Coordination
#1Key Findings
Finland is the SGI 2024’s top scorer (rank 1) with regard to coordination.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has sufficient capacity and resources to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure alignment with government priorities. The office regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government.
Line ministries involve the PMO in policy preparation through ministry committees and working groups. Each ministry is responsible for preparing issues within its mandate. Ministers regularly meet informally to prepare for broader government sessions.
In 2023, Finland shifted responsibility for public healthcare, social welfare and rescue services from municipalities to 21 well-being services counties. Municipalities remain responsible for education and city planning. Intergovernmental power dynamics are hierarchical, with subnational entities dependent on central government funding.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has sufficient capacity and resources to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure alignment with government priorities. The office regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government.
Line ministries involve the PMO in policy preparation through ministry committees and working groups. Each ministry is responsible for preparing issues within its mandate. Ministers regularly meet informally to prepare for broader government sessions.
In 2023, Finland shifted responsibility for public healthcare, social welfare and rescue services from municipalities to 21 well-being services counties. Municipalities remain responsible for education and city planning. Intergovernmental power dynamics are hierarchical, with subnational entities dependent on central government funding.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent do established coordination mechanisms between the government’s office and line ministries effectively enhance policy coherence?
10
9
9
Functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
8
7
6
7
6
Largely functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
5
4
3
4
3
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are only somewhat functional.
2
1
1
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are not at all functional.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has the capacity to evaluate proposed policy. The PMO’s resources have increased considerably over the last decade, with many new appointments. The primary function of the PMO is to support the duties of the prime minister, who directs the work of the government and coordinates the preparation and consideration of government business.
The PMO monitors the implementation of the government program and coordinates Finland’s EU policy. Additionally, the PMO coordinates communications between the government and various ministries, plans future-oriented social policies, and promotes cooperation between the government and different branches of public administration. The PMO encompasses the Government EU Affairs Department, the Government Administration Department, the Ownership Steering Department, the Government Communications Department, the Government Strategy Department and the Government Session Unit. The PMO has a state secretary, a permanent state undersecretary and approximately 550 employees distributed across several task-specific units.
The PMO has the necessary capacity, including personnel and financial resources, to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure they are aligned with the government’s overall priorities. Line ministries are required to involve the Government Office (GO)/PMO in the preparation of policy proposals not only for legal and technical matters but also for programmatic aspects. This involvement occurs through ministry committees and ministerial working groups under the PMO. Regular meetings take place between the GO/PMO and line ministries, during which the GO/PMO receives briefings on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations.
The PMO regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government. The Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, which reports to the PMO, is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and their regulatory impact assessments. The council strives to enhance the quality of draft laws, specifically by focusing on improving the impact assessment of government proposals. Its objectives include the development of the entire law drafting process, covering aspects such as scheduling, the planning of government proposals and the overall refinement of the law drafting procedure. To achieve these goals, a dedicated agency has been established for this purpose.
The PMO monitors the implementation of the government program and coordinates Finland’s EU policy. Additionally, the PMO coordinates communications between the government and various ministries, plans future-oriented social policies, and promotes cooperation between the government and different branches of public administration. The PMO encompasses the Government EU Affairs Department, the Government Administration Department, the Ownership Steering Department, the Government Communications Department, the Government Strategy Department and the Government Session Unit. The PMO has a state secretary, a permanent state undersecretary and approximately 550 employees distributed across several task-specific units.
The PMO has the necessary capacity, including personnel and financial resources, to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure they are aligned with the government’s overall priorities. Line ministries are required to involve the Government Office (GO)/PMO in the preparation of policy proposals not only for legal and technical matters but also for programmatic aspects. This involvement occurs through ministry committees and ministerial working groups under the PMO. Regular meetings take place between the GO/PMO and line ministries, during which the GO/PMO receives briefings on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations.
The PMO regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government. The Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, which reports to the PMO, is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and their regulatory impact assessments. The council strives to enhance the quality of draft laws, specifically by focusing on improving the impact assessment of government proposals. Its objectives include the development of the entire law drafting process, covering aspects such as scheduling, the planning of government proposals and the overall refinement of the law drafting procedure. To achieve these goals, a dedicated agency has been established for this purpose.
To what extent are there positive (formalized) forms of coordination across ministries that aim to enhance policy coherence?
10
9
9
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
8
7
6
7
6
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence sometimes provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
5
4
3
4
3
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence rarely provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
2
1
1
There are no interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence that provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
The guiding rule in Finland is that each ministry is responsible for preparing issues that fall within its mandate and for ensuring the proper functioning of the administration. Given this framework, line ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office in their policy preparations, rather than the other way around. In practice, the patterns of interaction are not fixed.
Policy programs and other intersectoral matters in the cabinet program concern the Prime Minister’s Office as well as the ministries, and efforts must be coordinated. The government’s analysis, assessment and research activities that support policymaking across the ministries are coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Because decision-making is collective and consensual, ministry attempts to place items on the cabinet’s agenda without involving the Prime Minister’s Office will fail. The tradition of broad-based coalitions necessarily amalgamates ideological antagonisms, thereby mitigating fragmentation along ministerial and sectoral lines. The PMO is responsible for interadministration coordination in special areas, such as Arctic collaboration.
Ministerial committees effectively prepare for cabinet meetings. The government has four statutory ministerial committees: the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy – which meets with the president when pressing issues arise – the Ministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, the Ministerial Finance Committee and the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy. Additionally, ad hoc ministerial committees can be appointed by the government’s plenary session. All these committees are chaired by the prime minister, who also chairs sessions of the Economic Council, the Research and Innovation Council, and the Title Board. Furthermore, there are several ministerial working groups. The primary task of these committees and groups is to prepare for cabinet meetings by fostering consensus between relevant ministries and interests. Overall, a large majority of issues are reviewed first by cabinet committees and working groups.
Interministerial coordination is facilitated by digital technologies such as IT programs and platforms, as well as digital information systems. These tools are widely used. Additionally, work-related incentives such as job rotation with the GO/PMO or job-sharing are available at all hierarchical levels to encourage civil servants to exchange information actively across ministerial boundaries in their daily work. The formal pre-consultation procedures provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities rather than focusing on incompatibilities with other policies (negative coordination).
Citations:
Interadministration coordination. https://vnk.fi/en/inter-administrative-cooperation
Policy programs and other intersectoral matters in the cabinet program concern the Prime Minister’s Office as well as the ministries, and efforts must be coordinated. The government’s analysis, assessment and research activities that support policymaking across the ministries are coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Because decision-making is collective and consensual, ministry attempts to place items on the cabinet’s agenda without involving the Prime Minister’s Office will fail. The tradition of broad-based coalitions necessarily amalgamates ideological antagonisms, thereby mitigating fragmentation along ministerial and sectoral lines. The PMO is responsible for interadministration coordination in special areas, such as Arctic collaboration.
Ministerial committees effectively prepare for cabinet meetings. The government has four statutory ministerial committees: the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy – which meets with the president when pressing issues arise – the Ministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, the Ministerial Finance Committee and the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy. Additionally, ad hoc ministerial committees can be appointed by the government’s plenary session. All these committees are chaired by the prime minister, who also chairs sessions of the Economic Council, the Research and Innovation Council, and the Title Board. Furthermore, there are several ministerial working groups. The primary task of these committees and groups is to prepare for cabinet meetings by fostering consensus between relevant ministries and interests. Overall, a large majority of issues are reviewed first by cabinet committees and working groups.
Interministerial coordination is facilitated by digital technologies such as IT programs and platforms, as well as digital information systems. These tools are widely used. Additionally, work-related incentives such as job rotation with the GO/PMO or job-sharing are available at all hierarchical levels to encourage civil servants to exchange information actively across ministerial boundaries in their daily work. The formal pre-consultation procedures provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities rather than focusing on incompatibilities with other policies (negative coordination).
Citations:
Interadministration coordination. https://vnk.fi/en/inter-administrative-cooperation
How effectively do informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination?
10
9
9
Informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
5
4
3
4
3
In some cases, informal coordination mechanisms undermine formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
2
1
1
Informal coordination mechanisms undermine formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
Intersectoral coordination has generally been perceived as an important issue in Finnish politics, but few institutional mechanisms have been introduced. One of these is the Iltakoulu (evening session), an informal weekly meeting between ministers to discuss and prepare key matters for the government’s plenary session the following day. Additionally, there are other informal government meetings, and items can also be referred to informal ministerial working groups. Coordination therefore proceeds effectively through informal mechanisms.
Recent large-scale policy programs have enhanced intersectoral policymaking. Furthermore, Finland’s membership in the European Union has necessitated increased interministerial coordination. Recent research in Finland has focused only tangentially on informal mechanisms, but various case studies suggest that the system of coordination by advisory councils has performed well.
Citations:
Eero Murto. 2016. “Power Relationship Between Ministers and Civil Servants.” In The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland, eds. Lauri Karvonen, Heikki Paloheimo and Tapio Raunio. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag, 189-208.
Recent large-scale policy programs have enhanced intersectoral policymaking. Furthermore, Finland’s membership in the European Union has necessitated increased interministerial coordination. Recent research in Finland has focused only tangentially on informal mechanisms, but various case studies suggest that the system of coordination by advisory councils has performed well.
Citations:
Eero Murto. 2016. “Power Relationship Between Ministers and Civil Servants.” In The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland, eds. Lauri Karvonen, Heikki Paloheimo and Tapio Raunio. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag, 189-208.
Graph View
To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments meet national (minimum) standards in delivering public services?
10
9
9
The central government effectively ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government rarely ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national minimum standards for public service delivery.
2
1
1
The central government does nothing to ensure that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
The organization of public healthcare, social welfare and rescue services in Finland was reformed in 2023. Responsibility for these crucial public services was transferred from municipalities to so-called well-being services counties. The key objective of the reform was to improve the availability and quality of basic public services throughout Finland. As part of the reform, 21 self-governing well-being services counties were established. Additionally, the Helsinki city administration is responsible for organizing health, social and rescue services within its own area. Municipalities continue to be responsible for educational services, which, along with city planning, constitute their most important functions.
The provision of public services by subnational entities is based on law. Regional authorities supervise the quality and access of these services. However, there are generally very few national minimum standards, and those that are in place mostly pertain to maximum queuing times for healthcare services. Even here, the regional authorities have limited opportunities for enforcement.
Research and development agencies under various ministries monitor the standard of services using a multitude of indicators. The problem with this monitoring system is the sheer number of indicators and the lack of key indicators established at the political level. This monitoring does not lead to sanctions or reforms. Uneven quality levels and access to public services are considered major problems in Finland.
Citizens may file complaints with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Ombudsman oversees the legality of actions taken by the authorities, primarily by investigating received complaints.
Citations:
Hiilamo, H. 2020. “Why did Social and Healthcare Services Reform Fail in Finland?” Socialmedicinsk Tidskrift 97 (3): 433-441.
The provision of public services by subnational entities is based on law. Regional authorities supervise the quality and access of these services. However, there are generally very few national minimum standards, and those that are in place mostly pertain to maximum queuing times for healthcare services. Even here, the regional authorities have limited opportunities for enforcement.
Research and development agencies under various ministries monitor the standard of services using a multitude of indicators. The problem with this monitoring system is the sheer number of indicators and the lack of key indicators established at the political level. This monitoring does not lead to sanctions or reforms. Uneven quality levels and access to public services are considered major problems in Finland.
Citizens may file complaints with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Ombudsman oversees the legality of actions taken by the authorities, primarily by investigating received complaints.
Citations:
Hiilamo, H. 2020. “Why did Social and Healthcare Services Reform Fail in Finland?” Socialmedicinsk Tidskrift 97 (3): 433-441.
To what extent do national policymakers effectively collaborate with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services?
10
9
9
National policymakers work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
8
7
6
7
6
In general, national policymakers work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
5
4
3
4
3
National policymakers rarely work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
2
1
1
There is no effective multilevel cooperation between the central and subnational governments.
Before the social and healthcare reform took effect in 2023, the government confirmed the national objectives for organizing healthcare and social welfare for the years 2023 – 2026 in December 2022 (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2022). These objectives are strategic in nature and apply to healthcare and social welfare activities throughout Finland. They are an essential part of the national guidance and direction of healthcare and social welfare, supporting the current need to reform and further develop services.
The national objectives for healthcare and social welfare are the primary goals under the Act on Organizing Healthcare and Social Welfare Services. The government confirms these objectives every four years. The preparation of the objectives is based on monitoring information regarding the population’s health and well-being, as well as the activities and finances of healthcare and social welfare.
The national objectives include promoting equal access to healthcare and social welfare services, integrating these services, fostering cooperation between well-being service counties, advancing information management in healthcare and social welfare, and implementing both regional and national preparedness and contingency planning.
Similar consultation mechanisms are in place for other areas of public services. These formal mechanisms of coordination and consultation also include local self-governments. It is fair to say that national policymakers effectively collaborate with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services in Finland.
Intergovernmental fora meet regularly. However, in both formal and informal settings, these interactions are more hierarchical than cooperative. Subnational entities are almost entirely dependent on government funding, which dictates the character of power relationships. Municipalities, which are responsible for services including education, environmental management and city planning, have the mandate to collect municipal taxes. However, state grants are crucial for smaller municipalities, especially to fund education. Due to their reliance on state funding, civil servants at the subnational self-government level rarely express dissatisfaction with being given token opportunities to participate in decision-making processes at the central government level.
Citations:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. 2022. “Government Confirms National Objectives for Healthcare and Social Welfare.” https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//1271139/government-confirms-national-objectives-%20for-healthcare-and-social-welfare
The national objectives for healthcare and social welfare are the primary goals under the Act on Organizing Healthcare and Social Welfare Services. The government confirms these objectives every four years. The preparation of the objectives is based on monitoring information regarding the population’s health and well-being, as well as the activities and finances of healthcare and social welfare.
The national objectives include promoting equal access to healthcare and social welfare services, integrating these services, fostering cooperation between well-being service counties, advancing information management in healthcare and social welfare, and implementing both regional and national preparedness and contingency planning.
Similar consultation mechanisms are in place for other areas of public services. These formal mechanisms of coordination and consultation also include local self-governments. It is fair to say that national policymakers effectively collaborate with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services in Finland.
Intergovernmental fora meet regularly. However, in both formal and informal settings, these interactions are more hierarchical than cooperative. Subnational entities are almost entirely dependent on government funding, which dictates the character of power relationships. Municipalities, which are responsible for services including education, environmental management and city planning, have the mandate to collect municipal taxes. However, state grants are crucial for smaller municipalities, especially to fund education. Due to their reliance on state funding, civil servants at the subnational self-government level rarely express dissatisfaction with being given token opportunities to participate in decision-making processes at the central government level.
Citations:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. 2022. “Government Confirms National Objectives for Healthcare and Social Welfare.” https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//1271139/government-confirms-national-objectives-%20for-healthcare-and-social-welfare