Executive Accountability
#2Key Findings
With strong oversight mechanisms in place, Finland falls into the top ranks internationally (rank 2) with regard to executive accountability. Its score in this area has improved by 0.1 point relative to 2014.
Parliamentarians have access to considerable resources, and very strong formal executive-oversight powers. The audit and ombuds offices are well-funded and independent, though a scandal led the parliament to fire the audit office’s general director in 2021. Two separate data-protection authorities oversee personal-data and privacy issues.
Evidence indicates strongly varying degrees and types of policy knowledge in different demographic cohorts. The media produced highly credible information during the pandemic, but took an uncritical approach to government statements. Although declining, daily newspaper circulation figures remain reasonably high.
Political parties are responsive to members’ input, but leaders decide most issues. The large economic-interest associations have long been integrated into the policymaking process, though unions and work councils played a comparatively minor role in developing COVID-19 policies. Other interest groups often present influential if narrow proposals and analyses.
Parliamentarians have access to considerable resources, and very strong formal executive-oversight powers. The audit and ombuds offices are well-funded and independent, though a scandal led the parliament to fire the audit office’s general director in 2021. Two separate data-protection authorities oversee personal-data and privacy issues.
Evidence indicates strongly varying degrees and types of policy knowledge in different demographic cohorts. The media produced highly credible information during the pandemic, but took an uncritical approach to government statements. Although declining, daily newspaper circulation figures remain reasonably high.
Political parties are responsive to members’ input, but leaders decide most issues. The large economic-interest associations have long been integrated into the policymaking process, though unions and work councils played a comparatively minor role in developing COVID-19 policies. Other interest groups often present influential if narrow proposals and analyses.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent are citizens informed of public policies?
10
9
9
Most citizens are well-informed of a broad range of public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many citizens are well-informed of individual public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few citizens are well-informed of public policies; most citizens have only a rudimental knowledge of public policies.
2
1
1
Most citizens are not aware of public policies.
Democracy requires that the public and its representatives have the means to hold government accountable. In this respect Finnish democracy is effective, though not perfect. Information on government policies and decisions is widely available online and many policy fields are debated at great length on television or in other media. Newspaper readership rates are still high in Finland. Nevertheless, while some issues are widely debated in the media and attract broad general attention, other less media-friendly or stimulating issues pass largely unnoticed.
The public’s evaluative and participatory competencies constitute a weak spot. Survey results suggest that the level of political knowledge among young people, particularly those with a low level of education, is rather low. At the same time, evidence suggests that the degree of interest and participation varies significantly across policy issues and levels of authority. Results indicate, for instance, that young cohorts tend to be familiar with supranational politics, while women are familiar with matters close to people’s everyday lives. Recently, the extensive use and consumption of social media for the purposes of political and everyday communication has been said to enhance the public’s political knowledge while also endangering the production of independent and broad-based information.
Finnish people have high levels of trust in the media. Nevertheless, the country is not immune to the fragmenting news landscape. Among certain parts of the population, people trust social media influencers more than they do the mainstream media (Heikkilä 2020).
During the pandemic, the government has persistently explained its policy measures and why it was choosing specific measures. This has included communication describing the crisis assessments underlying specific policy measures and timelines. The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has also provided information for the general public. Information has been communicated via press conferences, social media posts, websites and press releases.
As with other areas of the government’s crisis management, the communication of the measures taken has in a sense been a victim of its own success. The repeated press conferences, and the communication of detailed and complex information related to COVID-19, have increased the population’s psychological distress. The government has never been satisfied with the population’s reactions and behavior. Consequently, it has intensified its communications, adopting an increasingly paternalistic tone in communicating its measures.
Citations:
Elo, Kimmo ja Rapeli, Lauri. 2008. “Suomalaisten politiikkatietämys.” Helsinki: Oikeusministeriön julkaisuja 2008:6
Rapeli, Lauri. 2014. “Comparing Local, National and EU Knowledge: The Ignorant Public Reassessed.” Scandinavian Political Studies 37: 428-446.
Heikkilä, Melissa, 2020. Influencer to fight Corona Virus. Accessed, 28.12. 2020.
https://www.politico.eu/article/finland-taps-influencers-as-critical-actors-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/
The public’s evaluative and participatory competencies constitute a weak spot. Survey results suggest that the level of political knowledge among young people, particularly those with a low level of education, is rather low. At the same time, evidence suggests that the degree of interest and participation varies significantly across policy issues and levels of authority. Results indicate, for instance, that young cohorts tend to be familiar with supranational politics, while women are familiar with matters close to people’s everyday lives. Recently, the extensive use and consumption of social media for the purposes of political and everyday communication has been said to enhance the public’s political knowledge while also endangering the production of independent and broad-based information.
Finnish people have high levels of trust in the media. Nevertheless, the country is not immune to the fragmenting news landscape. Among certain parts of the population, people trust social media influencers more than they do the mainstream media (Heikkilä 2020).
During the pandemic, the government has persistently explained its policy measures and why it was choosing specific measures. This has included communication describing the crisis assessments underlying specific policy measures and timelines. The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has also provided information for the general public. Information has been communicated via press conferences, social media posts, websites and press releases.
As with other areas of the government’s crisis management, the communication of the measures taken has in a sense been a victim of its own success. The repeated press conferences, and the communication of detailed and complex information related to COVID-19, have increased the population’s psychological distress. The government has never been satisfied with the population’s reactions and behavior. Consequently, it has intensified its communications, adopting an increasingly paternalistic tone in communicating its measures.
Citations:
Elo, Kimmo ja Rapeli, Lauri. 2008. “Suomalaisten politiikkatietämys.” Helsinki: Oikeusministeriön julkaisuja 2008:6
Rapeli, Lauri. 2014. “Comparing Local, National and EU Knowledge: The Ignorant Public Reassessed.” Scandinavian Political Studies 37: 428-446.
Heikkilä, Melissa, 2020. Influencer to fight Corona Virus. Accessed, 28.12. 2020.
https://www.politico.eu/article/finland-taps-influencers-as-critical-actors-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/
Does the government publish data and information in a way that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a comprehensive, timely and user-friendly way.
8
7
6
7
6
The government most of the time publishes data and information in a comprehensive, timely and user-friendly way.
5
4
3
4
3
The government publishes data in a limited and not timely or user-friendly way.
2
1
1
The government publishes (almost) no relevant data.
According to the Statistics Act (280/2004), there are four official statistical authorities in Finland.
Statistics Finland, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the National Institute for Health and Welfare, and Finnish Customs. Each authority is mandated to collect data. In addition, there are a number of other authorities that produce official statistical materials. Statistical figures are published by Official Statistics of Finland, which publishes nearly 300 statistical datasets covering 26 different topics. The basic data of the Official Statistics of Finland is publicly available on the internet, free of charge.
In principle, the government of Finland has tried to publish information actively on the COVID-19 pandemic. It has disseminated up-to-date information on infection rates and their temporal development, the local distribution of infections, details on specific outbreaks, and the indicators upon which it bases its risk assessments. The underlying data has been communicated in plain language. It has published information on its crisis management policies, and in all of its communication, stressed the scientific basis for its coronavirus actions. Furthermore, the government has encouraged citizens to pay attention to updates on its website and the website of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), both of which provide comprehensive and up-to-date information on issues related to the pandemic. The government website contains government decisions, information produced by the ministries on the effects of the coronavirus on different administrative sectors, as well as topical material on the coronavirus produced by all government ministries (OECD 2020).
Other public authorities and research agencies have also actively produced information on the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. For example, the Helsinki Graduate School of Economics established an economic Situation Room, with the aim of supporting rapid decision-making during the coronavirus crisis. The Situation Room consists of leading economists from Helsinki GSE and the VATT Institute for Economic Research, as well as representatives of several public agencies.
However, in the spring of 2020, the leader of an economic expert group appointed by the government publicly complained that the government had not shared the assumptions used in epidemiological models to predict the spread of the virus. Only after extensive public pressure (Lahti, Wallgren, Kulmala 2020) did the government release this information. The affair concerned the R0 number used in statistical models, which is used to predict the way the virus will spread in the future. According to the critics, the government prevented independent epidemiological experts from forming their own assessments of the spread of the virus among the population.
Citations:
Lahti, Leo & Wallgren, Thomas & Kulmala, Markku (2020): Laskentamallit eivät lähtökohtaisesti ole salassa pidettäviä [Stastistical Models are not by Definition Classified Information], Helsingin Sanomat 3.5.2020, https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000006494641.html
OECD, 2020. OEDC Survey on the STI Policy Response to Covid-19. Accessed 28.12. 2020.
https://stiplab.github.io/Covid19/Finland.htmlTilastokeskus, “Katsaus kansalliseen tilastotoimeen 2015,” https://www.stat.fi/static/media/uploads/org/tilastotoimi/katsaus_tilastotoimeen_2015.pdf
National Statistical Service, https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastotoimi/index_en.html
Statistics Finland, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the National Institute for Health and Welfare, and Finnish Customs. Each authority is mandated to collect data. In addition, there are a number of other authorities that produce official statistical materials. Statistical figures are published by Official Statistics of Finland, which publishes nearly 300 statistical datasets covering 26 different topics. The basic data of the Official Statistics of Finland is publicly available on the internet, free of charge.
In principle, the government of Finland has tried to publish information actively on the COVID-19 pandemic. It has disseminated up-to-date information on infection rates and their temporal development, the local distribution of infections, details on specific outbreaks, and the indicators upon which it bases its risk assessments. The underlying data has been communicated in plain language. It has published information on its crisis management policies, and in all of its communication, stressed the scientific basis for its coronavirus actions. Furthermore, the government has encouraged citizens to pay attention to updates on its website and the website of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), both of which provide comprehensive and up-to-date information on issues related to the pandemic. The government website contains government decisions, information produced by the ministries on the effects of the coronavirus on different administrative sectors, as well as topical material on the coronavirus produced by all government ministries (OECD 2020).
Other public authorities and research agencies have also actively produced information on the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. For example, the Helsinki Graduate School of Economics established an economic Situation Room, with the aim of supporting rapid decision-making during the coronavirus crisis. The Situation Room consists of leading economists from Helsinki GSE and the VATT Institute for Economic Research, as well as representatives of several public agencies.
However, in the spring of 2020, the leader of an economic expert group appointed by the government publicly complained that the government had not shared the assumptions used in epidemiological models to predict the spread of the virus. Only after extensive public pressure (Lahti, Wallgren, Kulmala 2020) did the government release this information. The affair concerned the R0 number used in statistical models, which is used to predict the way the virus will spread in the future. According to the critics, the government prevented independent epidemiological experts from forming their own assessments of the spread of the virus among the population.
Citations:
Lahti, Leo & Wallgren, Thomas & Kulmala, Markku (2020): Laskentamallit eivät lähtökohtaisesti ole salassa pidettäviä [Stastistical Models are not by Definition Classified Information], Helsingin Sanomat 3.5.2020, https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000006494641.html
OECD, 2020. OEDC Survey on the STI Policy Response to Covid-19. Accessed 28.12. 2020.
https://stiplab.github.io/Covid19/Finland.htmlTilastokeskus, “Katsaus kansalliseen tilastotoimeen 2015,” https://www.stat.fi/static/media/uploads/org/tilastotoimi/katsaus_tilastotoimeen_2015.pdf
National Statistical Service, https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastotoimi/index_en.html
Graph View
Do members of parliament have adequate personnel and structural resources to monitor government activity effectively?
10
9
9
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring all government activity effectively.
8
7
6
7
6
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring a government’s major activities.
5
4
3
4
3
The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for selectively monitoring some government activities.
2
1
1
The resources provided to the members of parliament are not suited for any effective monitoring of the government.
Parliamentarians’ resources for obtaining information were greatly improved in the 1990s through the creation of a parliamentary assistant system. Currently, some 130 assistants work in a parliament of 200 sitting legislators. However, critics have argued that this system has become too comprehensive and expensive. The assistants perform a variety of tasks, some of which relate closely to the procurement of information and general expertise. Members of parliament are also assisted by the Parliamentary Office, whose task it is to establish the necessary conditions for the parliament to carry out its duties. Employing a staff of 440, the office is also responsible for providing personal assistants. Furthermore, members of parliament are assisted by the Information and Communication Department, which includes the Library of Parliament, the Research Service and the Parliament Information Office. The Library of Parliament has about 40 employees and maintains a number of service entities. A Committee Secretariat provides secretarial services for the parliamentary committees and handles the preparation of matters brought before the committees. Additionally, the Research Service supplies information, documents, publications and other materials that are required by members of parliament and other actors involved in parliamentary work. As legislators each serve on an average of two parliamentary committees, they also benefit from the information and knowledge provided by the various experts regularly consulted in committee hearings.
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the parliamentary oversight process came under pressure in Finland. As outlined in an OECD report, the operations of the legislature were threatened by health and safety concerns, and the government asked the legislature to accommodate swift policy action, either through faster budget procedures or by improvising new ones (OECD 2020). The government cabinet, jointly with the president of the republic, declared that Finland was in a double emergency: a health emergency and an economic emergency. The emergency declaration itself was not reviewed by parliament, but when the cabinet issued a decree to use specific powers under the Emergency Powers Act (EPA) the decree was subject to legislative oversight (Scheinin 2020). As outlined in Finnish legislation, the Constitutional Law Committee (CLC) of the parliament carefully reviewed the special legislation and government decrees to determine whether they were compatible with the constitution. Among legal scholars there is a “consensus that the principles of democratic decision-making have been respected in the handling of the pandemic, as parliamentary oversight functions well, and the parliament still wields the highest legislative power in Finland” (Kimmel and Ballardini, 2020).
Citations:
http://lib.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/library/organization/people.htx
https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/Organisaatio/eduskunta-tyonantajana/Sivut/default.aspx
https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/kirjasto/tietoakirjastosta/tekijat/Sivut/default.aspx
Kimmel, Kaisa-Maria and Ballardini, Rosa Maria, 2020. Restrictions in the Name of Health During
COVID-19 in Finland. Harvard Law Blog. Accessed 11.1. 2021.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/14/finland-global-responses-covi d19/
OECD, 2020. Policy Responses to Corona. Accessed, 28.12 2020. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policyresponses/
legislative-budget-oversight-of-emergency-responses-experiences-during-the-coronavirus-covid-
19-pandemic-ba4f2ab5/
Scheinin, Martin, 2020: The COVID-19 Emergency in Finland: Best Practice and Problems, VerfBlog,
2020/4/16. Accessed 18.12. 2020. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-covid-19-emergency-in-finland-bestpractice-
and-problems/, DOI: 10.17176/20200416-092101-0.
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the parliamentary oversight process came under pressure in Finland. As outlined in an OECD report, the operations of the legislature were threatened by health and safety concerns, and the government asked the legislature to accommodate swift policy action, either through faster budget procedures or by improvising new ones (OECD 2020). The government cabinet, jointly with the president of the republic, declared that Finland was in a double emergency: a health emergency and an economic emergency. The emergency declaration itself was not reviewed by parliament, but when the cabinet issued a decree to use specific powers under the Emergency Powers Act (EPA) the decree was subject to legislative oversight (Scheinin 2020). As outlined in Finnish legislation, the Constitutional Law Committee (CLC) of the parliament carefully reviewed the special legislation and government decrees to determine whether they were compatible with the constitution. Among legal scholars there is a “consensus that the principles of democratic decision-making have been respected in the handling of the pandemic, as parliamentary oversight functions well, and the parliament still wields the highest legislative power in Finland” (Kimmel and Ballardini, 2020).
Citations:
http://lib.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/library/organization/people.htx
https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/Organisaatio/eduskunta-tyonantajana/Sivut/default.aspx
https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/kirjasto/tietoakirjastosta/tekijat/Sivut/default.aspx
Kimmel, Kaisa-Maria and Ballardini, Rosa Maria, 2020. Restrictions in the Name of Health During
COVID-19 in Finland. Harvard Law Blog. Accessed 11.1. 2021.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/14/finland-global-responses-covi d19/
OECD, 2020. Policy Responses to Corona. Accessed, 28.12 2020. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policyresponses/
legislative-budget-oversight-of-emergency-responses-experiences-during-the-coronavirus-covid-
19-pandemic-ba4f2ab5/
Scheinin, Martin, 2020: The COVID-19 Emergency in Finland: Best Practice and Problems, VerfBlog,
2020/4/16. Accessed 18.12. 2020. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-covid-19-emergency-in-finland-bestpractice-
and-problems/, DOI: 10.17176/20200416-092101-0.
Are parliamentary committees able to ask for government documents?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may ask for most or all government documents; they are normally delivered in full and within an appropriate time frame.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to ask for government documents are slightly limited; some important documents are not delivered or are delivered incomplete or arrive too late to enable the committee to react appropriately.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to ask for government documents are considerably limited; most important documents are not delivered or delivered incomplete or arrive too late to enable the committee to react appropriately.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not request government documents.
Reports drafted by committees provide the basis for legislative decisions. Committees prepare government bills, legislative initiatives, government reports and other matters for handling in plenary sessions. Given these tasks and functions, it follows that the government is expected to report in full its motives for proposing legislation and that committees are able to obtain the desired documents from the government upon request.
Are parliamentary committees able to summon ministers for hearings?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may summon ministers. Ministers regularly follow invitations and are obliged to answer questions.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon ministers are slightly limited; ministers occasionally refuse to follow invitations or to answer questions.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon ministers are considerably limited; ministers frequently refuse to follow invitations or to answer questions.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not summon ministers.
Committees are able to summon ministers to hearings and do so regularly. Committee meetings usually begin with a presentation by a ministry representative. Ministers can take part in committee meetings and debates but cannot be regular members of the committee. Furthermore, when deemed necessary, committees invite the Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman or their representatives to a formal hearing as experts on questions of legislative drafting.
Citations:
https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/valiokunnat/Pages/default.aspx
Citations:
https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/valiokunnat/Pages/default.aspx
Are parliamentary committees able to summon experts for committee meetings?
10
9
9
Parliamentary committees may summon experts.
8
7
6
7
6
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon experts are slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
The rights of parliamentary committees to summon experts are considerably limited.
2
1
1
Parliamentary committees may not summon experts.
Parliamentary committees are able to summon experts for committee meetings, which they do regularly and increasingly frequently. A committee starts its work with a recommendation by the committee’s own experts on which additional experts to call. This may include ministerial representatives or other individuals who have either assisted in preparatory work or represent specific agencies, organizations or other interested parties. The scope of hearings varies greatly. In some cases, only one expert may be called, but in major legislative projects a committee may hear dozens of experts. Data from earlier research shows that committees in 1938 consulted advisers in 59% of all cases on which they prepared reports. The corresponding figure for 1960 was 94% and 100% in 1983. The number of experts consulted has likewise been increasing. All expert opinions provided since 2015 can be downloaded from the parliament’s homepage.
The only problem with the experts’ statements is that they are not made public before a legal proposal is accepted or rejected. Therefore, the public has no opportunity to critique the statements before they have been processed by the parliamentary committee.
Citations:
https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/Pages/default.aspx
Dag Anckar, “Finland: Dualism and Consensual Rule,” in Erik Damgaard, ed.: Parliamentary Change in the Nordic Countries, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1992, pp. 182-186.
Suutari, Jari. 2018. “Valiokuntien asiantuntijalausuntojen saatavuus,” https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/kirjasto/aineistot/eduskunta/valtiopaivaasiakirjat-tietopaketti/Sivut/asiantuntijalausuntojen-saatavuus.aspx
The only problem with the experts’ statements is that they are not made public before a legal proposal is accepted or rejected. Therefore, the public has no opportunity to critique the statements before they have been processed by the parliamentary committee.
Citations:
https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/Pages/default.aspx
Dag Anckar, “Finland: Dualism and Consensual Rule,” in Erik Damgaard, ed.: Parliamentary Change in the Nordic Countries, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1992, pp. 182-186.
Suutari, Jari. 2018. “Valiokuntien asiantuntijalausuntojen saatavuus,” https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/tietoaeduskunnasta/kirjasto/aineistot/eduskunta/valtiopaivaasiakirjat-tietopaketti/Sivut/asiantuntijalausuntojen-saatavuus.aspx
Are the task areas and structures of parliamentary committees suited to monitor ministries effectively?
10
9
9
The match between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are well-suited to the effective monitoring of ministries.
8
7
6
7
6
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are largely suited to the monitoring ministries.
5
4
3
4
3
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are partially suited to the monitoring of ministries.
2
1
1
The match/mismatch between the task areas of parliamentary committees and ministries as well as other relevant committee structures are not at all suited to the monitoring of ministries.
A total of 16 permanent special parliamentary committees along with the Grand Committee (which focuses mainly on EU issues) prepare government bills, legislative initiatives, government reports and other matters for plenary sessions. Reforms of the committee system in the early 1990s aimed to improve parliamentary committees’ alignment with ministry responsibilities. These reforms have been highly successful and committees are now thematically bound within the scope of a corresponding ministry. The Grand Committee is in practice a committee for the handling of EU-related matters.
Graph View
To what extent do media in your country analyze the rationale and impact of public policies?
10
9
9
A clear majority of mass media brands focus on high-quality information content analyzing the rationale and impact of public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
About one-half of the mass media brands focus on high-quality information content analyzing the rationale and impact of public policies. The rest produces a mix of infotainment and quality information content.
5
4
3
4
3
A clear minority of mass media brands focuses on high-quality information content analyzing public policies. Several mass media brands produce superficial infotainment content only.
2
1
1
All mass media brands are dominated by superficial infotainment content.
The World Press Freedom Index 2020 ranked Finland second worldwide with regard to the freedoms and rights exercised by the media, just behind Norway, and ahead of Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands (Reporters without Borders 2020).
As with many other European countries, Finland has experienced polarization between political elites and nationalistic populist elements. This development became ever more pronounced after the establishment of a coalition government dominated by center-left parties, each led by a woman, in 2019.
Legislation in Finland does not prohibit the (deliberate) provision of misinformation. However, the Council for Mass Media (CMM) acts as a self-regulating organization; in doing so, it seeks to interpret and encourage good professional practices, and defends the freedoms of speech and publication. The CMM was established by publishers and journalists in the field of mass communication.
The council does not exercise legal power or public authority, but its decisions are closely followed and observed (Council of Mass Media 2020). The rules and practices of government supervision in Finland provide the publicly owned media with sufficient independence. Privately owned media organizations are subject to licensing and regulatory regimes that ensure independence from government.
In Finland, the media has not been subject to the influence of government or actors associated with the government during the crisis. Finnish politicians do not orchestrate media reactions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, media and politics became more closely entwined, and there was less critical distance between the media and the government than there had been before the outbreak of COVID-19.
Although news coverage of the coronavirus crisis was credible and news media proactively debunked coronavirus-related misinformation that circulated on social media platforms, the media uncritically reported the way the government communicated its response. During 2020, both the media and the government chose to strengthen the authority of medical experts.
Alternative perspectives were effectively given less credence and dismissed as “conspiracy theories.” The media has – apparently on its own initiative – published daily statistics about the spread of COVID-19 (Heikkilä 2020).
Citations:
Council of Mass Media, 2020. What is the CMM? Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://www.jsn.fi/en/
Heikkilä, Heikki, 2020. Finland: Coronavirus and the media. Blog. Accessed, 28.12. 2020.
https://en.ejo.ch/ethics-quality/finland-coronavirus-and-the-media
Reporters without Borders, 2020. Ranking. Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://rsf.org/en/ranking
As with many other European countries, Finland has experienced polarization between political elites and nationalistic populist elements. This development became ever more pronounced after the establishment of a coalition government dominated by center-left parties, each led by a woman, in 2019.
Legislation in Finland does not prohibit the (deliberate) provision of misinformation. However, the Council for Mass Media (CMM) acts as a self-regulating organization; in doing so, it seeks to interpret and encourage good professional practices, and defends the freedoms of speech and publication. The CMM was established by publishers and journalists in the field of mass communication.
The council does not exercise legal power or public authority, but its decisions are closely followed and observed (Council of Mass Media 2020). The rules and practices of government supervision in Finland provide the publicly owned media with sufficient independence. Privately owned media organizations are subject to licensing and regulatory regimes that ensure independence from government.
In Finland, the media has not been subject to the influence of government or actors associated with the government during the crisis. Finnish politicians do not orchestrate media reactions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, media and politics became more closely entwined, and there was less critical distance between the media and the government than there had been before the outbreak of COVID-19.
Although news coverage of the coronavirus crisis was credible and news media proactively debunked coronavirus-related misinformation that circulated on social media platforms, the media uncritically reported the way the government communicated its response. During 2020, both the media and the government chose to strengthen the authority of medical experts.
Alternative perspectives were effectively given less credence and dismissed as “conspiracy theories.” The media has – apparently on its own initiative – published daily statistics about the spread of COVID-19 (Heikkilä 2020).
Citations:
Council of Mass Media, 2020. What is the CMM? Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://www.jsn.fi/en/
Heikkilä, Heikki, 2020. Finland: Coronavirus and the media. Blog. Accessed, 28.12. 2020.
https://en.ejo.ch/ethics-quality/finland-coronavirus-and-the-media
Reporters without Borders, 2020. Ranking. Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Graph View
How inclusive and open are the major parties in their internal decision-making processes?
10
9
9
The party allows all party members and supporters to participate in its decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are open.
8
7
6
7
6
The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, all party members have the opportunity to participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are rather open.
5
4
3
4
3
The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, a number of elected delegates participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are largely controlled by the party leadership.
2
1
1
A number of party leaders participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and issue agendas are fully controlled and drafted by the party leadership.
At the time of writing, nine parties held seats in the Finnish parliament (Eduskunta). Of those, five parties held more than 10% of the seats, and can be considered as major parties. Although empirical research on intra-party democracy has to date dealt mainly with the Center Party (Kesk), the findings of this research can be assumed to apply to other major parties as well. In general, candidates for parliamentary elections are proposed by local party organizations. The final decision on which candidates will be nominated is taken at the district level of the party organization (which usually coincides with the electoral district) in a vote open to all members of the party in question. However, it is also evident that the structure of internal decision-making systems within political parties has developed in two directions. While active party members operate in voluntary, subnational organizational units, national policy functions are decided by career politicians who constitute the party elite. This dualism places power in the hands of party elites, and most particularly the party chairs. This has led to a marginalization of party members from the executive functions within each party. As intra-party meetings are the highest decision-making institutions within political parties, the average party member participates in party meetings only indirectly by helping to elect delegates.
As a result of the pandemic, municipal elections were postponed by six weeks in the spring of 2021. It is apparent that the difficult pandemic situation made it more difficult for potential candidates to sign up for elections and to carry out campaigns.
Citations:
Karina Jutila, “Yksillä säännöillä, kaksilla korteilla,” Dissertation, University of Tampere, 2003; Rauli Mickelsson, “Suomen puolueet. Historia, muutos ja nykypäivä,” Tampere: Vastapaino, 2007; Vesa J. Koskimaa, Intra-Party Power: The Ascendancy of Parties’ Public “Face,” in Lauri Karvonen, Heikki Paloheimo and Tapio Raunio, eds. The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland, Stockholm: Santérus Förlag; Lauri Karvonen, “Parties, Governments, and Voters in Finland,” ECPR Press, 2014, p.62.
As a result of the pandemic, municipal elections were postponed by six weeks in the spring of 2021. It is apparent that the difficult pandemic situation made it more difficult for potential candidates to sign up for elections and to carry out campaigns.
Citations:
Karina Jutila, “Yksillä säännöillä, kaksilla korteilla,” Dissertation, University of Tampere, 2003; Rauli Mickelsson, “Suomen puolueet. Historia, muutos ja nykypäivä,” Tampere: Vastapaino, 2007; Vesa J. Koskimaa, Intra-Party Power: The Ascendancy of Parties’ Public “Face,” in Lauri Karvonen, Heikki Paloheimo and Tapio Raunio, eds. The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland, Stockholm: Santérus Förlag; Lauri Karvonen, “Parties, Governments, and Voters in Finland,” ECPR Press, 2014, p.62.
To what extent are economic interest associations (e.g., employers, industry, labor) capable of formulating relevant policies?
10
9
9
Most interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
2
1
1
Most interest associations are not capable of formulating relevant policies.
Employers’ and employees’ organizations became involved in a series of comprehensive income-policy agreements in 1968 concerning wages, working conditions, and social-welfare programs and legislation. While this institutional arrangement for cooperation between government and associations has since slightly eroded, it created a framework for advancing responsible, considered and expert-based policy proposals on the part of the large economic-interest associations. Other mechanisms, including associations’ participation as members and experts in the committee system, have worked in the same direction. This corporatist structure is regularly criticized. Although not uncontroversial, this consensus style of policymaking has led to reasonable policies with fairly broad support. Recent trends indicate that corporatism is becoming increasingly important as support for and membership in traditional political parties is decreasing.
According to Greve et al. (2020) the role of trade unions and work councils as social partners has been more limited in Finland than in other Nordic countries. They were consulted during the preparation of the government support packages, but not to the extent seen in Denmark, for example. One reason for this could be that many unemployment-related issues (e.g., short‐term work and wage supplement systems) were already covered by national regulation.
Citations:
Voitto Helander and Dag Anckar, Consultation and Political Culture. Essays on the Case of Finland, Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium, nr 19, 1983, Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.
Blom, Anders. 2018. Taloudelliset eturyhmät politiikan sisäpiirissä: Tutkimus liike-elämän poliittisesta vaikuttamisesta kolmikantaisessa Suomessa 1968–2011. Turun Yliopiston julkaisuja.
Blom, Anders. 2019. “Suomen malli murroksessa – edunvalvonnan ja korporatismin uudet kuviot,” https://politiikasta.fi/suomen-malli-murroksessa-edunvalvonnan-ja-korporatismin-uudet-kuviot/
Greve, B, Blomquist, P, Hvinden, B, van Gerven, M. Nordic welfare states – still standing or changed by the
COVID‐19 crisis? Soc Policy Adm. 2020; 1– 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12675
According to Greve et al. (2020) the role of trade unions and work councils as social partners has been more limited in Finland than in other Nordic countries. They were consulted during the preparation of the government support packages, but not to the extent seen in Denmark, for example. One reason for this could be that many unemployment-related issues (e.g., short‐term work and wage supplement systems) were already covered by national regulation.
Citations:
Voitto Helander and Dag Anckar, Consultation and Political Culture. Essays on the Case of Finland, Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium, nr 19, 1983, Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.
Blom, Anders. 2018. Taloudelliset eturyhmät politiikan sisäpiirissä: Tutkimus liike-elämän poliittisesta vaikuttamisesta kolmikantaisessa Suomessa 1968–2011. Turun Yliopiston julkaisuja.
Blom, Anders. 2019. “Suomen malli murroksessa – edunvalvonnan ja korporatismin uudet kuviot,” https://politiikasta.fi/suomen-malli-murroksessa-edunvalvonnan-ja-korporatismin-uudet-kuviot/
Greve, B, Blomquist, P, Hvinden, B, van Gerven, M. Nordic welfare states – still standing or changed by the
COVID‐19 crisis? Soc Policy Adm. 2020; 1– 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12675
To what extent are non-economic interest associations capable of formulating relevant policies?
10
9
9
Most interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Many interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few interest associations are highly capable of formulating relevant policies.
2
1
1
Most interest associations are not capable of formulating relevant policies.
Most associations’ policy-relevant positions are based on expert knowledge and feasibility analyses. In this sense, associations clearly contribute to the general quality of decision-making. True, exaggeration and one-sided arguments are in the very nature of interest organizations and the ensuing negotiation process, but the prevailing style of policymaking grants access to various and often competing interests. The contribution of interest associations’ expert knowledge is therefore on the whole a valuable asset that enhances the quality of policymaking. Interest associations also have a high profile in public discourse, and often help shape public opinion. The fact remains, however, that the function of interest associations is to promote certain interests at the potential expense of others.
Graph View
Does there exist an independent and effective audit office?
10
9
9
There exists an effective and independent audit office.
8
7
6
7
6
There exists an effective and independent audit office, but its role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
There exists an independent audit office, but its role is considerably limited.
2
1
1
There does not exist an independent and effective audit office.
Legislative accountability is advanced by the audit office, which is accountable to parliament. Formerly, parliamentary oversight of government finances was performed by parliamentary state auditors. However, this institution has been abolished. In its place is the parliamentary Audit Committee, which was created by combining the tasks performed by the parliamentary state auditors with the related functions of the administrative and audit section of the Finance Committee. The office of the parliamentary state auditors has also been replaced by the National Audit Office of Finland, which is an independent expert body affiliated to parliament. The role and duties of the National Audit Office of Finland (NAOF) are defined in the country’s constitution. The NAOF audits central government finances, monitors fiscal policy, and oversees political party and election campaign funding (National Audit Office of Finland 2020).
It is also tasked with auditing the legality and propriety of the state’s financial arrangements, and reviewing compliance with the state budget. Specifically, the office is expected to promote the exercise of parliament’s budgetary power and the effectiveness of the body’s administration. It also oversees election and party funding. The office is directed by the auditor general, who is elected by parliament. With about 150 employees, the office has four impact areas: sustainable general government finances; sustainable governance and public administration; a safe, healthy and affluent society; and information governance. However, in 2021, the audit office was caught up in a scandal which undermined its operative capacity. Parliament ultimately decided to fire the body’s general director.
Citations:
National Audit Office of Finland, 2020. Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://www.vtv.fi/en/
“National Audit Office”; http://www.vtv.fi/en;
“The Audit Committee,” https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/tarkastusvaliokunta/Pages/default.asp
“Scandal in 2021”: https://yle.fi/news/3-12292381
It is also tasked with auditing the legality and propriety of the state’s financial arrangements, and reviewing compliance with the state budget. Specifically, the office is expected to promote the exercise of parliament’s budgetary power and the effectiveness of the body’s administration. It also oversees election and party funding. The office is directed by the auditor general, who is elected by parliament. With about 150 employees, the office has four impact areas: sustainable general government finances; sustainable governance and public administration; a safe, healthy and affluent society; and information governance. However, in 2021, the audit office was caught up in a scandal which undermined its operative capacity. Parliament ultimately decided to fire the body’s general director.
Citations:
National Audit Office of Finland, 2020. Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://www.vtv.fi/en/
“National Audit Office”; http://www.vtv.fi/en;
“The Audit Committee,” https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/tarkastusvaliokunta/Pages/default.asp
“Scandal in 2021”: https://yle.fi/news/3-12292381
Does there exist an independent and effective ombuds office?
10
9
9
There exists an effective and independent ombuds office.
8
7
6
7
6
There exists an effective and independent ombuds office, but its advocacy role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
There exists an independent ombuds office, but its advocacy role is considerably limited.
2
1
1
There does not exist an effective and independent ombuds office.
Parliament has an ombudsman office consisting of one ombudsman and two deputy ombudsmen. Established in 1920, it is the second-oldest ombuds office in the world and employs about 60. The officeholders are appointed by parliament, but the office is expected to be impartial and independent of parliament. The office reports to parliament once a year. Citizens may bring complaints to the office regarding decisions by public authorities, public officials, and others who perform public duties (examples of authorities include courts of law, state offices and municipal bodies). The number of complaints decided by the ombuds office in 2020 reached a record high of more than 7,000 cases. A considerable number of matters have been investigated and resolved on the initiative of the ombudsman himself, who may conduct onsite investigations when needed.
Citations:
https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en/web/guest/the-parliamentary-ombudsman-of-finland
“The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 2017 Annual Report presented to the Speaker of the Parliament,” https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en_GB/-/oikeusasiamies-luovutti-kertomuksensa-vuodelta-2017-eduskunnan-puhemiehelle
https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/documents/20184/39006/summary2020/2de02ec5-378a-4cf3-8948-89f346b2be3a
Citations:
https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en/web/guest/the-parliamentary-ombudsman-of-finland
“The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 2017 Annual Report presented to the Speaker of the Parliament,” https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en_GB/-/oikeusasiamies-luovutti-kertomuksensa-vuodelta-2017-eduskunnan-puhemiehelle
https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/documents/20184/39006/summary2020/2de02ec5-378a-4cf3-8948-89f346b2be3a
Is there an independent authority in place that effectively holds government offices accountable for handling issues of data protection and privacy?
10
9
9
An independent and effective data protection authority exists.
8
7
6
7
6
An independent and effective data protection authority exists, but its role is slightly limited.
5
4
3
4
3
A data protection authority exists, but both its independence and effectiveness are strongly limited.
2
1
1
There is no effective and independent data protection office.
There are two data protection authorities in Finland: the Data Protection Board and the Data Protection Ombudsman. Affiliated to the Ministry of Justice, the Data Protection Board is the most important decision-making agency concerning personal data issues. The Data Protection Ombudsman supervises the processing of personal data according to the objectives of the Personal Data Act 1999. The office has about 40 employees, and can be called upon for guidance in private matters or to advise organizations.
The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman safeguards data protection rights. The office was fully operational during 2020 and 2021. The Data Protection Ombudsman is a national supervisory authority which supervises compliance with data protection legislation. The Data Protection Ombudsman is an autonomous and independent authority, with the ombudsman appointed by the government. The ombudsman’s term of office is five years (Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman 2020).
The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman has resources to effectively advocate data protection and privacy issues vis-à-vis the government and has continued to do so during the coronavirus crisis. Publication of COVID-19-related data that cannot be used to identify individuals (e.g., anonymized statistics), is not prohibited by the data protection legislation.
Data protection has been an issue in Finland. In 2020, a private mental healthcare provider (Vastaamo) was blackmailed by online hackers who got access to electronic records containing sensitive health information. This case was not related to COVID-19, but it brought large-scale public attention to the issue of data protection.
Citations:
Ministry of Justicy, “The Data Protection Board,” https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/the-finnish-data-protection-board
Finlex “Personal Data Act (523/1999),” https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990523_20000986.pdf
The Data Protection Ombudsman, https://tietosuoja.fi/en
Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman, 2020. The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman safeguards
your data protection rights- Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://tietosuoja.fi/en/office-of-the-data-protectionombudsman
The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman safeguards data protection rights. The office was fully operational during 2020 and 2021. The Data Protection Ombudsman is a national supervisory authority which supervises compliance with data protection legislation. The Data Protection Ombudsman is an autonomous and independent authority, with the ombudsman appointed by the government. The ombudsman’s term of office is five years (Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman 2020).
The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman has resources to effectively advocate data protection and privacy issues vis-à-vis the government and has continued to do so during the coronavirus crisis. Publication of COVID-19-related data that cannot be used to identify individuals (e.g., anonymized statistics), is not prohibited by the data protection legislation.
Data protection has been an issue in Finland. In 2020, a private mental healthcare provider (Vastaamo) was blackmailed by online hackers who got access to electronic records containing sensitive health information. This case was not related to COVID-19, but it brought large-scale public attention to the issue of data protection.
Citations:
Ministry of Justicy, “The Data Protection Board,” https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/the-finnish-data-protection-board
Finlex “Personal Data Act (523/1999),” https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990523_20000986.pdf
The Data Protection Ombudsman, https://tietosuoja.fi/en
Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman, 2020. The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman safeguards
your data protection rights- Accessed, 28.12. 2020. https://tietosuoja.fi/en/office-of-the-data-protectionombudsman