Pursuing decentralisation: regional cultural policies in Finland and Sweden

Abstract

In both Finland and Sweden, decentralisation has traditionally been an essential cultural policy aim. This article explores how, by pursuing decentralisation, the regional jurisdictions have been presented with more possibilities to fulfil their purposes and in this way, gain legitimacy in cultural policy. Based on the analysis of political, legal, and administrative documents, three main periods of regional decentralisation in cultural policies are identified: regions as vehicles of welfare policy, regionalisation, and competitive regions. In both countries, national governments have promoted the regional level's agency, and in doing so, potential institutional change in cultural policy. However, the increase of the regional level's role has been limited by the countries' strongly institutionalised cultural policy systems.

The limits of devolving sustainable development to the local level: The case of the Greenbelt of Fennoscandia initiative

“…Within Finland, discussions in the 2000s related to the importance of making regions more competitive on a global market through differentiation, privatisation and selection in the public sector also driven by EU regional policies led to a regional re‐organisation decided upon in 2009 to decentralise administrative tasks and corresponding financial resources (Renko et al., 2022, pp. 349–350).…”

Pandemic cultural policy. A comparative perspective on Covid-19 measures and their effect on cultural policies in Europe

“…These reforms are the source of numerous debates on what is gained and what is lost by shifting cultural policy responsibility from one level to another (cf. Renko et al 2022).…”

Trust as a catalyst for regional growth in a decentralized Europe: The interplay between informal and formal institutions in driving economic growth

“…The second strand of literature (e.g., Crescenzi et al, 2016; Muringani et al, 2019; Rodríguez‐Pose & Garcilazo, 2015; Rodríguez‐Pose & Ketterer, 2020) examines the effect of formal institutions such as the degree of decentralization or regional autonomy and the quality of regional government on economic growth. Decentralization reconfigures relationships between different government levels depending on what is decentralized and how it is decentralized (Hooghe et al, 2016, 2010; OECD, 2019; Renko et al, 2021). It includes transferring some political, fiscal, administrative responsibilities and power from the central government to the subnational region level and below (Renko et al, 2021; Rodden, 2004; A. Schneider, 2003).…”

“…Decentralization reconfigures relationships between different government levels depending on what is decentralized and how it is decentralized (Hooghe et al, 2016, 2010; OECD, 2019; Renko et al, 2021). It includes transferring some political, fiscal, administrative responsibilities and power from the central government to the subnational region level and below (Renko et al, 2021; Rodden, 2004; A. Schneider, 2003). Accordingly, fiscal decentralization involves transferring expenditure and revenue responsibilities.…”