Abstract
Finland has struggled with formulating and implementing policies regarding the national grey wolf (Canis lupus) population. It seems that after major institutional adjustments undertaken to improve wolf protection, the wolf population has, in fact, decreased. This calls for an explanation. My approach to the question of institutional fit builds upon classical institutional economics and pragmatism. I will apply Charles S. Peirce’s conception of habits and his theory of categories and the idea of normative sciences. The case study from southwestern Finland shows that if the institutional designers would address the habits of feeling, mind, and action, including their own, that frame and constitute the problematic situation and potential solutions, the critical conditions of institutional fit would be more tangible and easier to identify and handle. As long as policy adjustments are reactive and compulsive and not built upon a reasonable engagement of whole epistemic community in habit-breaking and habit-taking, policies will most likely fail.
Highlights
Finland has struggled with formulating and implementing policies regarding the national wolf population
The case study from southwestern Finland shows that if the institutional designers would address the habits of feeling, mind, and action, including their own, that frame and constitute the problematic situation and potential solutions, the critical conditions of institutional fit would be more tangible and easier to identify and handle
In the two other respects, the Finnish wolf policy was in line with the Habitats Directive (European Court of Justice 2007, Hiedanpää and Bromley 2011)
Summary
Finland has struggled with formulating and implementing policies regarding the national wolf population. The wolf became strictly protected by the European Union’s Habitats Directive. After major institutional adjustments undertaken to improve wolf protection, the wolf population has, decreased (Figure 1). The population size dipped in the late 1990s; the European Commission initiated Infringement Proceedings (2001) to compel Finland to improve large carnivore protection. The Commission called the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2005. In the two other respects, the Finnish wolf policy was in line with the Habitats Directive (European Court of Justice 2007, Hiedanpää and Bromley 2011).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
