Premium
Soft Competition: F inland, S weden and the Northern Dimension of the E uropean U nion
Author(s) -
Gebhard Carmen
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
scandinavian political studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-9477
pISSN - 0080-6757
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9477.12007
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , pooling , political science , competition (biology) , leverage (statistics) , dimension (graph theory) , competitor analysis , accession , alliance , politics , northern ireland , business , geography , international trade , sociology , european union , marketing , ethnology , law , archaeology , artificial intelligence , machine learning , computer science , pure mathematics , mathematics , ecology , biology
In the context of E uropean integration, S weden and F inland are frequently seen as natural allies. Based on a number of perceived similarities, their shared Nordic heritage, established historical ties and their concurrent accession to the E uropean U nion ( EU ), they are rarely seen as competitors or proponents of diverging points of view. Their alignment within the EU , over sub‐regional issues surrounding Northern E urope in particular, is often rather taken as a given. By focusing on the specific conduct of S weden and F inland as regional stakeholders in the B altic S ea R egion ( BSR ) and the way they have played this role within the EU , this article seeks to challenge these common assumptions. It shows that S weden and F inland do not converge in their positions, also in matters concerning the EU 's Northern Dimension – that is, a policy that distinctly furthers regional core issues whose promotion within the EU could be in both states' interest. Instead of pooling forces to attain greater leverage within the EU , S weden and F inland rather compete with each other in this regard. Using the example of the Finnish Northern Dimension initiative, this article shows how S weden and F inland have promoted sub‐regional matters through different political and organizational channels, keeping bilateral cooperation to a minimum and leaving potential avenues of pooled action at the EU level aside. The article thus concludes that the concept of a S wedish‐ F innish tandem within the EU needs to be looked at more critically when it comes to explaining or predicting their conduct as Member States.