Hyvinvointivaltio murroksessa

The Nordic welfare state has been the greatest social success story of the past decades. It has been built, ever since the post-war era, on the principle that every citizen — regardless of birth, wealth or place of residence — deserves a humanely dignified life. Free healthcare, free education, comprehensive social security and strong trade unions have been the hallmarks of this model. Finland is one of the purest examples of it, and its citizens still trust public services more than the residents of most other countries.

In recent years, however, the model has come under severe pressure, and the debate about its future has grown exceptionally heated. Several simultaneous phenomena — the ageing of the population, the growth of public debt, a labour shortage and international competitiveness — force a reassessment of the terms on which the system is able to continue operating in a sustainable way. Experts warn that the current level cannot be maintained unless funding is thoroughly reformed.

The change in the population structure is perhaps the most fundamental reason for the transformation. In 1980 Finland had four working-age people for every person who had turned 65. Nowadays the ratio is only about two, and it is still falling. When the number of the employed shrinks at the same time as the number of pensioners and of those needing care grows, a gap arises whose financing through tax revenue begins to be unsustainable. The combined costs of pensions, healthcare and care services have risen exponentially, even though productivity has not grown at the same pace.

A second significant pressure comes from the direction of public debt. As a consequence of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2015 refugee wave and the coronavirus pandemic, the state has taken on debt at a record pace. After interest rates rose in 2022, the servicing costs of the debts have multiplied. This has led to talk of cuts, in which various benefits and services have begun to be reassessed on economic criteria. The government has had to make painful decisions that divide opinion fiercely.

A third factor is the labour shortage. Finland needs a larger workforce, but fewer and fewer children are being born and a sufficient replacement cannot be obtained from the domestic population. Immigration is in practice the only solution, but its political acceptability is unstable and divides the people. At the same time highly educated young people may move abroad to work, which deepens the brain-drain phenomenon. Many a company is searching for skilled people who simply are not available.

The global economy also creates its own tension. When international competition tightens, companies demand lighter taxation in order to be able to compete in the market. But the welfare state rests precisely on a high tax rate, with which public services are financed. This paradox has caused an ever sharper debate about where the state should invest and where cutting is necessary. The answer is not easy, because every decision touches someone's everyday life.

In recent times several reform proposals have come up in the debate. One tendency would like to make service production more efficient by transferring it ever more widely to be carried out by private companies. The supporters of this way of thinking believe that market competition forces prices down and quality up. Opponents, for their part, fear that privatisation leads to growing inequality — the wealthy get better service than the low-income. The question is, in the end, about what society regards as just.

A second tendency emphasises structural reforms whose purpose is to make the system more efficient without interfering with its basic principles. Linked to this is, for example, the health-and-social-care reform, which was prepared for a decade and was finally implemented in 2023. In the reform the responsibility for organising healthcare and social services was transferred from the municipalities to the welfare regions — larger administrative units that are believed to have better preconditions for integrating services. The results, however, will become visible only after years.

A third debate concerns the possibility of a basic income. The idea sounds simple: the state would pay every citizen a fixed basic sum, which would replace the complicated support system. Finland tried a small-scale basic-income experiment in 2017–2018. The results were contradictory: the employment effects were marginal, but the recipients' perceived well-being clearly improved. The matter has not been buried, but it is not now at the top of the political agenda.

Viewed from an international perspective, the Nordic model is still unique. Although many countries have drawn influences from it, the whole — which combines a high tax rate, efficient administration, low corruption and a strong civil society — is an exceptional combination. For this reason, defending the model is not only an economic question but also a cultural one tied to identity. It tells of what kind of future the people wants to build for itself.

There are at least four great questions for the future. First: how is the care of the ageing population to be financed without the young generations finding the tax burden unreasonable? Second: how is the quality of services to be maintained when there is less and less workforce? Third: how are global competitiveness and national solidarity to be combined? And fourth: how is the inequality of society — which would test trust in the whole system — to be prevented?

Answers to these questions are being sought right now. Some things have already become clear. The Nordic welfare state will not disappear, but it will change. The change will be gradual — not revolutionary — because the citizens are extremely committed to its basic principles. But the change is also necessary, because the old model cannot answer the challenges of the new age.

The most important thing is that the debate is conducted openly and that the change is justified also morally, not only economically. The welfare state is more than a system; it is a promise that each generation gives to the next. When the promise lives, society too lives. When the promise crumbles, distrust, cynicism and discord arise. This is, in the final analysis, the challenge with which Finland now lives: to preserve what has made society strong, while adjusting it to an age that no one had been able to anticipate when the model was being designed.

aika, aina, ansaita, arki, arvioida, arvokas, asia, asukas, avoin, ehto, ei, eläke, eläkeläinen, elää, ensin, epäluottamus, esillä, esimerkki, estää, etsiä, haaste, hallinto, haluta, hinta, hoiva, hyvä, ilma, inhimillinen, itse, jakaa, jatkaa, joka, jokainen, joku, julkinen, jännite, järjestelmä, kadota, kaikki, kannattaja, kansa, kansainvälinen, kansalainen, kertoa, keskustelu, kipeä, kiristyä, kokea, kokeilla, kolmas, korkea, korko, korvata, korvaus, koskea, kotimainen, kova, kriteeri, kunta, kustannus, kysymys, kärki, käydä, käytäntö, laaja, laatu, lapsi, laskea, leikata, liittyä, loppu, luoda, luottaa, luottamus, lähteä, maa, mahdollisuus, maksaa, malli, markkina, mielipide, mikä, millainen, moni, monimutkainen, mureta, muu, muutos, muuttua, ne, neljäs, nuori, nykyinen, näkyä, näkökulma, nämä, olla, oma, osaaja, paikkakunta, paine, pakottaa, palvelu, pelätä, perusteellinen, perustella, poikkeuksellinen, poliittinen, puhdas, puolustaa, puuttua, pystyä, päätös, rahoittaa, rahoitus, raju, riippua, riittävä, ristiriitainen, saada, saaja, saattaa, sama, se, selvä, seuraava, seuraus, siirtää, sopeuttaa, sukupolvi, suomi, suunnitella, suunta, suuri, syntyä, syy, taakka, taloudellinen, tapa, tarkoitus, tarvita, taso, tehdä, tehokas, terveydenhuolto, toiminta, toinen, toteuttaa, tulla, tulos, tuotanto, työskennellä, tämä, tärkeä, usea, uskoa, uudistus, uusi, vaatia, vahva, valtio, vanha, varoittaa, vastaus, vastustaja, vauhti, velka, vero, veroaste, verotus, voida, vuosi, vuosikymmen, väestö, väestörakenne, vähä, välttämätön, yhdistää, yhteiskunta, yksikkö, yksinkertainen, yksityinen, yritys

1. Mihin periaatteeseen pohjoismainen hyvinvointivaltio perustuu?
   Vastaus / Answer

   Periaatteeseen, että jokainen kansalainen ansaitsee inhimillisesti arvokkaan elämän syntyperästä, varallisuudesta tai paikkakunnasta riippumatta.
2. Miksi väestörakenteen muutos on niin perustavanlaatuinen ongelma?
   Vastaus / Answer

   Koska työllisten määrä supistuu samalla kun eläkeläisten ja hoivaa tarvitsevien määrä kasvaa, jolloin järjestelmän rahoittaminen verovaroin käy kestämättömäksi.
3. Mitä eroa on kahdella tärkeimmällä uudistussuuntauksella?
   Vastaus / Answer

   Toinen haluaa siirtää palveluita yksityisten yritysten toteutettaviksi, kun taas toinen korostaa rakenteellisia uudistuksia puuttumatta järjestelmän perusperiaatteisiin.
4. Millaiset olivat Suomen perustulokokeen tulokset?
   Vastaus / Answer

   Ristiriitaiset: työllisyysvaikutukset olivat marginaalisia, mutta saajien koettu hyvinvointi parani selvästi.
5. Miksi tekstin mukaan muutoksesta tulee asteittainen eikä vallankumouksellinen?
   Vastaus / Answer

   Koska kansalaiset ovat erittäin sitoutuneita hyvinvointivaltion perusperiaatteisiin, vaikka muutos onkin välttämätön.