Finland: from collective progress to crisis management

This abstract draws on findings from research deliverable D3.3 on transitions and postcolonialism, which has been submitted but is not yet published. It is written by Elina Hakoniemi (DEMOS), Emilia Palonen (University of Helsinki), Anna Björk

(DEMOS) and Alexander Alekseev (University of Helsinki) – Finland

The Finnish welfare state was built on a strong, nationalistic SC emphasizing state responsibility, social rights, and equal access to citizenship for Finnish nationals. Emerging from a late 19th-century civil society, Finland’s welfare trajectory was marked by dramatic historical turns: post-Civil War struggles (1918-1930), institutional democracy with authoritarian elements under President Kekkonen (1956-1981), and post-1990s neoliberal transformations. Early welfare development relied on class compromise, reconciling agrarian, worker, and capitalist interests, and promoted universal social rights and wage labor as social norms. Yet, these ideals were exclusive, favoring moral, healthy, and educated citizens, while non-citizens and marginalized groups were excluded.

From 1990 onward, Finland transitioned slowly from a welfare state to a post-welfare or competition state. This shift reoriented society from progress and collective growth toward crisis management, competitiveness, and individual responsibility. Welfare institutions were repurposed to support market efficiency, while citizens were reframed as self-directed, adaptable, and responsible for their own survival within economic and security imperatives. Non-citizens became increasingly marginalized, as integration responsibilities shifted onto them.

The social contract became narrower, defensive, and exclusive, with democracy consolidated procedurally but fragile in terms of pluralism and civic agency. Solidarity, equality, and collective progress gave way to preoccupation with resilience, competition, and managed vulnerability, leaving Finland with an unsettled and contested social contract oriented more toward risk management than shared societal futures.