Radical Reform Or Piecemeal Adjustments? The Case of Finnish Family Policy Reforms

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.

Why fertility has been declining in Finland after the Global Recession?

“…Between 2008 and 2018 there were no major changes in the family policy institutions supporting work-family balance. A closer look into family policy shows that a number of piecemeal reforms were introduced between 2008 and 2014 to strengthen work-life balance, to increase gender equality and to improve the economic position of families (Nyby et al 2018). Between 2015 and 2018 Finland implemented reductive policy adjustments, such as cuts to child benefits and the parental leave allowance.…”

European Social Policy: Financial Pressure, Societal Differences, and Multi‐level Policy‐Making in Comparative Perspective

“…自2008年金融危机之后, 欧洲福利体系经历了多样的挑战, 这取决于政治结构和危机发生前的主要政治情况 (Schubert, de Villota & Kuhlmann, )。至于芬兰, 作者 Nyby, Nygård, 和 Blum () 评论了危机后家庭政策改革, 以评估经济危机如何导致了大小改革, 以及这些改革是以何种形态来应对危机相关的挑战。通过使用家庭政策呈现社会政策的成熟领域, 作者处理了一个有关社会安全的关键问题, 并揭示了被称之为“北欧式”福利和双职工家庭模式的轻微衰减。作者发现, 财务紧缩并未饶过社会政策, 就连通常具备抵抗力的芬兰社会政策也是如此。与之相关的是, 危机过程中的财政压力同样平等地影响了其他国家和政策议题。 作者 Crespy 和 Szabó () 撰写的文章与危机内容有关, 其文章考察了英国、法国、匈牙利和爱尔兰四国政府如何在财政责任和政策响应(关于健康政策)之间予以回应。为将此困境和输入、输出、以及过程合法性的相关要求进行联系, 文章表明: 在面对财政紧缩和对全国人民承诺的情况下, 政府在使医疗改革合法化的过程中设法解决上述合法性的不同要求。当这篇文章聚焦于国家政府制定改革时, 作者 Frisina Doetter 和 Neri () 将关注点转向了金融危机后国家在医疗政策中扮演的角色。通过将美国和意大利作为两个高度去中心化医疗国家进行比较, 她们发现, 两国监管的(再)中心化得到了加强。这一发现对监管杂交这一假设提出了挑战, 监管杂交即从其他医疗体系中采纳体系组成部分, 作为系统内部赤字的回应。因此, 作者主张, 国家背景、尤其是去中心化国家之间的政府间关系, 这两点在危机时期能改变监管杂交增强的合法性。之后的两篇文章都与之前研究由危机导致的欧洲健康政策发展有所联系 (e.g. Ongaro, Ferré & Fattore, ; Bandelow et al.…”

“…Tras la crisis financiera y económica de 2008, los sistemas de bienestar en Europa sufrieron diversos desafíos según las estructuras políticas y las circunstancias que predominaron antes de la crisis (Schubert, de Villota y Kuhlmann, ). Para el caso de Finlandia, Nyby, Nygård y Blum () revisan las reformas de la política familiar posterior a la crisis para evaluar cómo la crisis financiera indujo reformas mayores o menores y qué reformas tomaron para abordar los cambios relacionados con la crisis. Con la política familiar presentando un campo establecido de política social, los autores abordan una cuestión central de la seguridad social y revelan un ligero debilitamiento del llamado modelo “nórdico” de bienestar y familia de doble ingreso.…”

“…Following the financial and economic crisis in 2008, welfare systems in Europe underwent diverse challenges depending on the political structures and circumstances that predominated before the crisis (Schubert, de Villota & Kuhlmann, ). For the case of Finland, Nyby, Nygård and Blum () review the post‐crisis family policy reforms to assess how the financial crisis induced major or minor reforms and which form these reforms took to address crisis‐related changes. With family policy presenting an established field of social policy, the authors tackle a core issue of social security and reveal a slight weakening of the so‐called “Nordic” model of welfare and dual‐earner family.…”

Discarding social investment and redistribution in the name of austerity? The case of Finnish family policy reforms 2007—2015

“…Finland serves as an interesting case, since it is not only a member of the Nordic model famous for its social investments, but also since it has conducted several reforms in social policy during this period (for an overview, see Nyby, Nygård, & Blum, 2018). However, the focus of the article is not on explaining the actual policy development, but rather on how governments have framed reforms within family policy.…”