Retuning the Nordic welfaremunicipality

Central regulation of social care under changein Finland

Teppo KrogerDepartment of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyvaskyla,

Jyvaskyla, Finland

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the changes that have taken place in the centralregulation of social care in Finland since the 1970s. The changes in vertical central-local relations arediscussed in the context of economic and welfare state development.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a case study, applying the concept of “the Nordicwelfare municipality” to the case of Finland. With this concept, the author refers to the inherentlycontradictory character of the Nordic model of welfare governance: to a system that emphasises localself-government but that, at the same time, perceives regional harmonisation as imperative.

Findings – After strong central control during the most intensive construction period of the Finnishwelfare state in the 1970s and 1980s, a radical decentralisation reform was implemented in 1993.However, since the early 2000s pressure for centralisation has increased again as emerging regionalinequalities in care service provisions came under criticism.

Originality/value – The paper identifies a cycle of decentralisation and recentralisation that reflectsthe fundamental discrepancy between the maxims of local autonomy and regional equality that areboth formative elements of local governance within the Nordic welfare model.

Keywords Decentralized control, Centralized control, Social care, Finland, Welfare

Paper type Case study

1. IntroductionAlthough Nordic welfare states are known for offering rather generous and universalwelfare benefits, the Nordic welfare model also has been characterised by an abundanceof publicly organised welfare services (Sipila, 1997). For example, as much as 39 per centof all social expenditures were spent on such services in Finland in 2008 (NationalInstitute for Health and Welfare, 2010, Appendix Table V). Anttonen (1990) hasconsequently termed Nordic welfare systems “social service states” in contrast to “socialinsurance states” that are found in Central Europe and elsewhere. Another concept thatis regularly connected with the Nordic regime is universalism. Erikson et al. (1987, p. vii)went so far as calling universalism “the cornerstone of the Scandinavian model”.Ever since Beveridge, this concept has received many interpretations, but all of themrefer to coverage that goes beyond class boundaries to some kind of uniformity

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-333X.htm

The writing of this paper was financed by two research grants from the Academy of Finland(under the titles “Care in context” No. 113340 and “Working carers and caring workers”No. 124450). The author is grateful for comments from two anonymous reviewers and the editorsof this special issue.

IJSSP31,3/4

148

International Journal of Sociology andSocial PolicyVol. 31 No. 3/4, 2011pp. 148-159q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0144-333XDOI 10.1108/01443331111120591

and to institutional welfare arrangements that include, at least in principle, the wholepopulation (Rauch, 2008; Anttonen and Sipila, 2010).

An emphasis on services brings with it an additional key feature of the Nordic welfaremodel. Whereas most welfare benefits are delivered to citizens through centralgovernment agencies, welfare service provisions are rarely offered by nationalauthorities (Vabo, 2010). Instead, local and regional authorities are typically responsiblefor organising and delivering social services to citizens. Therefore, regions andmunicipalities in various countries have different levels of administrative discretion aswell as different economic preconditions (Alber, 1995; Burau et al., 2007; Kazepov, 2010).In the Nordic countries, municipalities are the primary organisers of social care.Moreover, the principle of local self-government is widely recognised and protected,being, for example, enshrined in the Finnish constitution (Heikkila and Rintala, 2006,p. 11). Furthermore, local authorities have the right to levy local taxes, which gives themcertain economic independence from the central power. As a consequence, Nordicwelfare systems are characterised by local authorities that have a strong status and asignificant role in the production of welfare (Kroger, 1997b; Trydegard, 2000; Burau et al.,2007; Vabo, 2010).

The position of Nordic local authorities is, nevertheless, far from unproblematic.There is a fundamental tension that is inherent in the Nordic model of local governance.On the one hand, these countries consider democracy at the local level as the bedrock ofdemocracy and ratify local self-government rather categorically as a rule, implying thatlocal authorities are free to determine their activities themselves. On the other hand,Nordic welfare states hold the principle of equality as their guiding star, as a leadingvalue that has become realised through universalistic social policies. Promoting genderequality has been one of the main goals of welfare policies, but territorial equality hasformed another basic part of the equality agenda (Trydegard and Thorslund, 2001, 2010;Heikkila and Rintala, 2006; Vabo, 2010). According to the maxim of territorial equality,citizens living in different parts of the country should be treated equally and have anequal access to public services. However, this requires harmonisation of municipalaction, which easily ends up being in contradiction with the principle of localself-government (Kroger 1997b, c). As Rauch (2008, p. 273) has stated, central regulationis required if “a high-level service coverage is to be ensured across all municipalities inthe country”.

Herein lies the paradox of the Nordic model of welfare governance: it is a system thatswears by the name of local freedom but that, at the same time, in order to realise itsambitions for equality, perceives regional harmonisation and central regulationindispensable. I have earlier named this inherently contradictory model as “theScandinavian welfare municipality” (Kroger, 1997b). There have been variations amongthe five individual Nordic countries in their eagerness to integrate local authorities withthe centrally led welfare state and in their emphasis on respecting local autonomy. Forexample, in an analysis of Nordic child-care systems, I concluded in the mid-1990s thattwo distinct Scandinavian policy-models seemed to emerge, one that primarily respectedthe local discretion of municipalities, represented by Norway, and the other thatfavoured a more centralised approach, exemplified mostly by Sweden and Finland(Kroger, 1997c). On the other hand, in a more recent comparison, Vabo (2010) states thatin financial terms the degree of political and territorial decentralisation is greater inSweden than in Finland and Norway. Despite these variations, all Nordic systems are,

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

149

nevertheless, fundamentally similar in their basic need to balance “the quarrelsomerelatives, local democracy and universal welfare state” (Kroger, 1997b, p. 103).

As no permanent or final solution between these two inherently contradictoryprinciples can be found, and because retaining the status quo is usually not an attractiveoption for policy makers with political or professional ambitions, the basic tensions ofthe Nordic welfare municipality model have regularly resulted in a cycle ofdecentralisation and centralisation. This has also been the case in Finland. In thispaper, I briefly describe and analyse the developments that have taken place in centralregulation of social care from the initial construction period of the Finnish welfaremunicipality in the late 1960s until the present. What changes have vertical central-localrelations experienced in Finland? What implications have the reforms brought for socialcare and how have they been related to changing views on regional inequalities? Andfinally, in the light of the Finnish case, how does the dual and ambivalent character of theNordic welfare municipality fit in with Nordic universalism?

2. The birth of the Finnish welfare municipalityA well-developed welfare state and, accordingly, local government provision of multiplewelfare services are actually rather recent phenomena in Finland. Until the 1960s,Finland was a comparatively poor and non-urbanised country where most people earnedtheir livelihood from agriculture and forest industries and where local social welfare wasorganised according to the poor relief model, offering support solely to the mostmarginalised and impoverished parts of the population. It was only the rapid in-countrymigration of the late 1960s and early 1970s and the resulting social transformations thatbrought Finland to the modern era and also led to a radical shake-up of its social welfare.The old-style welfare was heavily criticised for stigmatising and controlling the lives ofsocially excluded minorities and there was a call for new-style social services that wouldbe desired and used by the majority (Rauhala, 1996; Kroger, 1997a).

This modernisation of welfare is clearly represented by the creation of the universalchild day-care system (Rauhala, 1996). Until the early 1970s in Finland, childcare serviceswere provided only by voluntary organisations, a number of industrial employers and afew municipalities, which left the coverage very patchy and random. The Child Day-CareAct in 1973, initiated a wholly new period in this respect. Although it took more than twodecades to fully implement the system, beginning in 1973 central authorities started tooffer local authorities attractive state subsidies to construct day-care centres andintegrate childminders as a part of the municipal service system. The goal of regionalequality was highlighted by granting the highest economic support to poorer localauthorities that were situated in the countryside, aiming to build a nation-wide networkof uniform service provisions (Kroger, 1997a; Heikkila and Rintala, 2006). A similarfunding model was used at the same time to create a new locally organised but centrallyregulated health service that brought health care services to every municipality(Kokko et al., 2009, p. 15). Soon after that, the Social Welfare Act (1982) extended the samefunding scheme to all social services, including care services for older people.

This central grant system was carefully planned to persuade poorer rural localauthorities – that in Finland are usually rather conservative and ruled by the AgrarianCentre Party – to join the national project of transforming the old-style social welfare intomodern social services. Urban municipalities were consistently more active in the processon their own initiative. Extending central funding was accompanied by extending

IJSSP31,3/4

150

central steering. Already in 1968 a new National Board of Social Welfare was created todirect the often-reluctant municipalities in the modernisation process. Particularly afterthe 1982 Social Welfare Act, the National Board together with provincial state officesinspected the action plans and reports of local social welfare authorities in detail, makingsure that they were fully in accordance with national policy frameworks. Only afterpassing these multiple checks did municipalities receive their central grants(Kroger, 1997a; Oulasvirta et al., 2002; Heikkila and Rintala, 2006).

The modernisation of social welfare was a strongly centrally led project in Finland.The central state used both financial incentives and administrative control mechanismsto guide local authorities to act in accordance with national policy lines, that is, toconstruct new-style welfare services in a regionally uniform way. Municipalities werestill entities of self-government, but it served their economic interests to follow centralpreferences. The centrally governed version of the Finnish welfare municipality reachedits peak in the late 1980s, but by then was already experiencing increasing criticismagainst the loss of freedom for local authorities. At the same time, central authoritiesstarted to raise concerns about the economic viability of the continuous growth of localwelfare state expenditures (Niiranen, 1992; Kroger, 1997a).

3. Radical decentralisation of 1993The early 1990s brought about a significant turning point for the Finnish welfaremunicipality model. In 1991, Finland was hit by a major recession that explodedunemployment levels rapidly from 3.5 to 18.9 per cent, multiplied interest rates andthreatened to derail the whole national economy. The right-wing government that was inpower reacted by making excessive cuts in public expenditures, in particular in centralgrants to municipal social services. Owing to a remarkable decrease in central funding –and a similarly depressing loss in local tax revenues – local authorities made a quicku-turn in their service policies and moved from a period of constant expansion of socialservices to one of cuts and economic stringency (Kroger, 1997a; Uusitalo et al., 2000;Helin, 2009). The share of local public expenditures of gross domestic product droppedfrom 40.8 per cent in 1990 to 31.7 per cent in 1995 (Heikkila and Rintala, 2006, p. 15).

The recession coincided with a radical reform that transformed the character of theFinnish welfare municipality. By the late 1980s, administrative experiments had begunto seek ways to increase the scope of local discretion, including “the free municipalityexperiment” that was supported by central authorities (Niiranen, 1992). The heavycriticism from local authorities and their national organisations against the in-detailcentral regulation of local government activities was accompanied by an increasingconcern at the central government level about the central grant system that coveredabout half of all costs of municipal social and health services. It was claimed that thisfunding system encouraged local authorities to grow their expenditures recklessly, thusunbalancing the public economy (Kroger, 1997a; Lehto and Blomster, 1999, pp. 211-2;Kananoja et al., 2008, pp. 53-60).

At the turn of the decade a political consensus was reached on the future ofcentral-local relations in Finland. In-detail central steering was labelled out-dated, notfitting the situation of an urbanised country that was moving toward a post-industrialsociety. The demise of Eastern European socialism further eroded trust in centralisedgovernment systems. As a result, from these processes Finland received a radicaldecentralisation reform. Although the reform was initiated before the economic

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

151

depression, its implementation took place in 1993 just at the time when the recessionreached its deepest point (Kroger, 1997a; Heikkila and Rintala, 2006, p. 20; Kananoja et al.,2008, pp. 59-60).

Even though local authorities were still required to inform central authorities abouttheir action plans, in practice the reform freed them from compliance to central policypreferences and planning systems (Oulasvirta et al., 2002; Nylander, 2008). Outsourcingservice provisions became deregulated, as well. For social care policy making, the reformbrought about a decisive shift from a centrally led system that used financial incentivesto prompt local authorities to act according central preferences to a locally governedsystem where local authorities were allowed to do practically anything (or nothing) aslong as they did not break any law.

This change could have increased the costs for central government had the centralgrant system not been reformed at the same time. However, the reform also cut the earliertight connection between the amount of central funding and the volume andexpenditures of local welfare services. Now municipalities would receive block grantsbased, not on their actual service provisions, but on their structural characteristics likenumber of inhabitants, age structure, unemployment level and geography (Heikkila andRintala, 2006; Pylkkanen and Vaisanen, 2009). From the perspective of local authorities,this reform meant that they became free to use central funding any way they wished,something radically new in Finland. From the perspective of central power, there was afundamental change as well: if municipalities still wished to expand their welfareservices, they now needed to finance the expansion themselves as the central grantwould stay the same regardless of the volume of service provision.

Such a policy was in accordance with the economic and political conditions underwhich the reform was implemented in 1993. At that time, the Finnish welfare state wasunder significant retrenchment: the level of many welfare benefits experiencedsubstantial cuts and a main motive of central authorities was to end the expansion ofcosts of local care services. In this respect, the reform was a success: due to decreasedfunding, local authorities had to close down many services. For example, the coveragerate of home care services among the age 65 and over population dropped from19.3 per cent in 1988 to 11.8 per cent in 1995 (Heikkila and Rintala, 2006, p. 39). Originally,when the reform was planned, the central state had agreed to retain the earlier division offinancial responsibility by continuing to pay around half of the costs of local serviceprovisions, but the sudden arrival of the recession led to a reassessment of this principle.Central grants soon experienced major cutbacks, dropping from 40 to 25 per cent by 1997(Lehto and Blomster, 1999, p. 212). Even though the economy in general recovered in thelatter part of the 1990s, subsequent governments, including ones led by socialdemocrats, never raised the level of central social service funding back to thepre-recession level. In 2001, the share of central funding of the costs of local social andhealth care remained at 24 per cent (Sosiaali-ja terveysministerion. . . 2006, p. 30).

Did these changes bring the Nordic welfare municipality to its end in Finland? At thefirst look, we might tend to answer “yes”. The central state largely resigned from itsresponsibility for social care, leaving local authorities almost solely answerable forthe service provisions. The pendulum swung from profound centralisation to extremedecentralisation, and municipalities ended up making significant cuts in their serviceprovisions. Nonetheless, the fundamental tension between the principles of regionalequality and local self-government did not vanish with the reform. Even though central

IJSSP31,3/4

152

administration abolished practically all instruments that it could use to secure regionaluniformity in care service provisions, the welfare state discourse still addressed equalaccess to welfare services in different parts of the country. After the end of the recession,expenditures and staff numbers within welfare services began to grow again, eventhough this increase was not as vigorous as before and was mostly funded by themunicipalities themselves (Uusitalo et al., 2000). Despite the radical administrativereform and the deep economic recession, the Finnish welfare municipality maintained itscharacteristic features: the provision of rather broad welfare services and the dilemmabetween local discretion and territorial equality.

4. Gradual recentralisation during the 2000sDuring the end of the 1990s, Finnish local authorities enjoyed an extent of autonomy thatwould have been unthinkable during the most intensive construction period of thewelfare state in the 1970s and 1980s. The decentralisation of 1993 was originallymarketed as a reform that would help municipalities design their services to match localneeds better than before, but the end result was quite far from this benevolent goal. Asexpected, local service provisions did differ from each other, but the resulting patchinesswas not related to variations in local service needs (Kroger, 2002). Instead, thisnon-uniformity reflected regional unevenness in municipal willingness to realisecitizens’ rights. As the economic downturn caused severe and prolonged consequencesfor local authority finances, municipalities had used their new freedoms primarily tobalance their budgets by making cuts in their service provisions (Oulasvirta et al., 2002).

The Social Welfare Act still required local authorities to provide social care services“in accordance to local needs” and, for example, the Disability Service Act from 1987even gave certain clearly defined service rights to disabled people. However, severalmunicipalities started to test the limits by not always following the spirit or even theletter of these laws. In neighbouring municipalities, access to services could be veryunequal. Cuts in service provisions for older people were the easiest to make because thelegislation did not offer older people any explicit rights to care services. The long-termnational policy preference to reduce institutional care now became accompanied by newlocal practices that also limited the scope of home-based care services. The number ofbeneficiaries dropped dramatically and some tasks such as cleaning were excluded fromthe service (Uusitalo et al., 2000, p. 243). Many older people who needed care serviceswere left without formal support (Voutilainen et al., 2007, p. 180).

During the 1990s, only a few questioned the decentralisation tendency, but just a decadelater many user groups and NGOs were already calling for a firmer grip on local authoritiesfrom the central state. “Steering by information” had proved to be ineffectual and therewere practically no real sanctions left in the toolbox of central regulation (Oulasvirta et al.,2002). The number of court cases increased rapidly as it became considerably difficult insome municipalities for disabled and older people to receive the services that they werelegally entitled to without turning to legal aid (Oulasvirta et al., 2002, p. 115). Moreover,individual service users and their families started to bring cases of violation of their rights,as well as problems in the quality of care services, into public debate. Some cases receivedbroad media coverage and political commentary. Even some municipalities joined thedebate, calling for clearer central guidance on what entailed the minimum level of servicesthey are obliged to offer to their residents. Pressures for returning to stronger centralregulation of social care gained momentum (Heikkila and Rintala, 2006). The primacy

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

153

of local autonomy was challenged once again, evidence that the inherent contradictions ofthe Nordic welfare municipality model had survived the radical decentralisation of 1993.

The first decade of the new millennium saw a gradual return of central controlmechanisms on local social care provisions in Finland. The complaints over localvariations, particularly within the quality of institutional provisions for older people, ledto the 2001 launch of a national quality recommendation guideline on care services forolder people, drafted by the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs in collaboration withthe Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities (Ikaihmisten hoitoa japalveluja koskeva laatusuositus, 2001). The recommendation provided “a nationalframework to support local authorities when they plan and evaluate their actions”although the starting point for such a development was still to be “local needs andconditions” (Ikaihmisten hoitoa ja palveluja koskeva laatusuositus, 2001, p. 7).The central state gave local authorities a signal that they are expected to harmonise theirpolicies, especially staffing levels in institutional care, however, this was still done in asoft way by trying to avoid any accusation of violating the autonomy of local authorities.Local authorities were not obliged to follow the recommendations of the qualityguideline (Oulasvirta et al., 2002, p. 115).

The guideline was revised and relaunched in 2008 (Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio,2008). The tone of the new version reflects a growing frustration of the central state withthe unwillingness of local authorities to make their care services more uniform. The 2008document no longer emphasises “local conditions” as the starting point or understates itsown normative importance by calling itself a “non-binding knowledge bank” like in 2001(Ikaihmisten hoitoa ja palveluja koskeva laatusuositus, 2001, p. 7). Instead, the newrecommendation cites the Finnish constitution and states that “the public sector has tosecure the realisation of basic and human rights, including the right to equality andnecessary care” (Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio, 2008, p. 3). The document goes on toprovide exact quantitative indicators concerning minimum staffing levels and severalother objectives and emphasises that the attainment of these objectives needs to beregularly followed and evaluated both at the local and the national level (Sosiaali-jaterveysministerio, 2008, pp. 4, 11).

These national guidelines have not become un-influential or forgotten bureaucraticdocuments. On the contrary, they have become the main instrument for the re-emergingcentral regulation of social care. Provincial state offices have started to assess municipalunits of institutional and home care on the basis of these national recommendations andin several cases they have not been happy with what they have found. Perhaps, the casewith the highest public profile concerned the “Koukkuniemi Home for the Elderly” that issituated in Tampere, Finland’s third largest city. With its 997 beds, it is the largest unit ofinstitutional care for older people in the Nordic countries. In Spring 2006, following anallegation of an insufficient staffing level in the institution put forth by a private person,the Provincial State Office of Western Finland demanded that the city of Tampereemploy at least 103 – and preferably 300 – more staff, grounding its order on thenational quality guideline (Lansi-Suomen laaninhallitus, 2006).

The quality guidelines have not been the sole measure that central government hasrecently taken on board to bring more uniformity to local service provisions. In 2007, theparliament enacted the Act on Restructuring Local Government and Services thatmarked the start of a six-year reform process with high ambitions to increase efficiencyin municipal services and structures. Local authorities with ,20,000 inhabitants

IJSSP31,3/4

154

are required to either merge with neighbouring municipalities or form collaborativeareas that will organise health and social care services on behalf of the municipalities.Furthermore, municipalities are expected to increase cooperation between social andhealth care and strengthen the economic base of their service provisions (Heikkila andRintala, 2006, p. 23; Kananoja et al., 2008, pp. 79-81; Kokko et al., 2009, p. 9). The firstparagraph of the act lists a number of principles to be taken into account in itsimplementation. The first two of these principles are:

(1) availability, quality and funding of services in all parts of the country; and

(2) basic rights and equality in access to services (Laki kunta-japalvelurakenneuudistuksesta, 2007, p. 169, Section 1).

The expressions are now much more direct than at the time of the 2001 qualityguideline. At this time, the central state clearly wants to see change in the Finnish localgovernment and it does not disguise this intent any longer. This reform is evidently areflection of the continuously growing central aspirations to synchronize localgovernmental action and reduce local variations in the provision of welfare services.

The reform is usually referred to by its acronym PARAS that is a play with wordssince in English paras means best. However, not everyone has agreed that this reform isbest for them. It has been heavily criticised by many local authorities that call it atop-down, centrally led campaign where municipalities themselves have had little input.Many municipalities have resisted its implementation, and so far, its actual outcomes forservice provisions have remained very modest (Kaskisaari et al., 2010, pp. 70-3).However, concerning the structures of local government in Finland, the Act has broughtabout a significant wave of reorganisation: in 2009-2010 as many as 73 municipalitieshave merged with their neighbouring local authorities, leaving the number of localauthorities in 2010 at 342 (Kuntaliitto, 2009b). The reduction in the number of municipalunits in these two years has been almost as large as in the two decades of the 1960s and1970s (from 548 to 464) when the central state was at the height of its power and veryactive in propagating mergers among municipalities (Kuntaliitto, 2009a). All in all, thePARAS reform represents a major thrust of recentralisation of welfare service provisionin Finland, taking central regulation considerably further than the simple use of nationalquality recommendations. The central state is now trying to reach harmonisation in boththe administrative structures and actual service provisions of local authorities andbecoming more impatient with those municipalities that stand up against the return ofcentral regulation.

5. DiscussionThe development of social care in Finland showcases a cycle of decentralisation andrecentralisation, a repeated sequence of deregulation and reregulation. The intensivecentral control during the construction period of the Finnish welfare state in the 1970sand 1980s was followed by a radical decentralisation reform in 1993. However, thisreform did not produce a permanent and final outcome either, as pressures for bringingcentral control back started to increase soon after and led to new and ongoing reformsafter 2000. Since the core nature of the Nordic welfare municipality model ischaracterised by an enduring and fundamental tension between the maxims of localautonomy and regional equality, cyclical policy development is not unexpected.

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

155

Characteristic of the process has been to move from one extreme to another, which isexactly the course of events that guarantees ceaseless continuation of change.

For the development of social care services, the changes in the division ofresponsibility between the local and the central levels have had significant influence.From the late 1960s, the central state started actively to support the modernisation ofsocial welfare and persuaded local authorities from different parts of the country tocreate a geographically uniform care service system. The expansion of social care wasassured by central grants and central steering. In 1993, social care largely lost thisbacking from central authorities and care policy became localised. From then on, thedevelopment of care services has been dependent primarily on local policy makers.Despite central regulation, local variations did exist previously, but the reform of 1993not only accepted but also idealised differences in service provisions among differentmunicipalities: regional non-uniformity came to be seen as a positive reflection of localautonomy. During the 2000s local variations in service provisions, however, have onceagain become redefined. Local discretion has recently again come to be viewed as asource of regional inequality and as a risk for the fulfilment of citizen rights. Regionalnon-uniformity is rarely seen positively anymore and central regulation of local socialcare services is being reinstituted.

Rauch (2008) has compared the development of old-age care services in Denmark andSweden and he sees a connection between the universalism of social care services andcentral regulation. In the absence of strong central regulation, particularly underfinancial austerity, some municipalities may choose not to offer large-scale serviceprovisions because of cost containment considerations. According to Rauch, centralregulation of care services for older people has been considerably weaker and lessspecific in Sweden than in Denmark. As a result, Swedish local authorities in the 1980sand 1990s were more able to exercise retrenchment measures and, thus, cause anationwide weakening of universalism in old age care.

Rauch does not analyse the developments in Finland but his interpretation fits theFinnish situation of the early 1990s even better than the Swedish case. Distinctive tothe Finnish case was the suddenness as well as the profoundness of the change.The economic shock of 1991 came suddenly, hitting the national economy withoutwarning after a long period of growth. The decentralisation reform of 1993 was more aresult of planned action but its results were no less radical by transforming the earliercentrally led system into a locally driven governance structure. The concurrence of thesetwo major changes was a significant unforeseen factor that had a remarkable influenceon the development. Unexpectedly, local (as well as central) authorities had to makeimmediate massive cuts in their spending while at the same time, detailed central steeringwas abandoned. As a result, the two main characteristics of social service universalismmentioned by Rauch (2008, p. 268), universal coverage and geographical uniformity, bothsuffered. Nevertheless, having the benefit of hindsight, it can now be seen that the cutsmade in Finland in the early 1990s did not destroy the basic infrastructure of social care,nor did they decrease the importance of universalism as the leading welfare ideology.

Gun-Britt Trydegard and Mats Thorslund (2001, p. 174) have argued thatgeographical inequality within social services challenges the very concept of a universalwelfare state. They have analysed local variations in Swedish care services for olderpeople and stated that the variations they found were not in accordance with theinstitutional and universal character of the Swedish welfare state. It was against

IJSSP31,3/4

156

the established policy that the probability of receiving care and services depended onone’s residential location. The Nordic welfare regime is known particularly foruniversalism but at the same time major variations between municipalities have beenrecognised, not just in Sweden, but in all Nordic countries. How can this basiccontradiction be understood?

As can be seen in the Finnish case, the two core elements of the Nordic welfaremunicipality model, the principles of local autonomy and regional equality, are inconstant tension with each other and this ambivalence easily produces a cycle ofdecentralisation and recentralisation. The experience from Finland in the 1990s showsthat Nordic local authorities have, nevertheless, become deeply integrated with thewelfare state. Even when the responsibility for care services is left to the local level,social care will not disappear. Under economic stringency, local authorities may cutdown or retarget their provisions, but as these services enjoy large popularity among thepopulation, local policy makers in the Nordic countries cannot abandon the principle ofuniversalism in care provisions. The idea that all citizens should be covered by the samewelfare system still leads social policy making and after a period of local responsibility,social care seems at least in Finland (and, presumably, in Sweden, see Trydegard andThorslund, 2010, p. 508) to now be experiencing another wave of centralisation. Eventhough local variations and local autonomy appear incompatible with universalism andregional equality, in actuality these contradictory components together form thesubstance of the Nordic welfare municipality model.

References

Alber, J. (1995), “A framework for the comparative study of social services”, Journal of EuropeanSocial Policy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 131-49.

Anttonen, A. (1990), “The feminization of the Scandinavian welfare state”, in Simonen, L. (Ed.),Finnish Debates on Women’s Studies, University of Tampere, Tampere, pp. 3-25.

Anttonen, A. and Sipila, J. (2010), “Universalismi Britannian ja Pohjoismaidensosiaalipolitiikassa”, Janus, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 104-20.

Burau, V., Theobald, H. and Blank, R.H. (2007), Governing Home Care: A Cross-nationalComparison, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Erikson, R., Hansen, E.J., Ringen, S. and Uusitalo, H. (1987), “Preface”, in Erikson, R., Hansen, E.J.,Ringen, S. and Uusitalo, H. (Eds), The Scandinavian Model: Welfare States and WelfareResearch, M.E. Sharpe, Armond, pp. vii-ix.

Finlex (2007) Laki kunta-ja palvelurakenneuudistuksesta 2007/169.

Heikkila, M. and Rintala, T. (2006), Rescaling Social Welfare Policies in Finland, European Centrefor Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna.

Helin, H. (2009), Helsinki ja talouden notkahdukset, Helsingin kaupunki, Helsinki.

Kananoja, A., Niiranen, V. and Jokiranta, H. (2008), Kunnallinen sosiaalipolitiikka, PS-kustannus,Jyvaskyla.

Kaskisaari, M., Tammelin, M., Hirvonen, J., Hameenaho, P., Ilmarinen, K. and Vartiainen, A. (2010),Kuntalaisten arvioita sosiaalipalveluista, Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Helsinki.

Kazepov, Y. (Ed.) (2010), Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe,Ashgate, Farnham.

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

157

Kokko, S., Heinamaki, L., Tynkkynen, L.-K., Haverinen, R., Kaskisaari, M., Muuri, A., Pekurinen,M. and Tammelin, M. (2009), Kunta-ja palvelurakenneuudistuksen toteutuminen,Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Helsinki.

Kroger, T. (1997a), Hyvinvointikunnan aika, Tampereen yliopisto, Tampere.

Kroger, T. (1997b), “Local government in Scandinavia: autonomous or integrated into the welfarestate?”, in Sipila, J. (Ed.), Social Care Services: The Key to the Scandinavian Welfare Model,Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 95-108.

Kroger, T. (1997c), “The dilemma of municipalities: Scandinavian approaches to child day-careprovision”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 485-508.

Kroger, T. (2002), “Paikallisuus, monituottajamalli ja politiikka – miksi ikaantyneiden palveluttuotetaan eri paikkakunnilla eri tavoin?”, in Lehto, J. and Natunen, K. (Eds), Vastaammevanhusten hyvinvoinnista, Kuntaliitto, Helsinki, pp. 82-95.

Kuntaliitto (2009a), “Kaupunkien ja kuntien lukumaara 1917-2010”, available at: www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path¼1;29;348;4827;4892;4869 (accessed 14 May 2010).

Kuntaliitto (2009b), “Kuntaliitokset”, available at: www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path¼1;29;348;4827 (accessed 14 May 2010).

Lehto, J. and Blomster, P. (1999), “90-luvun lama ja sosiaali-ja terveyspalvelupolitiikan suunta”,Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 207-21.

Lansi-Suomen laaninhallitus (2006), “Koukkuniemen vanhainkoti sai huomautuksen”, available at:www.laaninhallitus.fi/lh/lansi/bulletin.nsf/HeadlinesPublicFin/2B52BEEE0ABEC6AAC225714100257831 (accessed 14 May 2010).

National Institute for Health and Welfare (2010), Social Protection Expenditure and Financing2008, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki.

Niiranen, V. (1992), Vapaakuntakokeilun kayttoarvo sosiaalitoimessa, Valtion painatuskeskus,Helsinki.

Nylander, O. (2008), “KASTE:n paikka – arvio sosiaali-ja terveydenhuollon toimintaohjelmanmerkityksesta”, Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 438-45.

Oulasvirta, L., Ohtonen, J. and Stenvall, J. (2002), Kuntien sosiaali-ja terveydenhuollon ohjaus,Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio, Helsinki.

Pylkkanen, E. and Vaisanen, A. (2009), Tutkimus sosiaalihuollon valtionosuusperusteista,Terveyden-ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Helsinki.

Rauch, D. (2008), “Central versus local service regulation: accounting for diverging old-age caredevelopments in Sweden and Denmark, 1980-2000”, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 267-87.

Rauhala, P.-L. (1996), Miten sosiaalipalvelut ovat tulleet osaksi suomalaista sosiaaliturvaa,Tampereen yliopisto, Tampere.

Sipila, J. (Ed.) (1997), Social Care Services: The Key to the Scandinavian Welfare Model, Avebury,Aldershot.

Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio (2001), Ikaihmisten hoitoa ja palveluja koskeva laatusuositus,Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio, Helsinki.

Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio (2008), Ikaihmisten palvelujen laatusuositus, Sosiaali-jaterveysministerio, Helsinki.

Sosiaali-ja terveysministerion toiminta-ja taloussuunnitelma vuosille 2008-2011 (2006),Sosiaali-ja terveysministerio, Helsinki.

Trydegard, G.-B. (2000), Tradition, Change and Variation: Past and Present Trends in PublicOld-Age Care, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

IJSSP31,3/4

158

Trydegard, G.-B. and Thorslund, M. (2001), “Inequality in the welfare state? Local variation incare of the elderly – the case of Sweden”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 10No. 3, pp. 174-84.

Trydegard, G.-B. and Thorslund, M. (2010), “One uniform welfare state or a multitude of welfaremunicipalities? The evolution of local variation in Swedish elder care”, Social Policy &Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 495-511.

Uusitalo, H., Parpo, A. and Hakkarainen, A. (Eds) (2000), Sosiaali-ja terveydenhuollonpalvelukatsaus, STAKES, Helsinki.

Vabo, S.I. (2010), “The territorial dimension of long-term care for older people”, in Kazepov, Y. (Ed.),Rescaling Social Policies: Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe, Ashgate, Farnham,pp. 313-42.

Voutilainen, P., Kauppinen, S., Heinola, R., Finne-Soveri, H., Sinervo, T., Kattainen, E., Topo, P.and Andersson, S. (2007), “Katsaus ikaantyneiden kotihoidon kehitykseen”, in Heikkila, M.and Lahti, T. (Eds), Sosiaali-ja terveydenhuollon palvelukatsaus, STAKES, Helsinki,pp. 154-89.

About the authorTeppo Kroger is a Professor of Social and Public Policy in the Department of Social Sciences andPhilosophy at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. His research interests include local socialpolicy, comparative welfare studies, childhood, ageing, disability and care. Teppo Kroger can becontacted at: teppo.kroger@jyu.fi

Retuning theNordic welfare

municipality

159

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints