Perceptions toward the Opening of the Finnish-Russian Border

This study examines the manner in which the
often-mentioned barrier effect of the Finnish-Russian
border as well as the greater interaction, enabled by
the gradual opening of the border, is perceived among
actors involved in cross-border co-operation or
interaction. The discussion concerning the dominant
and influential debates in the studies of borders and
border regions provides the analytical framework
within which the study is carried out. It is a
composition of several proposals, which taken
together suggest that, first and foremost, borders
are barriers for interaction. They have several
different roles, some of which are more resistant to
change.
The basic assertion of this study is that despite
its partial opening, the Finnish-Russian border and
its side-effects still function as a barrier,
separating the two sides from each other and
hindering interaction. Given the role that the border
plays, this is not, however, a purely negative thing.
A majority on both sides perceives the border as a
necessary and useful institution that is sufficiently
transparent to enable the two neighbors to interact
in a mutually beneficial manner.

Autorentext
Jussi Laine studied Human Geography at the University of Joensuu, Finland. He currently works as a researcher at the Karelian Institute, University of Joensuu, Finland.

Klappentext
This study examines the manner in which the often-mentioned barrier effect of the Finnish-Russian border as well as the greater interaction, enabled by the gradual opening of the border, is perceived among actors involved in cross-border co-operation or interaction. The discussion concerning the dominant and influential debates in the studies of borders and border regions provides the analytical framework within which the study is carried out. It is a composition of several proposals, which taken together suggest that, first and foremost, borders are barriers for interaction. They have several different roles, some of which are more resistant to change. The basic assertion of this study is that despite its partial opening, the Finnish-Russian border and its side-effects still function as a barrier, separating the two sides from each other and hindering interaction. Given the role that the border plays, this is not, however, a purely negative thing. A majority on both sides perceives the border as a necessary and useful institution that is sufficiently transparent to enable the two neighbors to interact in a mutually beneficial manner.