Diagonal Accountability
#4Key Findings
Finland falls into the top group internationally (rank 4) in the category of vertical accountability.
Media freedom is supported by both the public and political discourse, with no censorship of digital, print or broadcast media. The media landscape is pluralistic, with a variety of outlets. The state broadcaster is considered unbiased, and private broadcasters operate freely without government interference.
Citizens can freely form or join independent political and civic groups, and political liberties are broadly respected. Employers’ and employees’ organizations are regularly consulted during policymaking, although the corporatist system of previous decades has declined.
The primary umbrella organization for social welfare organizations is regularly consulted by the government. Environmental organizations are also involved in policymaking, though tensions often arise between their views and those of key national resource industries.
Media freedom is supported by both the public and political discourse, with no censorship of digital, print or broadcast media. The media landscape is pluralistic, with a variety of outlets. The state broadcaster is considered unbiased, and private broadcasters operate freely without government interference.
Citizens can freely form or join independent political and civic groups, and political liberties are broadly respected. Employers’ and employees’ organizations are regularly consulted during policymaking, although the corporatist system of previous decades has declined.
The primary umbrella organization for social welfare organizations is regularly consulted by the government. Environmental organizations are also involved in policymaking, though tensions often arise between their views and those of key national resource industries.
To what extent are the media free from government influence and able to act independently?
10
9
9
There are no disincentives, by law or in practice, for the media to criticize the government and public officials.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
2
1
1
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
The independence of the media is ensured by the 2003 Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media, and is supported by the public and political discourse. A free and pluralist media is considered an important contributor to debate among citizens and the formation of public opinion.
The Council for Mass Media in Finland has successfully managed a system of self-regulation among media outlets.
Furthermore, as Finland is one of the least corrupt societies in the world, the government has generally avoided interfering with press freedoms, although a few exceptions to this rule have occurred in recent years.
The regulations regarding wiretapping, the protection of whistleblowers and “fake news” do not hinder media freedom in Finland.
There is no censorship of digital, print or broadcast media. The government and other public officials do not indirectly attempt to censor digital, print or broadcast media. The government does not censor online content. Public officials may be held accountable for instances of unlawful censorship; however, such cases are rare.
There is no research on the level of self-censorship among journalists. However, it is not considered a problem. Journalists do not face physical harassment. However, hate speech – especially on social media – and legal threats against journalists are common, particularly targeting those criticizing the True Finns party and its supporters.
Citations:
“Reporters without Borders, Finland,” https://rsf.org/en/finland
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/supreme_court_upholds_legality_of_hs_journalists_home_search/1092036
Manninen, Wille. 2017. “Monitoring Media Pluralism in Europe 2017. Country Report: Finland.”
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/61138/2018_Finland_EN.pdf
The Council for Mass Media in Finland has successfully managed a system of self-regulation among media outlets.
Furthermore, as Finland is one of the least corrupt societies in the world, the government has generally avoided interfering with press freedoms, although a few exceptions to this rule have occurred in recent years.
The regulations regarding wiretapping, the protection of whistleblowers and “fake news” do not hinder media freedom in Finland.
There is no censorship of digital, print or broadcast media. The government and other public officials do not indirectly attempt to censor digital, print or broadcast media. The government does not censor online content. Public officials may be held accountable for instances of unlawful censorship; however, such cases are rare.
There is no research on the level of self-censorship among journalists. However, it is not considered a problem. Journalists do not face physical harassment. However, hate speech – especially on social media – and legal threats against journalists are common, particularly targeting those criticizing the True Finns party and its supporters.
Citations:
“Reporters without Borders, Finland,” https://rsf.org/en/finland
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/supreme_court_upholds_legality_of_hs_journalists_home_search/1092036
Manninen, Wille. 2017. “Monitoring Media Pluralism in Europe 2017. Country Report: Finland.”
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/61138/2018_Finland_EN.pdf
To what extent is a plurality of opinions in the media ensured?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to a pluralistic media landscape that represents all existing political perspectives in society.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
Finland’s media landscape is pluralistic and includes a variety of newspapers, magazines and social media sites. The conditions in which Finnish journalists operate are among the most favorable in the world. Despite a definite decline in circulation numbers in recent years, Finland still boasts an impressive newspaper readership, including online subscriptions. According to a recent report by Reporters Without Borders, Finland ranks fifth worldwide in terms of media freedom. However, newspapers face the prospect of long-term decline due to the rise of electronic media and increasing economic pressures from a loss of advertising share and rising costs.
Indeed, during the last decade, user-generated content and online social media platforms have revolutionized the media landscape. As a rule, newspapers are privately owned but publicly subsidized. The high level of concentration in the Finnish media market constitutes a significant risk for media plurality. Although regional newspapers remain comparatively strong, most local newspapers have been assimilated into larger newspaper chains. Still, it is fair to say that major media outlets encompass a diverse range of political perspectives.
The national broadcasting company, Yleisradio, operates several national and regional television and radio channels and supplies a broad range of information online. Although state-owned and controlled by a parliamentary council, Yleisradio has generally been viewed as unbiased. Yleisradio is complemented by several private broadcasting companies. Licensing and regulatory systems for privately owned media ensure freedom from government influence and political interference.
Anti-monopoly policies have not been activated to ensure transparency of ownership structures and a plurality of opinions in digital, print and broadcast media outlets in Finland. The licensing and regulatory regimes of privately owned media seek to ensure an adequate plurality of opinions.
A significant number of major digital, print and broadcast outlets consistently critique government policies and report on abuses of power. Major media outlets do not ignore or censor significant political perspectives. There is no significant media bias against particular opposition parties or candidates.
A report on media pluralism in Finland by Mäntyoja and Manninen (2021) concludes: “Finland’s area-level risk scores throughout the Media Pluralism Monitor instrument fall in and near the medium risk range. The market plurality area reaches the highest risk score, although still within the medium risk range. Fundamental protection is the only one remaining within the low risk range. No significant changes were seen in the overall risk levels of both political independence and social inclusiveness, both of which reach the lower half of the medium risk level.”
Citations:
Mäntyoja, Marianne and Ville Manninen. 2021. “Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the Year 2021. Country Report: Finland.”
Indeed, during the last decade, user-generated content and online social media platforms have revolutionized the media landscape. As a rule, newspapers are privately owned but publicly subsidized. The high level of concentration in the Finnish media market constitutes a significant risk for media plurality. Although regional newspapers remain comparatively strong, most local newspapers have been assimilated into larger newspaper chains. Still, it is fair to say that major media outlets encompass a diverse range of political perspectives.
The national broadcasting company, Yleisradio, operates several national and regional television and radio channels and supplies a broad range of information online. Although state-owned and controlled by a parliamentary council, Yleisradio has generally been viewed as unbiased. Yleisradio is complemented by several private broadcasting companies. Licensing and regulatory systems for privately owned media ensure freedom from government influence and political interference.
Anti-monopoly policies have not been activated to ensure transparency of ownership structures and a plurality of opinions in digital, print and broadcast media outlets in Finland. The licensing and regulatory regimes of privately owned media seek to ensure an adequate plurality of opinions.
A significant number of major digital, print and broadcast outlets consistently critique government policies and report on abuses of power. Major media outlets do not ignore or censor significant political perspectives. There is no significant media bias against particular opposition parties or candidates.
A report on media pluralism in Finland by Mäntyoja and Manninen (2021) concludes: “Finland’s area-level risk scores throughout the Media Pluralism Monitor instrument fall in and near the medium risk range. The market plurality area reaches the highest risk score, although still within the medium risk range. Fundamental protection is the only one remaining within the low risk range. No significant changes were seen in the overall risk levels of both political independence and social inclusiveness, both of which reach the lower half of the medium risk level.”
Citations:
Mäntyoja, Marianne and Ville Manninen. 2021. “Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital Era: Application of the Media Pluralism Monitor in the European Union, Albania, Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey in the Year 2021. Country Report: Finland.”
To what extent are citizens able to freely form or join independent political and civic groups, openly raise and discuss political issues, and assemble without restrictions?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose very few or no significant obstacles to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
In Finland, citizens can freely form or join independent political and civic groups, openly raise and discuss political issues, and assemble without restrictions. The constitution safeguards basic political rights such as freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Article 13 in the constitution reads: “Everyone has the right to arrange meetings and demonstrations without a permit, as well as the right to participate in them.”
Everyone has the freedom of association. This freedom includes the right to form an association without a permit, to be a member or not to be a member, and to participate in an association’s activities. The freedom to form trade unions and to organize in order to protect various interests is also guaranteed.
Various laws and guidelines, such as the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, contain provisions on consultation and participation. By and large, the system functions reasonably well. Admittedly, consultation tends to favor organized groups and neglect outside participation. Additionally, consultation is carried out mainly to build consensus rather than to gather support or assess impact. However, in the long run, this helps generate public support for government policies.
Political and civic groups in Finland are able to operate freely without any unwarranted state intrusion or interference in their activities. The government applies transparent and nondiscriminatory criteria when evaluating requests for permits to associate and assemble. There are very few restrictions on assembly and association, which mainly pertain to public safety. These restrictions affect, for example, demonstrations without prior notice or those intended to counter an opposing group (e.g., right-wing activists vs. antiracist movements) or environmental groups trying to block traffic. The government does not employ intimidation, harassment or threats of retaliation to hinder citizens from exercising their rights to legally assemble and associate (e.g., through arbitrary arrests, detentions, imprisonment of peaceful demonstrators or the excessive use of force).
Citations:
The Constitution of Finland. https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf
Everyone has the freedom of association. This freedom includes the right to form an association without a permit, to be a member or not to be a member, and to participate in an association’s activities. The freedom to form trade unions and to organize in order to protect various interests is also guaranteed.
Various laws and guidelines, such as the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, contain provisions on consultation and participation. By and large, the system functions reasonably well. Admittedly, consultation tends to favor organized groups and neglect outside participation. Additionally, consultation is carried out mainly to build consensus rather than to gather support or assess impact. However, in the long run, this helps generate public support for government policies.
Political and civic groups in Finland are able to operate freely without any unwarranted state intrusion or interference in their activities. The government applies transparent and nondiscriminatory criteria when evaluating requests for permits to associate and assemble. There are very few restrictions on assembly and association, which mainly pertain to public safety. These restrictions affect, for example, demonstrations without prior notice or those intended to counter an opposing group (e.g., right-wing activists vs. antiracist movements) or environmental groups trying to block traffic. The government does not employ intimidation, harassment or threats of retaliation to hinder citizens from exercising their rights to legally assemble and associate (e.g., through arbitrary arrests, detentions, imprisonment of peaceful demonstrators or the excessive use of force).
Citations:
The Constitution of Finland. https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
In Finland’s consensus-oriented political system, interest organizations and associations – especially employers’ and employees’ organizations – are regularly consulted in the course of policymaking. The major civil society organizations (CSOs) are cooperative and capable of forming alliances.
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 as extensively as 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.
Although the corporatist system adopted in the 1960s has now declined, the exchange of views and information with a variety of social interests remains integral to the everyday activities of the Finnish government. Through mechanisms such as committee hearings, joint-council memberships and expert testimony, bills and drafts are circulated to interested parties who are then invited to critique the draft legislation. Reforms of the earnings-related pension system, for example, are still negotiated in a tripartite manner. However, recent developments have indicated a weakening in the role played by tripartite negotiation of labor market agreements between the government, employers’ associations and employee organizations.
Labor union membership fees are tax deductible. Employers’ and employees’ associations possess significant financial strength, which enables them to hire policy experts. Although labor union membership is declining, rates remain relatively high compared with other European countries.
Citations:
Greve, B., Blomquist, P., Hvinden, B., and van Gerven, M. 2020. “Nordic Welfare States – Still Standing or Changed by the COVID‐19 Crisis?” Social Policy & Administration 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 as extensively as 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.
Although the corporatist system adopted in the 1960s has now declined, the exchange of views and information with a variety of social interests remains integral to the everyday activities of the Finnish government. Through mechanisms such as committee hearings, joint-council memberships and expert testimony, bills and drafts are circulated to interested parties who are then invited to critique the draft legislation. Reforms of the earnings-related pension system, for example, are still negotiated in a tripartite manner. However, recent developments have indicated a weakening in the role played by tripartite negotiation of labor market agreements between the government, employers’ associations and employee organizations.
Labor union membership fees are tax deductible. Employers’ and employees’ associations possess significant financial strength, which enables them to hire policy experts. Although labor union membership is declining, rates remain relatively high compared with other European countries.
Citations:
Greve, B., Blomquist, P., Hvinden, B., and van Gerven, M. 2020. “Nordic Welfare States – Still Standing or Changed by the COVID‐19 Crisis?” Social Policy & Administration 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12675
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
In Finland, the Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health (SOSTE) serves as a comprehensive umbrella organization for social welfare organizations. Established in 2012, SOSTE was founded by the Association of Voluntary Health, Social and Welfare Organizations (YTY), the Finnish Federation for Social Welfare and Health (STKL), and the Finnish Center for Health Promotion (Tekry).
SOSTE brings together 200 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to social affairs and health, along with numerous partner members. The collective mission of SOSTE focuses on fostering the health and well-being of all individuals. Through collaboration with its members and partners, SOSTE actively engages in laying the groundwork for health, inclusive participation and a just society.
SOSTE and its partner organizations are regularly consulted by the government. For example, SOSTE is currently represented on the Social Security Reform Committee, whose mandate extends from 2020 to 2027. However, the government does not feel obliged to accept the viewpoints of SOSTE or its partner organizations.
SOSTE and its partner organizations are funded almost exclusively through the receipts of the state gambling monopoly. The Orpo government aims to partially dismantle the monopoly and replace it with a licensing system. Consequently, SOSTE’s funding level for 2024 dropped dramatically, leading to downsizing within the organization. This reduction will diminish the organization’s capacity to retain expert staffers and influence policies.
Citations:
https://www.soste.fi/en/etusivu/
SOSTE brings together 200 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to social affairs and health, along with numerous partner members. The collective mission of SOSTE focuses on fostering the health and well-being of all individuals. Through collaboration with its members and partners, SOSTE actively engages in laying the groundwork for health, inclusive participation and a just society.
SOSTE and its partner organizations are regularly consulted by the government. For example, SOSTE is currently represented on the Social Security Reform Committee, whose mandate extends from 2020 to 2027. However, the government does not feel obliged to accept the viewpoints of SOSTE or its partner organizations.
SOSTE and its partner organizations are funded almost exclusively through the receipts of the state gambling monopoly. The Orpo government aims to partially dismantle the monopoly and replace it with a licensing system. Consequently, SOSTE’s funding level for 2024 dropped dramatically, leading to downsizing within the organization. This reduction will diminish the organization’s capacity to retain expert staffers and influence policies.
Citations:
https://www.soste.fi/en/etusivu/
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
Finland boasts a large number of civil society associations, societies and groups working to protect the environment. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) is the oldest and most impactful environmental organization in Finland. With 150 local associations and a multitude of engaged members across the country, its collective efforts are dedicated to halting biodiversity loss and addressing global warming. FANC has over 30,000 members and 15 district organizations nationwide.
The government regularly consults environmental organizations. However, there are constant tensions between the viewpoints expressed by these organizations and those of various industries. The most heated debates concern the use of natural resources, specifically forests and mineral resources. Environmental organizations also clash with Metsähallitus – the organization that governs state-owned natural resources. The state owns 35% of all the forests in Finland.
The disputes over the use of natural resources extend to the academic level as well. Industries and environmental organizations do not share the same knowledge base. Instead, they constantly criticize each other for publishing biased information.
Citations:
https://www.sll.fi/en/
The government regularly consults environmental organizations. However, there are constant tensions between the viewpoints expressed by these organizations and those of various industries. The most heated debates concern the use of natural resources, specifically forests and mineral resources. Environmental organizations also clash with Metsähallitus – the organization that governs state-owned natural resources. The state owns 35% of all the forests in Finland.
The disputes over the use of natural resources extend to the academic level as well. Industries and environmental organizations do not share the same knowledge base. Instead, they constantly criticize each other for publishing biased information.
Citations:
https://www.sll.fi/en/