
defined to be at the receivers end of the regulatory process. Participatory
governance models, on the other hand, give local communities a co-responsibility
for the design, implementation and enforcement of regulatory systems. Thus, they
have the potential of raising the conservationist morale.
However, as Rasmussen et. al. point out, the empowerment of local communities
does not eliminate the need for international management schemes "as many of the
natural resources of the north as well as contaminants, are transboundary, or,
as in the case of many of the living resources, characterized by a dominance of
highly migratory stocks." For precisely these reasons the Brundtland commission
stressed the necessity of institutions that extend beyond the nation state.
As traditional geo-political barriers are dismantled in the northern
hemisphere, a new form of regionalism is being conceived. While still in
creation, the Barents region encompassing the northern areas of Norway, Sweden,
Finland and Russia is a case in point. A similar development is taking place
within the Baltic Sea region. As Bo Svensson argues, "that actors at local and
regional level, striving to cooperate across the east-west divide in the
Euro-Arctic deserve attention. They are an example of how actors in peripheral
areas are searching for new ways to avoid marginalization."
Here, several research questions are relevant to a MOST initiative: What
functions may regional cooperation imply? What are the inhibiting factors to
collective action across national boundaries, cultural, political and trading
barriers? How do local communities adjust to the new possibilities and
challenges of the new regionalism? To what extent do a formation of "regional
industrial districts" serve as a realistic coping strategy within an inherently
unstable global economy? What are the potential economies of scale and scope
pertaining to such districts?
Policy formation within the region-state-local community triangle is an
interesting new research issue. Can regional support strengthen the role of
local communities in the policy process at national levels? As Juha Tolonen
argues (see footnote 11):
Regional cooperation may be seen from two different perspectives. It may be
understood as implementation of general cooperation on the central (state)
level. This way of looking at cooperation makes it rather uninteresting.
Regional cooperation may, however, be understood as the primary level where
really concrete new cooperation is generated. The state level cooperation is
needed mostly to support regional the level.
In face of globalization, community viability is contingent on strategies
that fall between the two extremes: total encapsulation and capitulation to
exogenous forces. The sustainability of marginal communities requires both
defensive and offensive strategies at local, national and regional levels. To
some extent, the coping strategies will have to rely on restrictions designed,
implemented and enforced at regional (such as within the framework of a Barents
region) or national levels (for instance in sectors where a controlled harvest
of natural resources is crucial). But effective coping strategies also rely on
initiatives from below. For instance, the potentials of global information
networks will most likely become a necessary condition for economic survival of
peripheral communities. For communities it is there to be used. Some aspects of
their socio-economic structure and culture needs special attention and support
of government.
Table of
contents
Local responses to
globalization may arise spontaneously from individuals, households and firms.
Efforts may be strictly individual and "privatized", like when people out of
necessity or opportunity switch from the formal to the informal labor market. In
maritime communities in North Norway and in Atlantic Canada the small-scale
fishery has traditionally served as buffer by absorbing labor in times of
unemployment. Resource crises and subsequent government restrictions imposed on
the fishery have by and large eliminated this role.
Global challenges may also lead to cooperation, networking, and collective
action where communities draw upon values of social solidarity and traditions of
mutual self-help. In the "global village" traditional cultural values and
identities are threatened. There are, however, many examples of communities and
ethnic groups that, when put under pressure from the outside world, have become
more aware of their cultural heritage, and they have acted to energize their
traditional customs. Thus, the effects of globalization may break both ways:
Either, the global influence may lead to social differentiation, atomization,
and even chaos - as illustrated by the current process of privatization in parts
of eastern Europe. Or it may serve as an impetus for community cohesion and
cultural continuity through a deliberate social response. The conditions under
which one or the other result, is a vital research issue.
How globalization affects the mind-set of individuals, is an interesting
research problem. Gjertrud Sæther's observation of rural villages in Russia, the
"mir", is a case in point. In fact, "mir" has several meanings: "the village
commune", "the world" and "peace". This suggests that local people are capable
of simultaneously possessing alternative images of their communities and of
themselves. Thus, there is not necessarily a conflict between tradition and
modernity. Sæther contends that in these villages people live in different
time-worlds, the modern world introduced to them through the modernization and
industrialization of agriculture and in a world of pre-industrial mentalities.
The local answer to globalization can also be institutional. Coping
strategies may be founded on existing political or communal structures such as
local government, neighborhood committees, women's organizations, and church
communities. The role of organizations and institutions, be they government or
not, should be investigated in order to fully understand their potential both as
agents of change and as anchors of stability and coherence. In his paper, Martti
Siisiäinen raises a series of questions pertaining the role of voluntary
organizations. He argues that "social movements and voluntary associations can
be seen as counsellors of the political system as they mediate between the
values and interests of local citizens and the system represented by political
elites." Then, how exactly is this mediating role performed? To what extent is
it a one-way process? Siisiäinen thinks of the political process as one through
which an interest has to pass three filters in order to be realized: The first
filter is the formation of a collective consensus; the second pertains to the
selection of participants who can speak on behalf of others; the third filter
exists within the voluntary organizations, in their bureaucratic procedures and
their often oligarchic traits. How local concerns and demands are blocked or
find their way through these filters, should be determined by social research.
Table of
contents
It is to be expected that a
mixture of bottom-up and top-down strategies are employed within all the
northern peripheral regions, but that the relative importance of the two will
vary from one area to an other. Therefore, rather than stressing analytically a
division between the local/ regional and the central levels of governance, we
should, as pointed out by Giddens, develop concepts that highlight the
dialectics of change at both local and global poles. In this process
institutions and policies initiated at national level often serve as a mediator
between developments that occur at the local and the global scene.
By themselves, bottom-up strategies are likely to be ineffective in
addressing the global challenges. However, as part of an integrated
"co-management" approach they have a better chance, if the process of policy
formation is receptive to local needs and concerns, allowing participation of
affected communities, and if it is fit to handle issues of a larger scale.
The main difference between a top-down and bottom-up planning approach is
their unequal emphasis on the ratio between standardization and hierarchy on the
one hand and cultural specificity and local-level autonomy on the other. The key
to economically effective and socially just development in peripheral regions is
mutual respect and partnership between the central and the local levels of
government. Important also is that community self-reliance and strategies for
empowerment may well be initiated from the top down as an effort to facilitate a
planning process which ensures involvement from below. Without the consent,
encouragement and support of central government, local participation is likely
to be less effective.
The negative impacts of large scale social transformations on peripheral
regions may be mitigated if the population affected has a tradition of
organizing for common problem-solving. The processes of functional
specialization and social differentiation that result from modernization and
globalization may have reduced, if not eroded entirely, the capacity of local
communities for collective action. Under these circumstances, bodies such as
municipal authorities, regional organizations sponsored by government or
voluntarily by private groups, churches, trade unions, industry associations
etc. may take on new roles provided that they can sort out the conflicting
interests and world views that emerge from the globalizing process.
Because of a more firm institutional backing, local government agencies are
therefore often more forceful agents of change than regional and community
voluntary organizations. On the other hand, public agencies may be
bureaucratized or in control of a local elite, and thus unable to adapt to new
conditions, for instance a more participatory constituency. Public policy
formation at municipal and regional levels is a research issue, including the
role that voluntary organizations and user-groups play in the process. The
hypothesis is that there is an untapped potential for voluntary organizations as
partners in the provision of welfare services and as job creators. However, the
role they play is likely to be strongly influenced, sometimes restricted, by
government involvement in local affairs. Therefore, the interaction between the
central and local level, triggered by coping strategies initiated at both poles,
is an interesting research topic.
Two issues in institutional design are of particular interest to both social
researchers and policy-makers:
* Inclusion: How should individuals and households that do not hold
organization membership and people that do not participate regularly in
elections be incorporated in the political process. How can women be involved on
an equal footing with men? Those that are politically poor are likely to be the
first to lose their jobs when unprofitable primary and secondary industries
close down. According to Byè, "..the introduction of new forms of solidarity
between individuals, often in the non-commercial sphere" (op.cit. p.11) is
essential. What conditions facilitate such solidarity to surface, is an
important research issue.
* Political arenas: Effective public participation is often hampered by the
lack of arenas that allow people to come forward with their concerns in the
political process. As described by Leena Suopajärvi, one consequence is the loss
of confidence in the political system as such.
How can such arenas be established? What can be done locally, and how can
government agencies be creative in this respect?
Political institutions must be shaped in order to expedite a truly
"communicative" process, which allow peripheral communities to participate
effectively and fairly in the political process. This is a perspective from
which existing institutional forms should be analyzed. A great number of
research questions pertaining to political institutions should be addressed: Can
models of regional development be effectively transferred from one country to
another and from one peripheral district to another? Must support to, or
reconstruction of, civil society processes always be rooted in the particular
history and context of each region or locality? What are the degrees of freedom
here? Under which circumstances can civil society institutions be productive
within community structures that are not egalitarian? How can government
institutions be made less bureaucratic and more flexible? How can the conditions
for entrepreneurship and effective and legitimate socio-political leadership be
strengthened? Which measures would make government less reactive and more
proactive in community survival within a global economy without acquiring a
paternalistic role vis-avis peripheral communities?
Table of
contents
It has been
shown that small businesses by adopting a networking strategy may become highly
competitive in global markets. Coined as "flexible specialization" (a
development that has been documented within "The Third Italy") is of special
interest. The flexible specialization model provides an alternative to the
"Fordist" version of modernization. Both models seek resilience towards an
unstable environment. But while the former, by employing small batch production,
intermediate technology and artisan traditions, is seeking resilience through
rapid adaptation, the latter strives to be robust by the use of large scale,
standardized mass-production. Whereas the Fordist approach is abstracted from
the local environment, flexible specialization exhausts all the benefits of
being closely rooted in the community. By itself, the flexible specialization
model is now being globalized as a coping strategy of industries and communities
alike. To what extent a similar trend is prevalent in peripheral communities of
the north, is well worth looking into. In other words, has the slogan "Think
globally and act locally!" yet been adopted and put into effect? What impacts
have it made on community sustainability?
An important factor in the success of flexible specialization as a coping
strategy is the full exploitation of all the advantages that the new
telecommunication and information technology is offering. With an increasing
tempo this technology is transforming the nature of information exchange within
and between organizations at all levels: The business enterprise is affected
both in its internal and external relations. Transactions between consumers and
producers and between the public and the government is radically changed.
Interest organizations now have a new tool for establishing a direct, instant
and continual contact with counterparts abroad.
Peripheral communities that were previously shielded from the pressure of the
international information industry are now becoming deeply and extensively
connected to the outside world through global communication networks. If
effectively utilized they could become and integrated part of a local coping
strategy for peripheral communities in face of globalization. For instance, this
new technology could be employed as part of "distance educational program" that
will enable local inhabitants to get access to new information without having to
go away, even while working in their private home. This may change the latent
role that the educational system has played in the past, namely as "a
door-opener" to the national job market. When students had to move out of their
community to study, more than often they did not return to settle. That the new
information technology may facilitate competence building in peripheral areas is
indeed a promising prospect, that should not go unnoticed by MOST.
What the future will bring in the area of telecommunication is hard to
envision. At present (beginning of 1995) the increase of Internet users
estimated at 1 million a month, and within five year the total number of users
is expected to reach 100 million. There are those, like Alvin Toffler ("The
Future Shock"), who describe the development as a new industrial revolution,
while others believe it is too early to tell. Nevertheless, major changes are
expected. Vladimir Putilov predicts a dramatic increase in the flow of
information between east and west now as the new technology are being rapidly
adopted in Russian north. These are processes which we believe should be at the
forefront of the MOST research program within our region. Again, there are
ambiguities and dilemmas to be addressed:
* Communication policies: Actual and potential impacts on peripheral
communities of technology such as the European Global System for Mobile
Communications, Electronic mail and Internet should be researched. If there is a
case for government intervention, what actions could and should governments
take, for instance in controlling and promoting the adoption process so that
also peripheral areas may benefit for the new technology?
* Decentralized centralization: Communities that are linked up with these
systems will beyond doubt be in a much better competitive position than those
that are not. What makes communities capable of exploiting the new technology
and what this require of material and human resources, is a research issue.
Without serious technological constraints, global centers of communication and
information can be established anywhere, even in peripheral areas. To what
extent do we see this happen in our region, and what are the lessons to be
learned here?
Table of
contents
Our region is
undergoing a process of dramatic social change: Peripheral communities are
becoming exposed to a world of increasing scale. In the years to come, marginal
regions must learn to operate more forcefully in global markets, to relate to
new international regimes of free trade, and to exploit the opportunities of the
information technology revolution. This learning process is an important
research issue by itself.
Whatever the impacts of globalization will be, one prediction is rather
certain: It will produce a more complex system of linkages within and between
regions, and central and local levels. The essence of globalization is both
spatial and synergetic. By spreading geographically, social relations are formed
(within and across organizational levels) that extend regional and national
boundaries.
A MOST research program on coping strategies should be flexible concerning
the unit of analysis. Studies should be carried out at the micro level in terms
of case-studies, preferably comparative and cross-national. It should also
emphasize the macro level, for instance pertaining to national policies and
institutions, and have a special focus on settlement structure, demographic
change, industrial organization, and the support systems that are established to
encourage economic and cultural sustainability within peripheral regions. When
experiments and innovations in regional development have been undertaken, their
successes or failures should be analyzed. In most instances must such
experiments - an interesting exception is described by Jørgen Amdan in the case
of Norway - fit within a cultural and institutional framework that may very well
have a decisive influence on the process as well as the outcome.
A special focus should be on industries that are based on the exploitation of
natural resources that are common property. Because of its importance for
regional development in countries on the North-Atlantic rim, the fishery is a
particularly relevant case. The fact that many of the fish stocks are shared by
several countries of the north, makes the industry well suited for comparative
research.
Åge Mariussen (op.cit) reminds us that the household is an important unit of
analysis and that we must reconsider its significance: "The household lies at
the heart of the transformation of institutional structures", for instance
relating to the reproduction of labor force, gender issues, generational
succession. The household plays a key role in the coping strategies of every-day
life. Also, "in the process of fragmentation and decay, the household level is
an important stand," he contends.
This paper summarizes a series of research issues and themes that were
proposed and discussed at the MOST meeting hosted by the University of Tromsø in
May 1995. However, these ideas remain to be developed into full-fledged research
proposals, and we suggest that financial support should be provided for this
purpose.
In its initial phase, we hold that the MOST research program for the northern
region should concentrate on two areas, one pertaining to industrial
development, the other to civil society. We believe there should be a
separate project for each area. Analytically, however, we think that there
should be considerable overlaps. As discussed in length above, the overall theme
in both areas should be the spatial and synergistic impacts of globalization.
We argue that both areas should be studied along similar dimensions. Which
particular dimensions to investigate must be determined in the planning process.
However, we suggest the following:
A) Policy formation: How are regional issues defined and addressed?
How is the regional policy formation process organized, for instance pertaining
to democratic participation?
B) Institutions: What are the impacts on peripheral regions of
regulatory systems, for instance pertaining to resource exploitation and trade?
What support systems exist and what are their impacts on regional development?
C) Information technology: How is the revolution of communication
technology affecting the two sectors? How does it affect communication across
spatial and cultural boundaries?
We firmly believe that a comparative research approach is particularly useful
in this research endeavor. By itself the theme of globalization speaks for such
a strategy. Undoubtedly, also there is much to be learned from comparing systems
in different countries. Research teams should have members from several
countries, and preferably be interdisciplinary. The budget should allow each
team to meet at least twice to prepare their proposal, and to coordinate the two
project set-ups.
Table of
contents
To MOST Clearing House Home
Page
