Country Portrait Finland -The Finnish Welfare State
This article was published 3.6.2019 in Socialnet International and can be found on this link >> https://www.socialnet.de/international/en/finland.html
Introduction
In the literature of social policy, the Finnish welfare state is often considered belonging to the so-called Nordic model that includes welfare state regimes in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Most frequently, the Nordic model is also used equivalent to the so-called Social Democratic welfare state model, or the Scandinavian model, introduced by Esping-Andersen in 1990. This model, or cluster of welfare states, is understood to have come into being in the aftermath of labour market shifts, an expansion of social services and a shift towards gender equalisation in the Nordic countries that became visible most notably in the 70s and 80s. [1]
However, Finland is also a case to highlight if we were to criticise the Nordic welfare state as a collective concept for all Nordic countries. According to Kettunen (2001, 225), the collective understanding of a Scandinavian model in all Nordic countries is a concept of “reductionism in historical welfare state overviews”.
The main reasons for considering Finland a notable exception is the country’s late industrialisation (Finland remained predominantly rural until the late 60s, which is part responsible for the rather late development of a Finnish welfare state, and the fact that Social Democracy has been rather weak in Finland as compared to the other Nordic countries, and as compared to Sweden in particular. It may be argued that the great expansion of the welfare state in Finland occurred only during the 1970s and 80s, whereas Sweden, in particular, was a forerunner of the Scandinavian Model much earlier (Kettunen 2001, 225-226).
This being said, Finland today exhibits several such characteristics that are congruent with the general characteristics of the so-called Scandinavian – or Nordic – model. These are derived from characteristics related to the welfare states inputs, as summarised by Kautto et al. (1999, 13) in their large scope of social policy; emphasis on full employment, including tripartite negotiations within the employment sector; a high degree of universal entitlements to social benefits and services; and the high share of social expenditure of GNP and; high taxation in all Nordic countries.
Despite the similarities, it is argued that Finland and Denmark in recent decades have developed into more liberal and “continental” welfare states, whereas Sweden and Norway have been argued to represent the “traditional” Nordic welfare state model. In addition, there is some evidence of an overall shift among European welfare state regimes, in which the overall trend is that the Nordic countries, as well as other European social welfare state models, have developed more and more similar characteristics in recent decades. However, Nygård (2013, 168) describes a development that still in the 2000s clearly distinguishes the Nordic countries as a cluster of welfare states, with a comparatively high standard of living, a high degree of equality and comparatively high rates of social expenditure. Yet, Nygård, too, notes that the Nordic countries and other European countries are moving towards becoming more and more similar in profile.
Regardless of their differences, all Nordic countries are frequently ranked among the top ten nations of the world when focussing on wellbeing and/or happiness. [2] Therein, it is also clear that all Nordic countries perform rather well on characteristics used in the indexes used for comparisons related to both welfare and wellbeing, for instance: GNP per inhabitant; poverty; income distribution and transfers; social investment policies; investment in human resources and education; housing conditions; health indicators and access to health care. Therein, many indicators of social problems in contemporary societies are also used as indicators of the success and outcome of social policies. (Nygård 2013)
The picture is from Pixabay.