Copy igh © 2013 by he au ho (s). Published he e unde license by he Resilience Alliance.
Hiedanpää, J. 2013. Ins i u ional mis i s: law and habi s in Finnish wol policy. Ecology and Socie y 18(1):
24. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-05302-180124
Resea ch, pa o a Special Fea u e on Nudging E olu ion? C i ical Explo a ion o he Po en ial and Limi a ions o he
Concep o Ins i u ional Fi o he S udy and Adap i e Managemen o Social-Ecological Sys ems
Ins i u ional Mis i s: Law and Habi s in Finnish Wol Policy
Juha Hiedanpää 1
ABSTRACT. Finland has s uggled wi h o mula ing and implemen ing policies ega ding he na ional g ey wol (Canis lupus)
popula ion. I seems ha a e majo ins i u ional adjus men s unde aken o imp o e wol p o ec ion, he wol popula ion has,
in ac , dec eased. This calls o an explana ion. My app oach o he ques ion o ins i u ional i builds upon classical ins i u ional
economics and p agma ism. I will apply Cha les S. Pei ce’s concep ion o habi s and his heo y o ca ego ies and he idea o
no ma i e sciences. The case s udy om sou hwes e n Finland shows ha i he ins i u ional designe s would add ess he habi s
o eeling, mind, and ac ion, including hei own, ha ame and cons i u e he p oblema ic si ua ion and po en ial solu ions, he
c i ical condi ions o ins i u ional i would be mo e angible and easie o iden i y and handle. As long as policy adjus men s
a e eac i e and compulsi e and no buil upon a easonable engagemen o whole epis emic communi y in habi -b eaking and
habi - aking, policies will mos likely ail.
Key Wo ds: g ey wol (Canis lupus); habi s; ins i u ional i ; ins i u ions; policy; p agma ism
INTRODUCTION
Finland has s uggled wi h o mula ing and implemen ing
policies ega ding he na ional wol popula ion. The p esence
o he g ey wol (Canis lupus) is a a he peculia
en i onmen al p oblem because i s hund ed-yea -long nea
ex inc ion means ha i seems like a o eign in ade bu is
ac ually na i e o he a ea. Finland’s accession o he Eu opean
Union (EU) in 1995 s a ed a new e a o la ge ca ni o e policy.
The wol became s ic ly p o ec ed by he Eu opean Union’s
Habi a s Di ec i e. In addi ion, a e majo ins i u ional
adjus men s unde aken o imp o e wol p o ec ion, he wol
popula ion has, in ac , dec eased (Figu e 1). This calls o an
explana ion.
Fig. 1. The wol popula ion in Finland (Kojola e al. 2011).
Figu e 1 shows ha he p e-EU wol policy was unable o
s eng hen he iabili y o he wol popula ion. The popula ion
size dipped in he la e 1990s; consequen ly, he Eu opean
Commission ini ia ed In ingemen P oceedings (2001) o
compel Finland o imp o e la ge ca ni o e p o ec ion. As pa
o he wildli e adminis a ion’s eac ion o he in ingemen
p ocedu e, an unp eceden ed e o o da e o in ol e he
public in wol policy making in Finland ook place. Finland
p epa ed he Wol Managemen Plan (Managemen 2005)
based on a ious mee ings and public hea ings o ganized
ac oss Finland (Bisi and Ku ki 2008). The wol popula ion
inc eased du ing his pe iod.
The Commission called he case o he Eu opean Cou o
Jus ice (ECJ) in 2005. The Commission claimed ha (1) he
conse a ion s a us o he wol in Finland was no a o able;
(2) Finland had no hono ed he p inciple o s ic p o ec ion;
and (3) Finland had no adequa ely explo ed easible
al e na i es o wol p eda ion o educe li es ock losses.
Following an in es iga ion in o hese allega ions, he Cou
ende ed i s judgmen in June 2007. Finland was ound o be
a aul in one o he cha ges (2) bu no he o he wo (1, 3).
The Cou o de ed he Finnish go e nmen o ec i y i s ailu e
o o e s ic p o ec ion o wol es. In he wo o he espec s,
he Finnish wol policy was in line wi h he Habi a s Di ec i e
(Eu opean Cou o Jus ice 2007, Hiedanpää and B omley
2011).
In 2008, he es ima ed wol popula ion in Finland was
app oxima ely 200 (compa ed o 130-140 in 1995). The
popula ion sp ead o and inc eased in wes e n Finland.
Howe e , he popula ion has declined since 2008. Cu en ly,
he es ima ed win e popula ion is app oxima ely 120-135
wol es (win e 2013 es ima e). The appa en decline o wol es
1Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
Fig. 2. The Pyhäjä i a ea
ac oss Finland has only one plausible explana ion: illegal
killing o he wol es. Acco ding o he Finnish Game and
Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e (RKTL), he e we e no biological
easons o hei disappea ance; he oe dee and moose
popula ions we e su icien ly dense and he e we e no signs
o le hal diseases (Kojola e al. 2011).
I will explain why i is use ul o discuss ins i u ional mis i in
he con ex o Finnish wol policy. The spa ial case is ha o
he Pyhäjä i a ea, whe e he i s se e e wol p eda ion o
li es ock in a hund ed yea s happened in Augus 2008. Wol es
killed o le hally inju ed 65 sheep in Köyliö on ou pas u es
du ing July and Augus . Two communi ies in pa icula ,
Köyliö and Pöy yä, we e aken by su p ise since bo h o hem
ha e wol packs o hei own, he Köyliö pack in Köyliö and
he Yläne pack in Pöy yä (see Figu e 2). These ela i ely small
communi ies (3,500 and 8,500 esiden s, espec i ely) a e
loca ed wi hin 50 km o h ee majo sou he n Finnish ci ies:
Tampe e, Tu ku, and Po i. I is a la a ea wi h a ela i ely
b oad s a e-owned wilde ness a ea, Vaskijä i S ic Na u e
Rese e (15 km2) and Ku jen ahka Na ional Pa k, along wi h
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
se e al la ge p i a e es a es and a mul i ude o small a ms
(app oxima ely 70 pe cen o o es in sou hwes e n Finland
is p i a ely owned, and he a e age size o o es p ope y is
app oxima ely 30 hec a es).
While d awing on he concep o i de eloped by Young
(2002, 2008), I will o e a a ia ion on his app oach. Fi s , in
my ea men , he ques ions conce ning ins i u ional i and
in e play a e in e wined: he p e-exis ing ins i u ional
a angemen s and local people a e pa o bo h he p oblem
and he solu ion (see Va n and Vedeld 2012). Second, he s ic
sepa a ion be ween ins i u ions (as po en ial solu ions) and
ecosys ems (as po en ial p oblems) canno be made (see
B omley 2012). I will build on a p agma is iew and sugges
ha ins i u ional i conce ns habi s and how hey in e lock.
In pa icula , i is abou habi -b eaking and habi - aking. I
ollow John Dewey and especially Cha les Sande s Pei ce in
claiming ha a iche de ini ion o ins i u ional i han
Young’s (2002, 2008) is a ailable. My main a gumen is ha
he policies ha ocus only on habi -b eaking and igno e habi -
aking will mos likely ail. I will a gue ha i he ins i u ional
designe s would add ess and acknowledge he habi s o
eeling, ac ion, and mind, including hei own, ha ame and
cons i u e he p oblema ic si ua ion and po en ial solu ions,
he ma e o ins i u ional i would become easie o iden i y
and handle.
THEORETICAL NAVIGATION
Wha a e ins i u ions?
Acco ding o he mos cus oma y de ini ion, ins i u ions a e
o mal o in o mal ules. Ins i u ions may hen be a icula ed
ules en o ced wi h sanc ions, incen i es, una icula ed
adi ions, cus oms, and mo al no ms. This line o easoning
ollows he new ins i u ionalism o , o ins ance, Douglass C.
No h (2005) and Oli e Williamson (1996) (on old and new
ins i u ionalism, see Ru he o d 1994). This de ini ion akes
o mal and in o mal ins i u ions as he ou e cons ain s o
indi idual ac ion. Ins i u ions di ec and s abilize indi idual
ac ion by compelling ce ain gene al goals and o e mo e
p ac ical means (incen i es and sanc ions) o ac ualizing hese
goals. Ins i u ions cons i u e socie al sca olding ha shapes
human in e ac ion (No h 2005). The challenge in ins i u ional
design and policy implemen a ion is whe he ac o s ind hese
new se ups su icien ly compelling and accep able. Young
(2008:21) makes he ollowing a gumen : “success ul
go e nance sys ems mus be based on a ecogni ion o he
cha ac e o he p oblems a hand and ea u e he in oduc ion
o beha io al mechanisms c a ed o add ess hese p oblems.”
Ano he concep ion o ins i u ions is based on he classical old
ins i u ionalism o John R. Commons and Tho s ein Veblen,
bo h o whom ollowed p agma ism, especially ha o John
Dewey and Cha les S. Pei ce.[1] Acco ding o his iew,
ins i u ions a e no ules ha a e ollowed pe se bu o de ed
collec i e ac ions ha expand, es ain, o libe a e indi idual
ac ion (Commons 1990). This classical iew esembles no
only Bou dieuan sociology bu also he social–ecological
unde s anding o he s uc u es and unc ionings o coe ol ing
human–en i onmen ansac ions (Emi baye and Goldbe g
2005, Hiedanpää e al. 2012, No be g e al. 2008).
The e a e wo schools o classical ins i u ionalism di e ing
on whe he o de is oli ionally c ea ed o eme ges
spon aneously. Economis s such as B omley (2006, 2008) and
Va n (2005) and poli ical scien is s such as Pie son (2006)
unde s and ins i u ions as oli ional collec i e ac ion,
mani es ed in policies and he way ha hey shape and c ea e
easons o indi idual ac ion. Hodgson (1993, 2004, 2007),
on he o he hand, conside s habi o be he uni o selec ion
in ins i u ional change. Hodgson holds ha ins i u ions a e
eme gen p ope ies o in e ac ing habi s and ha hese
con ingen ins i u ional pa e ns cause a downwa d p essu e
on indi idual ac ions and beha io . Gene ally, his line o
easoning also applies o he ins i u ional and e olu iona y
economis s o he pos -Da winian adi ion (Dop e 2007,
Ald ich e al. 2008). I ends o dis ega d he signi icance o
pu pose and inal causa ion.
A Pei cean ex ension
My pu pose is o s e ch hese heo e ical o ien a ions and
ocus on he analy ical gap I p opose. The heo ies make an
analy ic bi u ca ion which, in consequence, c ea es a black
box ha blu s he essen ial ma e o ins i u ional i and
in e play. The exis ence o his black box is due o hei
on ological and epis emological commi men o ei he o mal
o in o mal, oli ional o spon aneous, o ganized o
uno ganized quali ies when ying o unde s and he bi h and
en enchmen o ins i u ional designs.
I will ollow he same b oad p agma is app oach aken by he
a o emen ioned classical ins i u ionalis s (e.g., Hodgson 2010,
B omley 2012), bu I am also sympa he ic o he new
ins i u ionalis idea ha ins i u ions cons i u e an ou e
en i onmen al sca olding o human ac ion and in e ac ion,
i.e., ha human ac ion and in e ac ion a e media ed by
“en i onmen al” s uc u es and ea u es such as ecosys ems,
physical in as uc u es, no ms, and ules (Cla k 1997). I will
make my case clea e by explo ing he Pei cean concep ion
o habi s, ca ego ies, and no ma i e sciences mo e ho oughly.
My pu pose is o p o ide a nondualis ic concep ion o
ins i u ions and apply i in he analysis o ins i u ional i .
Habi s
Acco ding o Pei ce (CP 6.101), “li e has a endency o ake
habi s.”[2] Regula i y, con inuum, o de , s abili y, and
easonableness a e all mani es a ions o his gene al endency
o li e. Al hough all habi s unc ion o ul ill a pu pose o some
kind, hey a e no ully oli ional. Pei ce wa ned us no o
iden i y pu pose wi h a conscious goal. To him, “a pu pose is
me ely ha o m o inal cause which is mos amilia o ou
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
expe ience” (CP 1.211). Pu poses, i.e., ac i i ies unde aken
o some hing’s sake, a e no hing bu ope a i e desi es, he
objec o which is ne e conc e e bu always gene al. No ice
ha pu poses, inal causes, and habi s poin a he po en ial
u u e (Hulswi 2002). Fo Pei ce, inal causes o pu poses a e
basically habi s ha habi ually di ec p ocesses owa d an end
s a e.
Fo Pei ce, he e is a speci ic ea u e in his end-di ec edness:
Thus we see how hese p inciples no only lead o
he es ablishmen o habi s, bu o habi s di ec ed o
de ini e ends, namely he emo al o sou ces o
i i a ion. Now i is p ecisely ac ion acco ding o
inal causes which dis inguishes men al om
mechanical ac ion; and he gene al o mula o all
ou desi es may be aken as his: o emo e a
s imulus. E e y man is busily wo king o b ing o an
end ha s a e o hings which now exci es him o
wo k.(CP 1.392)
The i i a ion ( he eeling o being dis u bed) mo i a es one
o esol e he si ua ion by adjus ing ac ion endency, belie ,
and habi . The change o habi is no an easy ask because i
does no ake only mo i a ion and ac i i ies bu in ol es he
b oade en i onmen in which ac ions ake place. John Dewey
b ings cus oms in o he analysis o habi s. Dewey (1988:43)
has de ined he in e ela ion o habi and cus om eloquen ly:
“bu o a la ge ex en cus oms pe sis because indi iduals
o m hei pe sonal habi s unde condi ions se by p io
cus oms.” Dewey (1988:38) con inues: “Habi s inco po a e
an en i onmen wi hin hemsel es. They a e adjus men s o
he en i onmen , no me ely o i ” [emphasis in he o iginal].
Indeed, many o he ins i u ional adjus men s ail because o
a poo i be ween hei habi s, hei cus oma y en i onmen ,
and hei newly launched pu poses. In essence, ins i u ional
and social change equi es bo h habi -b eaking and habi -
aking. Ins i u ional i is a ma e o embodied and
inco po a ed en i onmen al in e ac ions. In iden i ying his
kind o phenomenon, Hukkinen (2012), desc ibes i as “ i in
he body.”
Ca ego ies
Pei ce p o ides heo e ical and analy ical ools o unde s and
wha habi -b eaking and habi - aking a e, and also o explain
how hese phenomena occu . He de ines h ee ca ego ies o
o ganize desc ip ions o he wo ld, which will be used he e o
elabo a e a iche concep ualiza ion o he ela ionship
be ween i : i s ness, secondness, and hi dness (Volume 5 o
Collec ed Pape s o Pie ce in Pie ce 1934; Po e 1967).
Fi s ness is a quali a i e aspec o e e y phenomenon. We
ha e an immedia e acquain ance wi h i s ness; i is an
unanalyzed, ins an aneous, immedia e eeling o he sign.
“Fi s ness is he mode o being o ha which is such as i is,
posi i ely and wi hou e e ence o any hing else” (CP 8.328).
As Pei ce a icula ed u he , “[o]u o he womb o
inde e minacy we mus say ha he e would ha e come
some hing, by he p inciple o i s ness, which we may call a
lash” (CP 1.412). Fi s ness is no an ac ual en i y bu exis s
only in he in e p e e ’s imagina ion, being hypo he ical and
possible (Be ns ein 2010, Co lée 2009).
Secondness is an expe ience ei he o e o o esis ance.
Acco ding o Pei ce (CP 8.330),
[ ]he ype o an idea o Secondness is he expe ience
o e o , p escinded om he idea o a pu pose....
The exis ence o he wo d e o is su icien p oo
ha people hink hey ha e such an idea; and ha
is enough. The expe ience o e o canno exis
wi hou he expe ience o esis ance. E o is only
e o by he i ue o i s being opposed; and no hi d
elemen en e s. No e ha I speak o he expe ience,
no o he eeling, o e o .
Fo Pei ce, will is always se agains some hing, eac ing in
he ealms o ela ions, dis u bances, and s uggles.
Thi dness in ol es a medium o a connec ing link be ween
wo hings. When hings o wo ds se e a unc ion o any kind,
when he ac is done o he sake o some hing, hi dness
eme ges. Acco ding o Pei ce, “[ ]he hi d is ha which is wha
i is owing o hings be ween which i media es and which i
b ings in o ela ion o each o he ” (CP 1.356). “A Thi d is
some hing which b ings a Fi s in o ela ion o a Second”
[emphasis in he o iginal] (CP 8.331) (Misak 2004).
Now we a e able use Pei ce’s heo ies o unde s and li ing
sys ems’ endency o b eak and ake habi s. Habi s di ec
p ocesses o an end s a e. Chance and possibili y wo k owa d
di e si y o hese p ocesses and end s a es. Reac ion and
s uggle adjus habi s in he ace o dis u bances and he
admi ed end s a es. Pei ce’s heo y o ca ego ies p o ides a
pe spec i e h ough which o s udy he social-ecological
condi ions and consequences o his gene al endency o b eak
and ake habi s. Fo ou pu poses, habi is hi dness, e o is
secondness, and eeling is i s ness. Ca ego ies a e capable o
combina ions. E o is an essen ial cons i uen o habi , and
eeling is an essen ial cons i uen in e o and habi . In o he
wo ds, emo ions a e cons i uen s in ( e)ac ion, and emo ions
and ( e)ac ions a e cons i uen s in habi (Po e 1967).
Ins i u ional i is a dynamic consequence o i i a ion and
doub , o e coming esis ance o se e a pu pose.
No ma i e sciences
Pei ce desc ibes he ask o wha he calls no ma i e sciences
as di e en ia ing “wha ough o be om wha ough no o
be” (CP 1.186). No ma i e sciences can also be cha ac e ized
as an analysis o “ he condi ions o he a ainmen o some hing
o which pu pose is an essen ial ing edien ” (CP 1.575).
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
Be gman (2009:56) cla i ies he ask: “... i seems easonable
o concei e he no ma i i y... in e ms o c i icism o habi s,
whe e he ca ego ies mani es hemsel es on he le el o he
objec s c i icized a he han as a de e minan o he sciences
as such. In o he wo ds, all o he no ma i e sciences a e
conce ned wi h he c i icism o conduc , albei o di e en
kinds.”
I am he c i ic he e. I explo e he ins i u ional condi ions such
ha he c i icism o a ious habi s becomes possible. The
Pei cean no ma i e sciences equi e he adop ion o he
e hnog aphic s a egy. Commons (1990, see also Rams ad
1990) was well awa e o his and sugges ed ha he esea che
mus pu him/he sel in he posi ion o he esea ch subjec
and eel wha he people likely el as hey we e easoning and
doing. The key is o unde s and why and how ce ain ac ions
we e aken. In o he wo ds, why and how a pa icula ac ion
soo hes he eeling, ex inguishes he s imulus o i i a ion, and
ul ills a pu pose. The ques ion is no abou a i udes. I is abou
wha ac ions we e aken and wha easons we e gi en o hose
ac ions. The c i ic mus become in ol ed in he esea ch
subjec . The c i ic mus be bo h an obse e and a pa icipan .
The i s -, second- and hi d-pe son pe spec i es a e
in e wined. The i s -pe son pe spec i e e e s o a eeling
agen , he second-pe son pe spec i e o a pa icipan in ac ion,
and he hi d-pe son pe spec i e o he o e iew o he
ela ions be ween he i s and he second (Bohman 2001,
Cooke 2006).
The p ima y da a se is de i ed om in e iews wi h he local
people o sou hwes e n Finland and he o icials o he na ional
and egional wildli e adminis a ions. The ieldwo k ex ends
o he pa icipan obse a ions o e e yday li e in he a eas
ha ha e expe ienced he e ec s o wol p esence. The
in e iews anged om expansi e hema ic in e iews (23)
las ing se e al hou s o b ie mini-in e iews (8) wi h he
people spon aneously me du ing he ieldwo k (on in e iews,
see K ale 1996). In e iews we e conduc ed be ween he
pe iod o 2009 and 2011. The aim o hese in e iews was o
de elop an empi ical image o how he p esence o he wol
a ec s he habi s o u al communi ies and he adminis a ion
and o enable he analysis o ins i u ional i and mis i (on
loca ion, see Figu e 2).
THE PRESENCE OF THE WOLF IN
SOUTHWESTERN FINLAND
Habi s o eeling / i s ness
Le me i s explo e he eelings a oused by a sudden
appea ance o he wol . Indeed, he sudden appea ance o he
wol in human se lemen s ook communi ies by su p ise in
he Pyhäjä i a ea in 2008. The p eda ion o some 65 sheep
was a shock. The e en ecalled he obse a ions o he wol ,
acks and dead co pses o oe dee and o he p ey ha had
been nea ly con inuous h oughou he yea . Be o e ha ime,
un il 2008, he encoun e s had been a e and idiosync a ic. The
p esence o he wol became an “exci a ion.” On one hand, i
was an aes he ic exci emen , a pleasu e o eeling he in ensi y
and quali y o he su ounding en i onmen . On he o he hand,
i was a eeling o po en ial loss, h ea , dange , and insecu i y.
In gene al, hese eelings and expec a ions we e mixed, and
people el conce n bo h abou and o he wol .
The wol in e ened in he a ious habi ua ed spaces. I s
p esence in ensi ied he eeling ha he wol belongs in he
wilde ness, whe e i s ac i i ies a e i ele an o people, and
no nea human se lemen s con aining amilies and domes ic
animals. This bounda y be ween wol es and humans and hei
espec i e e i o ies, wha one migh call an “on ological
ag eemen ,” was ansg essed when indica ions o he wol ’s
p esence began o appea wi hin he li elihood spaces o
humans. O cou se, i s e i o y, e en deep in he wilde ness
and o es , con ains human ac i i y, hun ing g ounds, o
example. I is his ansg ession in o he habi ua ed spaces ha
cha ac e izes he quali y o eeling p o oked by he wol ’s
p esence. The wol belongs o he wilde ness and ce ainly
does no belong o se led human spaces.
The eappea ance o he wol ac i a ed ag a ian memo ies.
The old s o ies abou wol es ha had killed human in an s
we e old and e old, especially by people li ing hei u al
ag a ian li es on acknowledged wol e i o y. These cul u al
memo ies e i alized hemsel es e en hough cus oms and
u al daily p ac ices a e e y di e en now. This pa e n
indica es ha he ag a ian cus oms (cul u es) and he habi s o
eeling hey sus ain s ill se e pa icula , i no ob ious,
pu poses. The ag a ian cus oms and habi s sus ain hese
s o ies. In a simila ein, he physical s uc u es known as
“wol holes”, which e e o camou laged holes measu ing
h ee me e s wide and h ee me e s deep o cap u ing wol es
ha come oo close o he illage, began o ha e a pu pose
again: p o ec ing people and domes ic animals agains he
wol . The illage o Tuiskula in Köyliö has displayed i s ou
wol holes o he public and media.
Habi s a e gene ali ies, po en ial epe oi es o ac ing and
belie ing ha poin o he end ha is achie ed and admi ed.
In gene al, he p esence o wol es is el as a limi ing ac o
o he u he de elopmen o indi idual and collec i e
expe iences in he Pyhäjä i a ea. The wol is an icon o he
wilde ness, he possibili y o h ea . In ag a ian se ings, signs
o wol es communica e he possible ha m and he loss o well-
being. In gene al, he p esence o wol es seems o dis u b and
exci e s ong eelings in suppo o he cus oma y o de .
Reac ions / secondness
People ac o id hemsel es o i i a ion and doub . In he
Pyhäjä i a ea, people and communi ies had hei pa icula
ways and easons o eac .
Human sa e y, especially ha o child en, was he i s poin
when discussing he wol . A e he i s a acks o 2008 in
Köyliö, many people and communi ies began o quickly adjus

Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
hei daily ac i i ies in a ious ways. Some decided no o walk
as o en in he o es s. As he school yea was abou o begin,
he communi y councils decided o a ange axi ides o
schools. One o he pas u es in which a p eda ion happened
was si ua ed close o summe houses. The esiden s we e
conce ned abou he neighbo ing sheep pas u es because sheep
a ac wol es; a p e ious en i onmen al ameni y u ned o an
en i onmen al nuisance. Wha is impo an o no e, howe e ,
is ha he wol did no inci e ange o ha ed in his pa icula
ega d, bu wo y.
The secu i y o li elihoods is ano he issue ha a ose. Fa m-
le el p ecau ions ose o a new le el. Sheep and goa s we e
kep inside, and dogs we e kep on a leash. The sheep a me s
a oided he dange ous g azing ields and b ough he sheep,
goa s, and ca le close o hei homes. La e ha au umn, mos
o he a me s who had su e ed losses o he h ea o losses
e ec ed elec ic ences on ce ain pas u es. In 2008, encing
ma e ials could be o de ed ee o cha ge om he Regional
Wildli e Agency (called Game Managemen Dis ic , GMD
un il Ma ch 2011), bu he labo cos s o encing we e no
compensa ed by he go e nmen . Some o he sheep a me s
dispu ed his policy. Mo eo e , due o iscal p oblems, he
Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y could no deli e enough
encing ma e ials o he sheep a me s. In gene al, a me s
we e conce ned o hei business and li elihoods. Some we e
annoyed and us a ed because he go e nmen al
compensa ion was paid a e nea ly a yea , a conside able lapse
o ime. This lag placed an addi ional economic bu den on
sheep a me s. They, along wi h a me s in gene al, ound he
si ua ion dis u bing.
The esis ance agains he ins i u ed p ocesses o knowledge
p oduc ion was a hi d issue. Local communi ies dispu ed he
o icial numbe s o wol es. Rumo s sp ead ha he Pyhäjä i
a ea, especially a ound Pöy yä, was su ounded by mo e han
wen y wol es. Local hun e s o ganized wol censuses in
Pöy yä in la e 2008 and in ea ly 2009, coun ing 25 and 23
wol es, espec i ely. The o icial es ima es p o ided by he
Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e (RKTL)
indica ed ha Pöy yä had one e i o y, i.e., one wol pack.
Hun e s and hei o ganiza ion (Finnish Hun e ’s Associa ion)
did no ha e con idence in he es ima es p o ided by RKTL
and, simila ly, esea che s o RKTL did no conside he
hun e s’ coun ing me hods o be scien i ically obus . Hun e s
we e us a ed and ang y because hei conce n and e o s
we e no aken se iously.
Fou h, local people eac ed o he legal and adminis a i e
ules o socie y. The inc easing p esence o he wol b ough
he legal cons ain s o he o e. Namely, he hun e s ound i
ha d o unde s and why i was no possible o kill he wol es
despi e he ac ha hei p esence caused conce ns and
exceeded a c i ical h eshold in 2008. The ules conce ning
he de oga ion om p o ec ing he wol popula ion a e s ic
o local hun e s. Ano he example is e en mo e illumina ing.
In one o he pas u es, he sheep kep he aluable cul u al
landscape open, o which he sheep a me ecei ed a speci ic
ag o-en i onmen al subsidy. A e he wol a ack, he
inspec o om he egional Ely-cen e (Cen e o Economic
De elopmen , T anspo and he En i onmen ) poin ed ou
ha he pas u es we e unde g azed, and he sheep a me
ecei ed a se e al-hund ed Eu o penal y. The cause o he
unde g azing, i.e., ha he wol killed he sheep, did no ma e .
Consequen ly, us a ion and ange sp ead in communi ies.
Thei in e es s in a secu e ag icul u e and sa e li elihoods did
no ca y he same weigh as he bu eauc a ic commi men o
secu ing wol numbe s.
Con inui ies / hi dness
Habi ela es eelings and e o s o each o he . As illus a ed,
eac ions we e ins an ia ed by he p esence o he wol . The
wol dis u bed habi ua ed spaces and cus oma y li elihoods
in he Pyhäjä i a ea. In e es ingly, howe e , he eac ions
we e igge ed by he combina ions o ins i u ional
a angemen s, adminis a i e ci cums ances, and he wol .
F us a ion and ange in ensi ied he eac ions.
Consequen ly, by June 2009, only a ew wol obse a ions
we e made in he Pyhäjä i a ea, whe eas in he p e ious yea ,
he obse a ions we e made con inuously. The e we e no wol
a acks on sheep o on o he domes ic animals. The wol es
we e gone. The e we e no signs o he Köyliö pack ha had
dep eda ed 65 sheep, and he numbe s in he Pöy yä pack we e
g ea ly educed. Acco ding o he RKTL, he e we e no e iden
ecological easons behind he disappea ance: he p ey
popula ions, oe dee and moose, we e su icien ly dense, and
he e we e no signs o le hal diseases. The only plausible
explana ion is ha he numbe o he wol es had been educed
by illegal killing.
I seems ha he communi ies o he Pyhäjä i a ea sol ed
hei “wol p oblem.” The communi ies exe cised social
sus ainabili y. Social sus ainabili y o his kind is no he same
b eed ha he EU o he Finnish na ional au ho i ies wish o
p omo e. The de ailed easons behind hese local adap i e ac s
a e s ill unknown, bu he e idence poin s o espec and
sympa hy owa d ellow humans, conce n o he igh s o he
people o e he igh s o he wol , and ange owa d he
au ho i a i e agencies. The pu pose o he illegal killing o he
wol es was o sa egua d he Pyhäjä i communi ies om he
po en ial impac o he wol es’ p esence and o main ain local
cus oma y o de . All communi y membe s did no commi
hemsel es o he o mal wol policy. The habi s o eeling
and he eac ions in he ace o he wol policy indica ed his.
The nega i ely el possibili ies and nega i e in ense emo ions
in eac ions did no engende communi ies and hei membe s
o he policy. The pu pose o he policy emained dis an . This
comes owa d explaining why communi ies we e engaged in
exe cising one kind o con inuum o e he o he . This helps
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
o explain why communi ies exe cised one se o p ac ices
a he han ano he . I also illus a es he na u e o ins i u ional
“mis i ”. The policy did no lead o an admi ed u u e.
THE HARDSHIP OF MAKING INSTITUTIONS FIT
The iabili y o he wol popula ion has no imp o ed in
sou hwes e n Finland. Consequen ly, in 2009, he Eu opean
Commission once again called o an in o mal discussion ( he
Package Mee ing) on wildli e- ela ed issues wi h Finnish
au ho i ies. The Commission claimed ha Finland con inued
o ha e p oblems in he implemen a ion and en o cemen o
he Habi a s Di ec i e. The wildli e adminis a ion admi ed
he p oblems and exp essed i s con inued commi men o
igh en he ins i u ional se up conce ning la ge ca ni o e
p o ec ion.
Weeding ou he bad habi s
The Finnish go e nmen and he wildli e adminis a ion end
o unde s and ins i u ions as he ou e cons ain s o human
ac ion, which is a new ins i u ionalis inclina ion (Ru he o d
1994, Williamson 1996). This endency became appa en in
he all o 2010 when he Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y
en o ced a legal adjus men ha inc eased he ine o killing
la ge ca ni o es. The pu pose o he adjus men was o en ich
he ins i u ional sca old wi h a disincen i e o hun illegally.
Also, a new penal ca ego y, a se ious hun ing c ime, was
included in he c iminal law. I came in o o ce in Ap il 2011.
Acco ding o he law, he elemoni o ing o suspec s by he
police is allowed, and a con ic ion leads o a p ison e m o
ou mon hs o ou yea s. These ins i u ional designs build on
he idea ha when i comes o en o cemen mechanisms, he
h ea o punishmen is he mos e ec i e. I is expec ed ha
hese newly launched ins i u ional cons ain s will discou age
illegal killing; he pu pose is o de e he bad habi s o some
u al agen s.
These ac i i ies may no necessa ily imp o e he ins i u ional
i . Namely, he weeding ou o bad habi s is a eac i e
adminis a i e ac i i y. We should emembe ha he en i e
emo ional egime o he Finnish wol policy is eac i e. This
is undoub edly indica ed by he con inued s uggle be ween
he go e nmen o Finland and he Commission, he wol
en husias s, and he hun e s, and he local hun e s and wildli e
science o RKTL. One Finnish wol scien is has gone so a
as o claim ha he Finnish wol con lic is insoluble, ha is,
he e is no way ha people can add ess he issues wi h he wol
o wi h each o he when i comes o he impac s o he wol
(Bisi 2010). Indeed, acco ding he Pei cean in e p e a ion, he
p oblems a e insoluble exac ly as long as he game is played
on he pla eau o eac ions and s uggle and as long as he
unde lying habi s o eeling and cus oma y en i onmen s a e
no add essed. Un il hen, he solu ions will build upon “ he
compulsion o law,” i.e., eac i e legisla i e adjus men s ha
ely on he ex e nal cons ain s o human ac ion and
in e ac ion.
The cu ency o conce n
The go e nmen has adjus ed no only he ex e nal cons ain s
o human–wol in e ac ions bu also he o mal sca olding o
wildli e policy and managemen . The new Ac on Wildli e
Adminis a ion came in o e ec in Ma ch 2011. Regional
Wildli e Agencies (15 in o al) and Regional Wildli e Councils
we e es ablished, and he p e ious egional Game
Managemen Dis ic s (GMD) (15 in o al) and hei boa d o
di ec o s we e disman led. The pu pose o he ins i u ional
edesign was o es ablish a clea e dis inc ion be ween he
o icial wildli e managemen and in e es poli ics. The
Regional Wildli e Councils subs i u e o he p e ious boa d
o di ec o s o he GMD. The Councils comp ise a maximum
o 10 membe s: six ep esen he hun e s and ou ep esen
o he in e es s, such as egional land use planning, o es
owne s, and a ic. The councils a e discu si e bodies wi h
he ask o di ec ing egional wildli e policy. The boa d o
di ec o s o GMD had eal decision making powe s, mos
no iceably conce ning he de oga ion om he s ic p o ec ion
o he wol . Such decisions a e now made by he Finnish
Wildli e Agency. The membe s o he GMD boa d o di ec o s
we e local landowne s and hun e s. The e a e indica ions ha
he shi o powe om he egional le el o he Finnish
Wildli e Agency may inc ease he el impo ency o u al
communi ies, including a ound he Pyhäjä i a ea.
By ocusing p ima ily on he illegal killing o he wol es and
by disman ling he ac ual powe a he egional le el, he
go e nmen has implici ly and indi ec ly signaled ha he local
communi ies a e, o an ex en , esponsible o he wol es’ a e.
Nei he he go e nmen no he wildli e adminis a ion has
ac i ely aken wol - ela ed communi y needs and hopes in o
conside a ion. In o he wo ds, he adminis a ion has a habi
o igno ing he easons behind he communi ies’ eac ions o
nega i e eelings. This habi has become appa en in how
eluc an he adminis a ion has been o alle ia e he economic
and emo ional bu dens engende ed by he wol es’ p esence.
The egula o y appa a us ha he go e nmen has e ec ed has
le he sou ces o us a ion and ange in ac . I s
nonin e en ionis policy has an acciden al endency o
inc ease he populace’s eelings o insecu i y, helplessness,
and ange . The go e nmen has no ac i ely designed
ins i u ions o posi i e o de and g ow h. The go e nmen
i sel exe cises discipline and con ol, which is, again, a
eac i e cha ac e is ic o go e nance.
Making ules, no lo e
The go e nmen ’s ocus has been habi -b eaking. The
go e nmen has done li le in e ms o habi - aking among
u al communi ies ha would help hem o adap o he wol es’
p esence. The go e nmen has no designed ins i u ions o
ensh ine habi s o mo al and in ellec ual g ow h. The
go e nmen ’s no ma i e e o , which in ol es he ongoing
c i icism o local habi s, is no expansi e bu cons aining. I
conside s nei he he unde lying emo ional egime no he
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
c i ical condi ions o habi o ma ion. The adminis a ion has,
o cou se, admi ed ha ea is eal and ha i has ma e ial
mani es a ions and p ac ical implica ions. Howe e ,
communi y membe s ha e con inued o exe cise hei p i a e
nega i e eedoms and ha e spon aneously, wi hou ac i e
go e nmen al assis ance, adjus ed hei communi y-based
cus oms and habi s in pa icula ways. The iabili y o he wol
popula ion has no been on hei lis o p io i ies.
Habi s change when en i onmen –human in e ac ions change.
I is no only a ma e o ixing ou e cons ain s. The
go e nmen ’s pa icipa ion in he p ocess o habi - aking
could acili a e a mo e owa ds wha Pei ce called conc e e
easonableness (Wa d 2001). This e m means ha he
collabo a ion and colla e al lea ning po en ially acili a e a
g adual shi in wha is admi ed in gi en en i onmen al
se ings and how he agen s eac o he nex dis u bance. The
sha ed expe iences lead o g adual changes conce ning wha
people conside an a ainable end. Conc e e easonableness is
cha ac e ized by epis emic commi men o collabo a e as a
communi y o ind, edesc ibe, and c ea e admi ed ends,
app op ia e ac ions, and wa an ed epis emic p ac ices (Wa d
2001, Talisse 2010). Conc e e easonableness is a p ocess o
adjus ed habi - aking. Ins i u ional i is no a ma e o
co ec ly es ablishing he ex e nal cons ain s o cons uc ing
he nega i e appa a uses. Ins i u ional i is abou c ea ing,
designing, and e ec ing he posi i e, enabling en i onmen al
appa a uses. In he Pyhäjä i a ea, he in e es ed indi iduals
and g oups ha e al eady aken ini ia i es o mo e
collabo a ion. Howe e , as long as he go e nmen , he
wildli e adminis a ion, o he esea ch ins i u e RKTL a e no
ac i ely aking pa in hese e o s, wol policy is ha dly
becoming any i e o mo e easonable. I akes sha ed
eelings and isions abou he admi ed o g ow habi s. This
indeed will con inue o challenge Finnish wol policy.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Re lec ing on he Pyhäjä i a ea, a e he ini ia ed policy
measu es he mos app op ia e and he mos e ec i e in
b eaking and aking new habi s ha allow communi ies o
coexis wi h he wol es? Do he ecen policy measu es esol e
he conce ns, ees ablish eelings o secu i y, o help
communi y membe s o li e wi h he p esence o he wol ?
No, hey p obably do no . Appa en ly, hese communi ies,
which ha e been dis u bed by he wol and he
un esponsi eness o he wildli e adminis a ion, con inue o
admi e ce ain pu poses and encou age ce ain codes o
conduc ha a e no he mos hono able o law-abiding, bu
which a e expec ed o sa egua d he con inui y o u al li e.
The go e nmen may ini ia e changes and may p o ide
enabling ins i u ions and acili a e he mic o-mechanism o
adap a ion. As his classical ins i u ionalis analysis has
shown, as long as hose ins umen s a e eac i e and
compulsi e and no collabo a i e engagemen o whole
epis emic communi y in habi - aking, hey will he mos likely
ail (on epis emic communi ies, see Haas 1992). In
collabo a ion, cus oms, habi s, and he ensuing emo ional
egimes may slowly begin o change. Ins i u ions, he a ious
o ms o o de ed collec i e ac ions, may begin o be e i
oge he in he habi ua ed social–ecological space in which
he people, communi ies, and he wol li e. I will no be an
exac i because no such hing exis s. Howe e , i he
go e nmen ensu es ha he wildli e policy enables conc e e
collabo a ion and colla e al lea ning, i may become doable,
possible and easonable, o he ime being.
Responses o his a icle can be ead online a :
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/issues/ esponses.
php/5302
Acknowledgmen s:
I would like o hank Daniel B omley, Janne Hukkinen, Sauli
Hä könen, Jani Pellikka, and he Special Fea u e edi o Ka e
Fa ell o he aluable commen s on he ea lie e sion o
he manusc ip . I also hank he anonymous e iewe s and he
Academy o Finland (253750).
LITERATURE CITED
Ald ich, H. E., G. M. Hodgson, D. L. Hull, T. Knudsen, J.
Moky , and V. J. Vanbe g. 2008. In de ence o gene alized
Da winism. Jou nal o E olu iona y Economics 18:577–96.
Be gman, M. 2009. Pei ce’s philosophy o communica ion.
Con inuum, London, UK.
Be ns ein, R. 2010. The p agma ic u n. Poli y P ess, London,
UK.
Bisi, J. 2010. Suomalaisen susipoli iikan ana omia [The
ana omy o Finnish wol policy]. Ac a Uni e si a is Ouluensis
Scien iae Re um Na u alium A 552. Uni e si y o Oulu, Oulu,
Finland.
Bisi, J., and S. Ku ki. 2008. The wol deba e in Finland:
expec a ions and objec i es o he managemen o he wol
popula ion a egional and na ional le el. Publica ions 12.
Helsinki Uni e si y, Ru alia Ins i u e, Seinäjoki, Finland.
Bohman, J. 2001. Pa icipan s, obse e s and c i ics: p ac ical
knowledge, social pe spec i es, and c i ical plu alism. Pages
87-113 in L. Rehg, and J. Bohman, edi o s. Plu alism and he
p agma ic u n. MIT P ess, Bos on, Massachuse s, USA.
B omley, D. W. 2006. Su icien eason: oli ional
p agma ism and he meaning o economic ins i u ions.
P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, USA.
Ecology and Socie y 18(1): 24
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol18/iss1/a 24/
B omley, D. 2008. Voli ional p agma ism. Ecological
Economics 68(1-2):1-13. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2008.08.012
B omley, D. W. 2012. En i onmen al go e nance as
s ochas ic belie upda ing: c a ing ules o li e by. Ecology
and Socie y 17(3):14. [online] URL: h p://dx.doi.
o g/10.5751/ES-04774-170314
Cla k, A. 1997. Economic eason: he in e play o indi idual
lea ning and ex e nal s uc u e. Pages 269–290 in J. N. D obak,
and J. V. C. Nye, edi o s. The on ie s o he new ins i u ional
economics. Academic P ess, San Diego, Cali o nia, USA.
Commons, J. R. 1990. Ins i u ional economics: i s place in
poli ical economy. T ansac ion, London, UK.
Cooke, E. F. 2006. Pei ce’s p agma ic heo y o inqui y:
allibilism and inde e minacy. Con inuum, London, UK.
Co lée, L. 2009. A ske ch o Pei ce’s i s ness and i s
signi icance o a . Sign Sys ems S udies 37:205–269.
Dewey, J. 1988. Human na u e and conduc . The middle wo ks
o John Dewey. Volume 14. Sou he n Illinois Uni e si y P ess,
Ca bondale and Edwa ds ille, Illinois, USA.
Dop e , K., edi o . 2007. The e olu iona y ounda ions o
economics. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, UK.
Emi baye , M., and C. A. Goldbe g. 2005. P agma ism,
Bou dieu and collec i e emo ions in con en ious poli ics.
Theo y and Socie y 34:469–518. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/
s11186-005-1619-x
Eu opean Cou o Jus ice. 2007. Judgmen o he Cou
(Second Chambe ) o 14 June 2007. Commission o he
Eu opean Communi ies Republic o Finland. Failu e o a
membe s a e o ul il i s obliga ions - Di ec i e 92/43/EEC -
conse a ion o na u al habi a s - wild auna and lo a - Wol
hun ing. Case C-342/05. [online] URL: h p://cu ia.eu opa.eu/
ju is/lis e.js ?language=en&num=C-342/05
Haas, P. M. 1992. In oduc ion: epis emic communi ies and
in e na ional policy coo dina ion. In e na ional O ganiza ion
46:1-35. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1017/S0020818300001442
Hiedanpää, J., and D. W. B omley. 2011. The ha moniza ion
game: easons and ules in Eu opean biodi e si y policy.
En i onmen al Policy and Go e nance 21:99–111. h p://dx.
doi.o g/10.1002/ee .561
Hiedanpää, J., and D. W. B omley. 2012. Con es a ions o e
biodi e si y p o ec ion. En i onmen al Values 3:357–378.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.3197/096327112X13400390126091
Hiedanpää, J., A. Jokinen, and P. Jokinen. 2012. Making sense
o he social: human-nonhuman cons ella ions and he wicked
oad o sus ainabili y. Sus ainabili y: Science, P ac ice, &
Policy 7:15–24.
Hodgson, G. M. 1993. Economics and e olu ion: b inging li e
back in o economics. Poli y P ess, Camb idge, UK.
Hodgson, G. M. 2004. The e olu ion o ins i u ional
economics: agency, s uc u e and Da winism in Ame ican
ins i u ionalism. Rou ledge, London, UK. h p://dx.doi.
o g/10.4324/9780203300350
Hodgson, G. M. 2007. Economics in he shadow o Da win
and Ma x: essays in ins i u ional and e olu iona y hemes.
Edwa d Elga , London, UK.
Hodgson, G. M. 2010. Choice, habi and e olu ion. Jou nal
o E olu iona y Economics 20:1–18. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1007/
s00191-009-0134-z
Hukkinen. J. 2012. Fi in he body: ma ching embodied
cogni ion wi h social-ecological sys ems. Ecology and Socie y
17(4):30. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-05241-170430
Hulswi , M. 2002. F om cause o causa ion: a Pei cean
pe spec i e. Philosophical S udies Se ies. Volume 90. Kluwe
Academic Publishe s, Do d ech , Ne he lands. h p://dx.doi.
o g/10.1007/978-94-010-0297-4
Kojola, I., P. Helle, and S. Heikkinen. 2011. Susikannan
iimeaikaise muu okse Suomessa e i aineis ojen alossa.
Suomen Riis a 57:55–62.
K ale, S. 1996. In e Views. Sage, London, UK.
Managemen plan o he wol popula ion in Finland. 2005.
Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y, Helsinki, Finland.
[online] URL: h p://wwwb.mmm. i/julkaisu /julkaisusa ja/2005/
MMMjulkaisu2005_11b.pd
Mi owski, P. 1988. Agains mechanism: p o ec ing economics
om science. Rowman & Li le ield, Lanham, Ma yland,
USA.
Misak, C. 2004. Cha les Sande s Pei ce (1839–1914). Pages
1–26 in C. Misak, edi o . The Camb idge companion o Pei ce.
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, Bos on, USA. h p://
dx.doi.o g/10.1017/CCOL0521570069.001
No be g, J., J. Wilson, B. Walke , and E. Os om. 2008.
Di e si y and esilience o social-ecological sys ems. Pages
46–79 in J. No be g, and G. C. Cumming, edi o s. Complexi y
heo y o a sus ainable u u e. Columbia Uni e si y P ess,
New Yo k, USA.
No h, D. C. 2005. Unde s anding he p ocess o economic
change. P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, New Je sey,
USA.
No on, B. G. 1996. In eg a ion o educ ion: wo app oaches
o en i onmen al alua ion. Pages 105-138 in A. Ligh , and
E. Ka z, edi o s. En i onmen al P agma ism. Rou ledge,
London, UK.