On UN Day, The Finnish Institute on Health and Welfare (THL) released its evaluation of the welfare areas. In the world, there are significantly larger problems than the welfare issues we have here in Finland. But from a national perspective, the question of how the welfare areas will manage is indeed a big issue.
THL’s press release is titled “The tight economic situation, inflexible legislation, and staff shortages govern the renewal of welfare area services”. Of the three mentioned conditions—economy, legislation, and staff shortages—perhaps one, with some hesitation, can be said to be a “surprise.” If one enacts inflexible laws, one presumably knows it, right?
The staff shortage, which is related to the dilemma that there are more and more elderly people to care for and fewer people of working age to work as caregivers, is something that has been apparent in the demographics for a long time! Addressing rising costs was indeed one of the main arguments for the reform. That the economy is tight is hardly a surprise? But it can, of course, be immediately said that the inflation we have had, driven by Russia’s war against Ukraine, might not have been accounted for by anyone.
The press release stated that welfare areas risk being subjected to the Ministry of Finance’s evaluation process if they do not achieve balance in their economy by the end of 2026. Such a process likely means mergers, doesn’t it? The question of what constitutes too many, sufficient, or too few welfare areas is naturally not simply answered. Now, for reasons beyond social and health care, it was decided to start with 21 welfare areas and the city of Helsinki. Although this is significantly fewer units than all the municipalities combined, it seems that the question of what constitutes sufficiently broad shoulders already appears to be answered at this early stage of the welfare areas’ lifespan. Several, during the planning of the reform, advocated for five areas. I guess there may be several intermediate steps on the way from 21 to 5. But the direction is clear.
What is essential is naturally not only the numbers exercise but what is “functioning” in relation to set goals and given economic frameworks. Ulf Stenman, Director of Swedish Affairs at the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, wrote in this channel (Opinion, 26.10.2023) about education and wondered how broad the shoulders need to be? “We recently carried out a social and health care reform (1.1.2023) with major changes in municipal operations. In the reform, it was stated that only the city of Helsinki has ‘sufficiently broad shoulders.’ Helsinki retained responsibility for social and health care, and new welfare areas were formed for the country’s other regions.”
What is functioning within different administrative branches and services is certainly varied. At the same time, there are advantages to attempting to have some sort of uniform structures that both residents and citizens can relate to. The current fifteen Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centres) may become fewer in the future? There are six Regional State Administrative Agencies and the Åland islands.
From a citizen’s perspective, is it entirely unreasonable to ask the government and parliament to consider the comprehensibility of administrative areas? I belong to the generation that still thinks in terms of counties and municipalities. The counties have been replaced by a maze of state administration, and municipalities have become fewer through mergers. But there is a crucial difference; municipalities remain significant units in everyday life. People tend to know what one is talking about when one speaks of municipal democracy. Should education also move out of the municipality, it would be highly desirable for us to have a comprehensible and uniform map for these larger units. The legacy of municipal democracy would be worth this.
This article by Georg Henrik Wrede was previously published in Swedish on Kommuntorget.
Georg Henrik Wrede 