This is an article found by one of our forumite. Finland has
been graded No. 1 in Competitiveness in the World Economic
forum.
What we have found is that Finland is exceptionally good in
managing Innovative Economy aka Thinking Economy.
This is looking from the Political side of Finland's
development.
Goh Meng Seng
Innovation Case Study: The Need For Political Innovation
Paula Tiihonen, Committee Councellor, Committee for the
Future
We are used to talking about innovations in the areas of
technology. During these years of welfare and prosperity we
have
forgotton that social infrastructure also needs a lot of new ideas
and
work. The welfare state, especially, needs renovation.
Finland, where only five million people live, has succeeded
in
adopting modern technology. We have more high tech experts per
capita
than any other country in the world. Nokia is the world`s
leading
manufacturer of digital phones. Finland has the world`s most
developed
electronic banking system. Finland is ranked number one in
mobiles
phones and Internet nodes per capita. It is the most wired nation
in
the world, with sophisticated digital and fiber optic voice and
data
processing networks.
According to a report by U.S.-based International Data
Corporation, Finland is the leading information society in Europe
and
is ranked second in the world, behind the United States, in the use
of
information technology. The World Health Organization has
recognized
Finland as a model country for its program of "Health for All by
the
year 2000".
The Finnish economy is functioning better than at any time
since
world war II. Finland was one of the countries in the best shape
to
join the European Monetary Union.
At the same time we have had big problems with unemployment
and
our political and social systems are faltering. The Scandinavian
model
- a full employment welfare state with universal benefits - is
not
functioning as it should. It is not keeping up with the speed
of
development of technological innovations. There is a great need
for
new political and social thinking. But we have started to address
this
problem - by introducing a political innovation which is the only
one
in the world. The Finnish Parliament has set up a Special
Committee
for the Future.
1. A Common Problem: democracy is faltering
What love and democracy have in common is that we all want
them,
but seldom understand that we must work hard for them.
A problem that I suppose every Western country shares relates
to
democracy, which we still see as a fundamental requirement in
our
society. Thus the main task of the administration - be it an
old
Weberian bureaucracy or a new-style public management - is to
support
democratic rule and governance. Unfortunately, recent decades
have
seen respect for political institutions and especially for the
heart
of our democracy, parliament, collapse. In Finland people continued
to
have strong faith in their national parliament right up to the
90s.
Today, by contrast, fewer than one in three retain that trust,
and
only one in eight has confidence in political parties. It was
difficult to find candidates willing to put their names on the
ballot
paper in the autumn 1996 local government elections. Old
fashioned
party meetings appear to be attended these days only by
functionaries
in the line of duty, candidates fishing for votes and public
servants
hankering for a reward from their party. What does it matter
which
model or mode of administration we are following if the foundation
on
which the whole thing stands is going to crumble? As a civil
servant,
I am of course very well aware that big organisations can survive
for
a long time without trust, acceptance or legitimatisation. The
same
applies to parliamentary democracy.
This paper is based on a general sense of concern that the
foundation of democracy is weakening. What should we who work
in
politics or administration or are researching these questions
do?
First of all we should discover what is causing the perception
that
trust is lacking. Two main explanations come to mind: 1) There is
no
lack of trust at all; it's just that the media have gotten it
badly
wrong, or 2) it is true that people have lost their trust in
Parliament and parties. I suppose it has became very clear
for
everybody that alternative 2 is the right one. What has not been
so
clearly understood is why people have rejected politics and at
the
same time democracy. We should be prepared to consider also the
worst
possibility: Could it be that either the tasks or the tools
of
political institutions or both have vanished or anyway diminished
so
much that there is no longer any reason to believe in
democratic
institutions?
It is not my task to answer that question: I only deal with
the
matter from the point of view of the parliament of a small
European
country that has been a member of the European Union for less
than
three years. The argument that I shall put to you is that some of
the
traditional tasks and tools of the Finnish Parliament have
disappeared
and this is the main reason for the distrust that the Finns
now
harbour. As a researcher and also erstwhile civil servant, I have
been
accused of being too critical and pessimistic in my evaluations.
That
may well have been true in the good old times. In the 90's
however,
with first the recession and then all its negative sequelae
sweeping
through our country, I have tried really hard to remember to
encourage
optimism in myself and to seek positive solutions. In that light,
it
gives me pleasure to be able to tell you about one positive
activity
that I have been helping to develop in the Finnish
parliamentary
system - a dialogue between Parliament and the Government on
the
subject of options for the future.
Some words concerning my background may help to explain my
determination to defend democracy and identify its problems in
time. I
have worked in the service of democracy for 25 years: over 10
years
with the Government (ministries of Finance and Justice), several
years
with various development agencies, and even one year at a
university.
I have always wanted to be near power, observe it and also do
some
research. My doctoral dissertation, which I wrote in my spare
time,
was on the subject of civic self-government in various
countries.
Finally, 10 years ago, I gravitated to the very heart of the
political
system, Parliament, a place where I had passionately wanted to be.
So,
when I say that I am worried about the role of Parliament in
society,
my feelings are partly personal; after all, who would like to end
his
or her career in a place that is only of trivial importance? A
little
more seriously, though, when I have chosen my jobs inside the
democratic structure or focused my writings on democracy, I have
done
so very conscious of how problematic its future is.
2. Basic reasons why democracy is faltering in Finland
First I want to point out that Finland is like any other
Western
democracy, with the same problems. In some respects, I believe,
we
have been forced to respond to change faster than other
countries,
especially in the face of problems or new phenomena like
fragmented
labour markets, the need for life-long learning, modern technology
and
the costs of welfare. In deep recession after the collapse of
the
Soviet Union, a small country lacking reserves of wealth, without
safe
big firms or the inherited possessions of great families, Finland
has
had to solve problems as they come, and the sooner the better. That
is
the backdrop to cuts in public sector spending and also to
restructuring the welfare system. The Finnish people, who only
5-10
years ago could count on big state-owned enterprises or
government
offices or universities and schools to provide them with jobs,
have
now realised that controlling the labour market is not at all one
of
the State's tasks. A simple thing that we should have realised
even
earlier is that in a modern society, in a well-functioning country
and
- most importantly - in a competitive healthy economy, it is
companies
that create jobs.
Once people have grasped that there is no longer a state that
will
serve as a safeguard against all the problems of their everyday
lives,
they demand less of the political system. They start planning
their
own lives without state-aid and recognise that the state is
there
mainly to take care of big matters like foreign policy, justice
and
courts, defence, etc. It is no coincidence that the only
state
institutions which people in Finland still firmly trust are
the
police, courts and Defence Forces. Welfare sectors of politics
like
social policy and the labour market have been seen only as
deserving
severe criticism, because the economies implemented in them have
been
so big. On the official plane, i.e. on the level of legislation
or
party politics, we go on as though no structural change had
happened.
People's first experience of change has been in practise.
Putting it very briefly, I argue that people have discovered
that
the State, the political system and administration no longer
perform
the same tasks as before. They have likewise noticed that they can
no
longer trust politicians.
I shall try to dig a little deeper in search of an
explanation.
The development of Finnish society is naturally embedded in
the
general evolution of the Western countries. The condition in
which
democracy currently finds itself is due quite simply to the fact
that
the onward march of globalisation has deprived nation states of
tasks
to perform. Parties, parliaments and governments no longer have
their
traditional instruments of power to wield. Globalisation has
advanced
faster than anyone was able to predict, and it has not been
confined
to the economic sphere. Indeed, it has become difficult to think
of
any sector of politics without international linkages.
National leaders are well aware of how globalisation is
embracing
capital flows, production and investment, in common with
science,
technology and innovation. They try to devise national
policies
conducive to making companies based in their respective countries
more
competitive in global markets. They also see countries and
whole
continents waging a major and never-ending competitiveness war.
Every
action - every political decision or omission of one - is viewed as
a
move in this big game of success.
You can argue that there still are areas which are absolutely
under the control of national parliaments and governments. Until
now,
social policy has been regarded as each country's own affair. But
it
is not. As a borrower, an investment location, a trade partner
and
indeed as the focus of any economic activity that one can think
of,
Finland is subject to constant monitoring and evaluation. We
are
continually being ranked according to criteria of the
greatest
conceivable diversity and, unlike what happens in the case of
the
Eurovision Song Contest, how well we do has direct and
indirect
effects on our lives. International analysts do not limit
their
assessments to EMU criteria, but rather examine dozens of
competitive
factors, risks, the health or otherwise of banks and the
State's
creditworthiness. A system of constant scrutiny has made those
who
shape domestic policies quite cautious. An unguarded sentence
-
however trivial - uttered by a minister can be interpreted as a
signal
dangerous for Finland.
Decision making even in matters of social policy or education
has
become more complex. International ramifications, both short-
and
long-term, must be weighed. An excellent example is provided
by
taxation, something that belongs to the core of domestic policy
and
national sovereignty. Countries with high taxes do not
attract
financiers, investors nor permanent investment. Young researchers
and
experts, who have been expensively trained by our society, will
not
stay in Finland if their incomes are negligible. On the other
hand,
good education and a high level of skill cannot be achieved
without
the support of society, and this in turn requires tax income. The
same
applies to stable conditions in society. Citizens generally like to
be
able to walk the streets in peace. The first thing that people
who
provide funds want to be sure of is that they will get their
investment back whatever the circumstances. When
international
classifications are conducted, social benefits are regarded
as
expenses that must be covered by tax revenue or contributions
collected from companies. Yet, the same economists who call for
curbs
on social spending would like society to provide their children
with
good and free education and health care.
This example exists mostly at the level of knowledge. Perhaps
the
majority of people have not yet seen the change and the reason for
it.
But I believe they have realised that some outsiders are
making
demands and setting goals with respect to the politics practised
in
Finland: These outsiders even lay down the rules to be followed so
as
to arrive at good solutions.
I shall take another example of a change in practice that I
regard
as a basic reason for distrust: European Union membership. Since
we
agreed to membership, the official system of politics has
continued
for the most part as though nothing had changed. Indeed, our
politicians have told us that the power of Finnish politics has
grown
an the role of the Parliament has strengthened.
What is the reality? Finland has one of the best-educated
populations of any country. The Finnish people understood the
meaning
of the EU. Finland sought and obtained economic and political
stability and security. Quite rightly, citizens wanted us to be in
the
places where important decisions that affected Finland had long
been
made. We wanted to be among those with power. This means that
the
nation state structure was not perceived as sufficient in its
basic
elements. The Finnish people knew very well that EU membership
meant
that 70-90% of all laws in Finland would come from Brussels, that
the
Government and the central bank would no longer be able to wield
such
financial or monetary tools as inflation or revaluation. They
also
knew that in the long run EU integration would demand alignment
of
taxation and public finance policy and even of social policy in
member
states. Harmonisation is something that will spread from one sector
to
another. There are many reasons for that.
Nevertheless we are still not actually prepared to assess the
significance of our membership in any greater depth than that. We
have
to combine globalisation and EU membership honestly. For Europe to
be
strong, its policies and economy must be efficient and its
institutions effective. No community can be strong if it
lacks
responsible bodies with broad authority to steer development,
consult
and produce decisions when they are needed. This does not
exclude
democratic deliberation and control.
Inevitably, a profound contradiction exists between a Europe
that
is secure and strong in the economic and political senses and
national
democracy in its present form. For the EU to be able to
champion
European interests in the global economy better than the nation
states
that have lost their power, it must have the instruments with which
to
act. It must be able to even out inequalities. It must also have
the
capability to mount a defence, or even direct attacks, against
a
variety of economic and political disturbances. Naturally, it is
not
only states that must pool their strength; enterprises, banks
and
insurance companies must all form alliances in their respective
ways.
A common currency, collective security and defence and,
eventually,
also to some degree a common social policy are logical future links
in
the globalisation chain. Given the heterogeneity of Europe,
however,
whether it lends itself to becoming a coherent monetary and
economic
area at all is quite another matter.
The position of national parliamentary democracy will weaken
within the EU as economic, security and foreign-policy
boundaries
blur. If monetary and economic union as well as common security
and
defence arrangements are achieved, there will also have to be
agreement providing for foreign policy to be handled collectively,
to
some degree at least. Europe can not appear in the arenas of
the
global economy as a multicephalous entity. It has been forecast
that
in the 21st century there will be at most one European
country,
Germany, among the world's 20 biggest economies. By what right,
then,
will France, Britain and Italy participate in the G7 summits of
the
wealthiest countries?
It could be imagined that, as it takes on the new tasks that
globalisation has brought, the EU would transfer some of the
functions
that it assumed in earlier decades back to member states. Europe's
big
political leaders are willing to countenance such a transfer,
but
officialdom in Brussels is reluctant to relinquish its status
and
privileges. Civil servants defend their achieved rights
everywhere.
Even though the emergence of an EU state may take years or
decades
to happen, citizens see or at least sense that power is in the
process
of being transferred. People in Europe are well-educated and
their
media are free. Rhetoric and cosmetics cannot mask realities for
very
long. Faith and confidence in our political system will return if
it
finds its place in the world of the 21st century and
positively
regains its authority through new tasks.
What are the new tasks? That is another story. But, one thing
is
clear: nation-states have to be able to react wisely for instance
to
globalisation.
3. The Committee for the Future
Finland has achieved world acclaimed status in areas such as
Internet usage or mobile phone ownership. With the aim of giving
some
structure and vision to the future, the Parliament of Finland is
the
first parliament which has established a special committee to
manage
questions pertaining to life and society in the future. I do not
know
if these pre-eminent achievements are a mere coincidence or
symbolic
fruits. But, what I know is, that after having worked as a
counselor
in both two committees for the Future, I can assure you it has been
a
marvellous time. It has been the mixture of hard work and joy of
life.
At the beginning of the 90s the Parliament wished to assume
an
active role in the discourse on the future of the nation. It
obliged
the Government to submit a report on the future once each
parliamentary term. In it, the Government should define its
perception
of the country's future and of the measures that will be needed
over a
time span of 5-15 years. At the end of last election period in
1993
the Government gave the first report to the Parliament and
Parliament
appointed the special Committee for the Future to deliberate and
reply
to the Government's report. After the election in the spring of
1995
another committee for the Future was appointed. There are 17
members
in the committee.
The new committee has a further task to assess the social
impacts
of technological development on behalf of Parliament.
4. The system of dialogue on the future in the Finnish
Parliament
In spite of national differences, the division of labour
between
the governments that draft laws and budgets and the parliaments
that
approve them is approximately the same in all Western
countries:
governments submit proposals, which parliaments deliberate and
adopt.
In periods of social transition, parliaments have far too often
been
left in the background relative to other actors. Many parliaments
are
engaged in a feverish search for ways of strengthening their status
as
representative institutions, to enable them to regain their
position
as the focal point of political discussion.
One method that has been developed in Finland is the
presentation
by the Government of reports to Parliament. Rather than
introducing
legislation in Parliament, the Government submits a report on some
or
other important social matter, such as rural development,
energy
policy (including the construction of nuclear power stations)
and
participation in EMU. This means that problems can be discussed
within
the context of bigger totalities than legislative proposals permit
and
above all in good time, when they are of topical relevance or can
be
pre-emptively influenced.
The formation of the Committee for the Future is the latest
means
found to strengthen parliamentarism and political discourse
in
Finland. By replying to the Government's report on the
future,
arranging seminars and through other measures, the Committee
can
prompt a high level debate on general or special themes. Many of
these
issues would otherwise remain in a disadvantaged position in
political
discussion and the role of Parliament might otherwise be merely
the
passive one of waiting for a ready-made proposal from the
Government.
Dialogue between the Government and Parliament in the case of
reports follows largely the same lines as with other
legislative
drafting. After a general debate in the chamber, the matter
is
referred to special committees for deliberation. The committees
hear
the views of experts and draft a report, which is presented
in
session. There it is either adopted or rejected, in addition to
which
riders or demands that the Government undertake certain measures
can
be attached either unanimously or following a vote. However, a
report
cannot serve as a basis for a parliamentary vote of confidence in
the
Government.
Finnish parliamentary committees do not employ the rapporteur
system with which we are familiar from the European
Parliament.
Instead, each committee has 17 members, all Deputies, who
collectively
draft the stance to be taken on each bill, budget, bulletin
or
Government report. All of a committee's reports are drafted as
a
result of cooperation among the 17 members. All members
assume
collective responsibility for them, unless a dissenting opinion
on
some part of a report or a proposal that it be rejected altogether
has
been recorded.
5. What has been on the agenda?
After the Government has submitted its report on future
options,
the Committee will prepare to draft its reply to the report. The
first
thing to consider is whether the Government has focused on the
right
problems. On both occasions, the Committee has decided to write
an
extensive and broad report of its own. Thus it did not content
itself
with making some minor comments on the Government's text as is
usually
done.
In the first round (1993-1994), the Committee's main reason
for
writing its own text was that such global problems as
environmental
threats had not been properly dealt with by the Government. The
next
time (1996-1997), the Committee wished to identify instruments
of
economic and social success in the future and did not want to
limit
its decision making to a European context. It set about analysing
how
such factors as globalisation, information and technology,
innovation
and governance were affecting Finland's success in the world. All
are
phenomena that operate on the global, European and nation-state
level.
Actually we found out very soon and clearly that these are
basic
elements in our everyday life, at workplaces and in homes, in
our
studies and social life, in education and in entertainment. There
are
nowadays very few activities in our society that remain
completely
independent of modern technology or international knowledge
and
innovation. Competition for success is tougher than it used to be.
The
world is a single marketplace. The most valuable commodities
are
brains, knowledge and wisdom.
The committee reports have been published in English and you
can
find some of them on the Internet at:
http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/opas/tiedotus/tiedoeng.htm Currently
we
are working with the report on the Scandinavian welfare
model.
Incidentally, I am a social democrat and from that perspective
I
found it significant that for the first time in my 25-year career
an
important political organisation was admitting that the European
and
especially the Scandinavian model of the welfare state has
profound
problems, which have not disappeared with the ending of the
recession,
and we must now seek a new route. This is dealt with in the
report
under the heading "European values and the European model of
society"
(pages 26-35). It is given a more detailed examination under
the
heading "Questions for Finland" (pages 54-55), from which I have
taken
the following passage as an example.
"First of all, since the Finnish welfare model has had to be
pruned owing to financing difficulties, a question that must be
asked
is whether it still sufficiently accords with the original goals
set
for it. If the difficulties besetting public finances persist
and
further cuts have to be made, how will the rump system match
the
original goals?
Secondly, our welfare model must also be called into question
on
ethical and social grounds by asking simply: can any model be
regarded
as successful if half a million people in a nation of five million
are
permanently without jobs and in the process of being excluded
from
active society?
The third reason relates to the national economy. Just as in
all
other European countries, there must be constant assessment in
Finland
of how big the public sector must be relative to the private.
... From the perspective of future policy making and somewhat
simplifying the matter, Finland can be regarded as having
three
important sectors that to a greater degree than other factors
will
determine work and livelihood and through those things our
overall
human welfare in the next century. They are:
1) social security and in general the Finnish model of
society,
2) forests and
3) knowledge.
The latter two are easier to approach, because their
importance
for the future is already understood very widely and fairly well.
The
prerequisites for developing them enjoy support, because the
perception is that success in those sectors will undoubtedly
benefit
all. Forests are our most important natural resource. The ability
to
exploit them must be ensured. A feature emphasised is that
forests
should be put to a diversity of uses. As is the case in relation
to
forests, there is complete unanimity in all political circles
and
administration that in the future work and production will be
founded
more on knowledge and skills than they are today.
The first problem, the features of development of social
security
and the model of society, is difficult to deal with, because
opinions
on it differ sharply not only between, but also within parties.
Fear
of losing benefits is strong. It may be, however, that unless we
are
able to create a good and functioning model of society our
strengths
in the forest sector and knowledge will not be enough.
A point to which attention has been drawn in the latest -
albeit
in some respects still preliminary - studies of the effectiveness
of
welfare policy is that the welfare model does not meet all of
the
goals set for it. When welfare in the 21st century is being
pondered,
problematic aspects must be addressed as openly and honestly
as
possible. The hypotheses are:
Hypothesis no. 1: Morbidity follows social dividing lines,
i.e.
the poor die considerably younger and become ill more than the
rich.
Hypothesis no. 2: University education follows social
dividing
lines, i.e. the best places at universities go to the children
of
wealthy, well-educated parents in the greater Helsinki
region.
Hypothesis no. 3: Upward mobility is more difficult to achieve
in
Finland today than it was in the highly-stratified,
estates-based
society of the turn of the century.
Hypothesis no. 4: In quantitative terms, the relatively
well-off
middle class has benefited most from housing subsidies and many
other
subsidies intended as forms of social support.
Hypothesis no. 5: The dependency ratio in society is becoming
untenable, because the number of people employed is dwindling due
both
to unemployment now and more and more people taking early
retirement,
a trend that is likely to strengthen in the future."
6. Fine, so what?
We are used to hearing about new goals, methods and processes,
but
seldom hear what real uses they are put to. Scientific
seminars
normally give us presentations of brilliant theories, but only
very
rarely do we get any information about how it all went in
practice.
The Committee for the Future has a composition that looks fine
on
paper and it has even begun functioning well, but a question that
all
of us must still ask ourselves is what use the whole thing
serves.
I must confess that we are living in a zone of waiting,
hesitation
and danger as our experiment brings a new dimension to discussion
of
politics in the Finnish Parliament. Although, viewed in
retrospect,
the way in which the Committee came into being and got under way
looks
very easy and self-evident on paper, in reality many
old-fashioned
bureaucrats - and perhaps also some politicians - have resisted
the
whole idea from day one. They have emphasised the basic tasks of
the
Parliament which are 1) to make laws and 2) to approve the budget.
So
they just hope the Committee will disappear and cease disturbing
the
normal quiet life of Parliament. Then there are those who fear
the
Committee will intrude onto their turf; competition is unwelcome.
On
the other side, what arguments have those who do believe in this
new
dialogue presented in support of the Committee?
First of all, in a situation where Parliament is among the
least-respected of the various actors in our society, I believe
that
every effort to increase people's trust in the political system
should
be welcomed. Another fact is that the nation-state's traditional
tools
for shaping national politics or economics have been rendered
obsolete
by globalisation and EU membership. In a nutshell, the main
long-term
results identified by the Committee for the Future will be the
following:
i) Possibility to set the agenda
In every country it is normally the government that sets the
agenda. The Committee for the Future and the two dialogues that it
has
practised to date have enabled Parliament independently to specify
the
items that are important for the future of our country. The
role
played by Parliament in the normal law-making-process and in
dealing
with the budget is fixed. It deliberates the legislation and
budgets
that the Government submits, following a timetable that the
Government
determines. The margins are very narrow. The future, on the
other
hand, is a broad issue and the range of items and time scale
involved
is such that everything is allowed.
Formal, legal authority is not the only form of power.
Determining
the agenda to be followed in political discourse - selecting
the
important matters to be included in the national debate - is
nowadays
also an exercise of power. In this respect, Parliament should
grasp
the reins.
ii) Active role
The old system is based on a passive role performed by
Parliament.
Bills introduced by individual deputies succeed in passing through
the
legislative process so seldom that it was seen as a milestone
event
when one (dealing with the environment) did so 4-5 years ago. It
had
been more than 10 years since anything like that had last
happened.
Changes made to Governmental bills are minimal. Changes to the
budget
usually amount to something between 0.01 and 0.02 per cent of
the
bottom line, often even less. When a problem in society has
been
recognised and planning for a solution to it has reached the
point
where it is time to pass a law or include an appropriation in
the
budget, the whole thing has been so thoroughly deliberated that
there
is little left for Parliament - which is the final
decision-making
link in the political chain - to add. If Parliament wants to have
more
power, it must discuss problems earlier. Indeed, it must itself
raise
new topics for discussion.
iii) Drive for innovation
We all know that the public sector is not a source of
innovation.
Why? Yet we recognise that we cannot continue with the present
system,
in which the public sector's share of GDP is de facto 60%. There
are
new tasks waiting for the State to perform, and we cannot get rid
of
old ones. The most useful thing that we could do with our
long-term
interests in mind would be to trigger a rapid wave of social
innovations.
We in the Committee discovered that it is easier to invent
new
machines than to change an existing social system, much less create
a
totally new politico-social development. There are always so
many
groups that think only of their own interests and will resist any
kind
of change. The most recent major social innovation in
Scandinavia
occurred in the 60s, when a public health care system and an
educational system (both free of charge) were put in place.
If a parliament wants to promote any kind of innovation, it
must
put it on the agenda very early. Rather than waiting for the
government to solve problems, a parliament can prompt it to do
so.
Social innovation takes place on a very long time scale. The
earlier
the push comes, the better.
Let us take some examples. We in Finland have been starting
to
discuss the State's new tasks. A big committee was appointed
by
Government to revise the Constitution, but did not include
the
changing role of the State on its agenda. It even proposed to set
in
stone the old welfare benefits in every detail, as though the
problem
of costs had never arisen. Many criticised the proposal. The
Committee
for the Future had emphasised the need for change and asked
the
Government to compare different models of welfare. There are
different
politics even among socialists in Europe; just look at Tony Blair
and
Lionel Jospin, for example. The Finnish Ministry of Finance
has
launched a project called Public Sector. It will take a lot of
time
just to change attitudes, so it is important for innovation to
start
at the highest possible level of politics and also that we begin
to
talk about the necessity of change sufficiently early.
Another example of proposals made by the Committee for the
Future
is to facilitate both national-level and EU-level comparison. To
do
so, there is a need to measure welfare using a set of criteria
broader
than a GDP-based one. In response to this proposal, the Government
has
begun seeking solutions both here and in an EU context, but its
task
is not an easy one.
While the Committee has looked for new discussion themes it
has
also sought new tools for working in Parliament. As we all
know,
working methods are very strict and formal in every legislature.
One
of the new things we did was to organise a series of video
seminars.
Some 100-150 politicians, researchers, trade unionists and
businesspersons assembled in the Parliament Building in Helsinki
and,
via a video link with a studio on the other side of the world,
were
brought together with experts in countries that we thought
important
for the future in general or from which Finland could learn
something
special. The name that we gave the video seminars, MODELS OF
SUCCESS,
reveals the main idea We have had seminars together with
Singapore,
South Korea, China and Wisconsin (USA). With the latter,
which
resembles Finland in certain respects, a penetrating comparative
study
of sub-factors in success, such as employment, was made. Reports
of
the seminars are available in English.
Based in part on this input, the Committee for the Future has
developed some new methods of working. The Wisconsin project,
an
astonishingly multifaceted experiment, is one example. The
following
tale gives just a glimpse of a fascinating series of efforts.
A by-product of the Wisconsin project was the arrangement of
3-month job experience placements for 100 young Finns, in
Wisconsin.
During our visit to Wisconsin in January, the Committee
delegation
(comprising 5 deputies and myself as secretary) received an offer
of
several hundred summer jobs there. The offer came suddenly. We
knew
the summer would soon be upon us, and that the government bodies
that
handle student exchanges usually require a minimum of a year to do
so.
Thus we decided to do the whole job ourselves. In line with
the
American model, all was done through voluntary effort outside
and
parallel to people's official jobs. None of us on either the
Finnish
or the American side had any inkling beforehand of what
obstacles
would have to be surmounted. The trainee exchange project is
an
example of what commitment means. All parties involved had promised
to
do their best, so there was no giving in.
The way in which one minor bureaucratic problem connected with
the
100 job placements was solved serves as a good example of how
things
were handled. The US regulations governing exchanges of this
kind
require each trainee to make an advance payment of $600 as a sort
of
handling fee. With all the haste and numerous details that the
process
involved, this matter remained rather in the background. Later,
when
the youngsters were already packing for the trip, I found out that
the
leader of the project in the USA, Professor K. - to his wife's
dismay
- had gone to the director of a new bank in Wisconsin and taken
a
personal loan to cover the fees for all 100 Finns. Good,
sound
guarantees were required for the loan. They were provided by
the
Finnish company Fiskars, which manufactures scissors, knives and
other
metal products and has a factory in Wisconsin. It must be pointed
out
that none of the trainees was placed in the Fiskars factory,
but
without the company's help the whole project might well have
foundered
then and there.
Lastly, I would like to point out some current projects of
the
Committee for the Future related to electoral periods in Finland.
We
shall have major elections in 1999 and 2000, when we shall be
choosing
our own Parliament, our 16 representatives in the European
Parliament,
and then our municipal councils and a President. There is a need
to
find new items for discussion in society. The budget will
swell,
because all governments want to please voters before an
election.
There is also a need to include critical points of view in
the
discourse. The members of the Committee for the Future are not
acting
so much in the same way as the members of the other
parliamentary
committees; they have not thought from the beginning that
membership
in this particular committee could be a special kudo. Those
committees
that deal with concrete topical politics are the place to be when
one
is seeking votes. By contrast, the Committee for the Future is
more
about carefully considering the interests of society as a
whole.
Two important programming tasks that we shall have to tackle
in
1999 will require us to set sophisticated political goals,
identify
problems and propose solutions that are not so oriented towards
the
present day as those that the administration or indeed
political
parties generally produce. The programme of the new government
formed
that year will need to be heavy on future options. The same applies
to
the EU Presidency, which Finland will hold for half of 1999. There
are
not many bodies at a high political level that represent the
people.
As part of its routine work, the Committee for the Future
interviews
prominent experts in different fields of knowledge, after which
the
matters in question are discussed and the points of view that
emerge
are woven into a report.
It is not so easy in a small country to sustain an open and
lively
discourse. The public sector is so large that the State is, in
one
form or another, always the boss. Innovation needs freedom of
opinion,
but also intelligent debate both in theory and in practice.
Competition between new ideas is a basic element of future
success.
One of the ways in which this manifests itself in the sphere
of
politics is that heads of state, governments and parliaments
are
advised by bodies of outside experts. So-called wise men or
think
tanks study politics and evaluate strategic choices. They differ
in
many ways, but share one important goal: They provide the top
political leadership with background information, alternative
solution
models, assessment of the effects of decisions, or even
critical
follow-up evaluations of ongoing reform processes. In Finland,
only
solutions arrived at in the sphere of economic policy are subject
to
systematic assessment. Even in economic forecasting, everything
is
based on figures calculated by the Central Statistical
Office.
Parliament could function as a better forum for discussion of
new
ideas. Through its seminars and with its reports it is exploring
the
possibilities of a more open culture of discourse in a country
where
discussion has traditionally been rather stiff and stilted.
April 16, 1998
