Since 2011 and the onset of the economic crisis, Finnish governments have pressed for structural reforms, including unpopular cuts to family benefits and services. This article analyses the government discourse used for legitimating some of these reforms: the cutbacks in the child benefit and the restriction of full-time childcare. It also assess whether this discourse bore the hallmarks of a neoliberal austerity discourse, which could suggest that the reforms were not just a matter of fiscal balancing but also a matter of neoliberal welfare state restructuring. We argue that the economic crisis was central in the powerful 'communicative' discourse used by the governments for legitimating unpopular cuts. Not only did it draw on ideas from an austerity discourse advocating financial sustainability, fiscal prudency and debt reduction, it was also impregnated by ideas from a neoliberal worldview questioning some of the main principles of the 'Nordic' family policy model.

No abstract

Since the economic crisis, many welfare states reformed their social security systems to cut social expenditure, even in policy fields protecting the most vulnerable, such as family policy. Using qualitative content analysis, this article systematically examines reforms pursued in Finnish family policy 2007–2017, and establishes the direction and magnitude of these reforms. The result show that these fields were frequently reformed, containing both expanding and contracting policy adjustments, as well as contracting structural reforms. The result also show that the “Nordic” principle of universalism was slightly weakened and the principle of selectivity somewhat strengthened during this period.

Since the 1970s, Finland has conducted family policies that could be labelled social investments, for example, investments in workfamily balance or public childcare, while at the same time it has protected the economic standard of families with children through various income transfers. However, after the 2008-2009 financial crisis these policies including those with socially investing objectives have been increasingly subjected to cuts in benefit levels and entitlements in order to lower public expenditure, which raises the question if there has been a shift away from social investments and redistribution towards austerity policies. By analysing government programs from the period 2007-2015, this article discusses if, and to what extent, such a change can be traced in the Finnish government discourse. More specifically the article studies the narrative stories used to legitimise changes (reforms) in existing family policy and to what extent these changes were informed by a social investment perspective focusing on 'new' social risks, a traditional redistribution perspective emphasising 'old' social risks, or a neoliberal austerity perspective advocating fiscal austerity and welfare cuts. We argue that the first two perspectives were dominant prior to and during the first phase of the international financial crisis, whereas the third perspective became dominant after the crisis. Moreover, the results show that the main storyline in the legitimisation of the reforms was stories of 'progress' in combination with stories of 'control' and helplessness'.

No abstract