Consensus-Building
#1Key Findings
Finland is the SGI 2024’s top scorer (rank 1) with respect to consensus-building.
The government consults experts primarily through informal channels and closed working groups. Though formal bodies like ad hoc committees and science panels exist, the comprehensive evaluation of scientific evidence rarely begins early enough to shape decisions.
Business and labor organizations play a strong role in the decision-making process thanks to a deeply rooted tripartite policy preparation system. This process is not fully transparent to outsiders. Social welfare and environmental organizations participate more sporadically, with limited impact on policy decisions.
The government is proactive in publishing data and information that enable citizens to hold it accountable.
The government consults experts primarily through informal channels and closed working groups. Though formal bodies like ad hoc committees and science panels exist, the comprehensive evaluation of scientific evidence rarely begins early enough to shape decisions.
Business and labor organizations play a strong role in the decision-making process thanks to a deeply rooted tripartite policy preparation system. This process is not fully transparent to outsiders. Social welfare and environmental organizations participate more sporadically, with limited impact on policy decisions.
The government is proactive in publishing data and information that enable citizens to hold it accountable.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
In Finland the government primarily organizes the collection of scholarly advice informally, for example by consulting scientific experts when drafting committee reports. Some formal bodies such as temporary working groups, ad hoc committees, ad hoc science panels and permanent councils also exist.
In general, various permanent and nonpermanent committees play important roles in structuring the flow of scholarly advice into government decision-making. One example of a permanent group that advises the government and ministries on research and technology matters is the Research and Innovation Council. The PMO appointed a scientific expert panel to study the effect of the pandemic in the spring of 2020.
A government resolution on the comprehensive reform of state research institutes and research funding was adopted in 2013 and implemented between 2014 and 2017. This measure aims to make the use of sectoral research in governmental decision-making more efficient and focused.
The current institutional mechanisms to some extent ensure that the government can access the best available scientific expertise from the outset and on short notice for all key projects. However, there are only a few expert commissions in critical reform areas. The Prime Minister’s Office develops an annual plan to achieve strategic research objectives, promoting the systemic use of research projects and data for decision-making, steering and operating procedures. Projects falling under the government’s strategic research goals are managed by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (Strategic Research Council n.d.).
However, a comprehensive evaluation of the best available scientific evidence seldom starts during the early stages of the policymaking process, when decisions can still be modified. Additionally, these consultations are generally not public, as they occur in closed working groups.
There is ongoing communication between government officials and non-governmental experts. However, neither the process for selecting consultation partners nor the consultations themselves are entirely transparent. Although Finland is a small country, the selected experts tend to represent a diverse range of perspectives. The circle of consulted non-governmental experts is fairly open to new members.
The scientific community offers robust criticism of the government’s core plans, but generally this has little impact on government policies. Non-governmental experts regularly express criticism regarding the superficial or token nature of their participation. However, the government’s plans in key areas do not blatantly contradict prevailing scientific opinions. In the fall of 2023, however, the government rejected a research program on work-based immigration, most likely due to opposition from the populist True Finns party. The decision blatantly contradicted the consensus scientific opinion on the importance of this particular topic.
The government does not in practice attempt to manage academic controversies or reconcile divergent expert opinions.
Citations:
Strategic Research Council. n.d. https://www.aka.fi/en/strategic-research/
In general, various permanent and nonpermanent committees play important roles in structuring the flow of scholarly advice into government decision-making. One example of a permanent group that advises the government and ministries on research and technology matters is the Research and Innovation Council. The PMO appointed a scientific expert panel to study the effect of the pandemic in the spring of 2020.
A government resolution on the comprehensive reform of state research institutes and research funding was adopted in 2013 and implemented between 2014 and 2017. This measure aims to make the use of sectoral research in governmental decision-making more efficient and focused.
The current institutional mechanisms to some extent ensure that the government can access the best available scientific expertise from the outset and on short notice for all key projects. However, there are only a few expert commissions in critical reform areas. The Prime Minister’s Office develops an annual plan to achieve strategic research objectives, promoting the systemic use of research projects and data for decision-making, steering and operating procedures. Projects falling under the government’s strategic research goals are managed by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (Strategic Research Council n.d.).
However, a comprehensive evaluation of the best available scientific evidence seldom starts during the early stages of the policymaking process, when decisions can still be modified. Additionally, these consultations are generally not public, as they occur in closed working groups.
There is ongoing communication between government officials and non-governmental experts. However, neither the process for selecting consultation partners nor the consultations themselves are entirely transparent. Although Finland is a small country, the selected experts tend to represent a diverse range of perspectives. The circle of consulted non-governmental experts is fairly open to new members.
The scientific community offers robust criticism of the government’s core plans, but generally this has little impact on government policies. Non-governmental experts regularly express criticism regarding the superficial or token nature of their participation. However, the government’s plans in key areas do not blatantly contradict prevailing scientific opinions. In the fall of 2023, however, the government rejected a research program on work-based immigration, most likely due to opposition from the populist True Finns party. The decision blatantly contradicted the consensus scientific opinion on the importance of this particular topic.
The government does not in practice attempt to manage academic controversies or reconcile divergent expert opinions.
Citations:
Strategic Research Council. n.d. https://www.aka.fi/en/strategic-research/
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
The principle of tripartite policy preparation is deeply rooted in Finnish political traditions. The government facilitates the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking to a large degree, sometimes relegating the entire preparatory process to the social partners. These social partners play a crucial role in all stages of the policymaking process, including agenda-setting, policy formulation, deliberation and decision-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring.
Tripartite negotiations are crucial for pension policies, as the principles and reforms of the earnings-related pension scheme are negotiated between the social partners and the state (Finnish Center for Pensions, n.d.).
The process of tripartite negotiations has a strong institutional framework supported by legislation and both permanent and ad hoc working groups. It also includes mechanisms that engage capital and labor in expert commissions, public hearings and performance monitoring. Communication is ongoing and involves all members of the private sector and labor. However, the process is not fully transparent to outsiders. For example, the working groups very seldom organize public hearings.
Members of organizations representing capital and labor sometimes express dissatisfaction with token participation in the policymaking process, especially regarding government plans to change the negotiation framework. However, the government generally succeeds in moderating disputes within and between labor and capital groups, and in balancing diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
Finnish Center for Pensions. n.d. “Tripartite Negotiations.” https://www.etk.fi/en/finnish-pension-system/administration-and-supervision/tripartite-negotiations/
Tripartite negotiations are crucial for pension policies, as the principles and reforms of the earnings-related pension scheme are negotiated between the social partners and the state (Finnish Center for Pensions, n.d.).
The process of tripartite negotiations has a strong institutional framework supported by legislation and both permanent and ad hoc working groups. It also includes mechanisms that engage capital and labor in expert commissions, public hearings and performance monitoring. Communication is ongoing and involves all members of the private sector and labor. However, the process is not fully transparent to outsiders. For example, the working groups very seldom organize public hearings.
Members of organizations representing capital and labor sometimes express dissatisfaction with token participation in the policymaking process, especially regarding government plans to change the negotiation framework. However, the government generally succeeds in moderating disputes within and between labor and capital groups, and in balancing diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
Finnish Center for Pensions. n.d. “Tripartite Negotiations.” https://www.etk.fi/en/finnish-pension-system/administration-and-supervision/tripartite-negotiations/
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
The Finnish government does not facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking to the same extent as it does for business and labor CSOs. Social welfare CSOs are not customarily involved across the various stages of the policymaking process, including agenda-setting, policy formulation, deliberation and decision-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring. Their participation is more sporadic and ad hoc, since there are no institutional mechanisms to ensure their active involvement beginning with the initial stages of policymaking on issues central to the sector. However, on a case-by-case basis, social welfare CSOs do participate in expert commissions, public hearings and performance monitoring
In a small country, communication with the government and the CSOs active in the field of social welfare – for instance, SOSTE – is intense. The consultation process is transparent, involving several CSOs. A special issue concerning the interaction between CSOs and the government is that CSOs are largely financed through gambling monopoly receipts, which are governed through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. This means many CSOs in the social welfare field rely on government funding. Members of major CSOs active in social welfare express dissatisfaction with the token nature of their participation in the policymaking process, but their financial ties with the ministry may silence some of the criticism.
The impact of consultations with CSOs in the social welfare field on actual policies is quite limited. Most important decisions are made between the parties in the cabinet and written in the cabinet program. The government does not seek to moderate disputes within and between major social welfare CSOs or to balance diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
SOSTE Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health. n.d. “Briefly in English.” https://www.soste.fi/en/etusivu/
In a small country, communication with the government and the CSOs active in the field of social welfare – for instance, SOSTE – is intense. The consultation process is transparent, involving several CSOs. A special issue concerning the interaction between CSOs and the government is that CSOs are largely financed through gambling monopoly receipts, which are governed through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. This means many CSOs in the social welfare field rely on government funding. Members of major CSOs active in social welfare express dissatisfaction with the token nature of their participation in the policymaking process, but their financial ties with the ministry may silence some of the criticism.
The impact of consultations with CSOs in the social welfare field on actual policies is quite limited. Most important decisions are made between the parties in the cabinet and written in the cabinet program. The government does not seek to moderate disputes within and between major social welfare CSOs or to balance diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
SOSTE Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health. n.d. “Briefly in English.” https://www.soste.fi/en/etusivu/
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
The Finnish government does not actively involve leading environmental organizations (EOs) in policymaking to the same extent as business and labor organizations. EOs are not routinely engaged across the various stages of the policymaking process such as agenda-setting, policy formulation, deliberation and decision-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring.
Participation tends to be sporadic and ad hoc due to the absence of institutional mechanisms ensuring the active engagement of prominent environmental organizations beginning from the initial stages of policymaking on issues of central importance to this sector. However, on a case-by-case basis, environmental organizations participate in expert commissions, public hearings and performance monitoring.
Due to the small size of the country, communication between the government and environmental organizations, such as the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC), is intense. The consultation process is transparent, involving several environmental organizations.
The impact of consultations with environmental organizations on actual policies is relatively limited. Most significant decisions are made within the cabinet, negotiated among parties and outlined in the cabinet program. The government does not actively attempt to mediate disputes within and between major environmental organizations or to balance diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). n.d. “Resource Title.” https://www.sll.fi/en/
Participation tends to be sporadic and ad hoc due to the absence of institutional mechanisms ensuring the active engagement of prominent environmental organizations beginning from the initial stages of policymaking on issues of central importance to this sector. However, on a case-by-case basis, environmental organizations participate in expert commissions, public hearings and performance monitoring.
Due to the small size of the country, communication between the government and environmental organizations, such as the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC), is intense. The consultation process is transparent, involving several environmental organizations.
The impact of consultations with environmental organizations on actual policies is relatively limited. Most significant decisions are made within the cabinet, negotiated among parties and outlined in the cabinet program. The government does not actively attempt to mediate disputes within and between major environmental organizations or to balance diverse opinions in practice.
Citations:
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). n.d. “Resource Title.” https://www.sll.fi/en/
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
According to the Statistics Act (280/2004), four official statistical authorities operate in Finland.
Statistics Finland, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the National Institute for Health and Welfare, and Finnish Customs are each mandated to collect data. Additionally, several other authorities produce official statistical materials. Official Statistics of Finland 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.
It is fair to say the government is proactive in publishing data and information that enable citizens to hold it accountable.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Situation Room was established consisting of leading economists from Helsinki GSE and the VATT Institute for Economic Research, as well as representatives from several public agencies. The Situation Room combines up-to-date register data from various sources. The model has been developed and granted extra funding. This signals that the government is taking the lead in developing comprehensive data governance frameworks and building data management capacities across the public sector to foster an environment that encourages data reuse.
The government enables its open government data portals to function as interactive feedback and communication tools rather than mere repositories of data. Quality standards and standardization efforts effectively ensure the production of high-quality government information and data.
The government in Finland proactively provides information and data that adequately meet the increasing demands of citizens in terms of information diversity and level of detail. For example, the Sotkanet database includes more than 3,600 indicators available across different regions and administrative levels. Also, the social security institution offers timely register data on benefit use. Both data services are user-friendly.
Finland has established an incomes register, which is updated by the tax authority. This means all income data is available in real time. However, the data is not publicly available.
The government’s information and data can be considered user-friendly for both humans and machines, including factors such as data formats, ease of access, and the provision of documentation and user guides.
Statistics Finland, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the National Institute for Health and Welfare, and Finnish Customs are each mandated to collect data. Additionally, several other authorities produce official statistical materials. Official Statistics of Finland 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.
It is fair to say the government is proactive in publishing data and information that enable citizens to hold it accountable.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Situation Room was established consisting of leading economists from Helsinki GSE and the VATT Institute for Economic Research, as well as representatives from several public agencies. The Situation Room combines up-to-date register data from various sources. The model has been developed and granted extra funding. This signals that the government is taking the lead in developing comprehensive data governance frameworks and building data management capacities across the public sector to foster an environment that encourages data reuse.
The government enables its open government data portals to function as interactive feedback and communication tools rather than mere repositories of data. Quality standards and standardization efforts effectively ensure the production of high-quality government information and data.
The government in Finland proactively provides information and data that adequately meet the increasing demands of citizens in terms of information diversity and level of detail. For example, the Sotkanet database includes more than 3,600 indicators available across different regions and administrative levels. Also, the social security institution offers timely register data on benefit use. Both data services are user-friendly.
Finland has established an incomes register, which is updated by the tax authority. This means all income data is available in real time. However, the data is not publicly available.
The government’s information and data can be considered user-friendly for both humans and machines, including factors such as data formats, ease of access, and the provision of documentation and user guides.