Ministers as strategic political leaders? : Strategic political steering after NPM reforms in Finland

This study explores strategic political steering after the New Public Management (NPM) reforms, with emphasis on the new role assigned to Government ministers in Finland. In the NPM model, politicians concentrate on broad, principal issues, while agencies have discretion within the limits set by politicians. In Finland, strategic steering was introduced with Management by Results (MBR), but the actual tools for strategic political steering have been the Government Programme, the Government Strategy Portfolio (GSP) and Frame Budgeting. This study addresses these tools as means of strategic steering conducted by the Cabinet and individual ministers within their respective ministries. The time frame of the study includes the two Lipponen Cabinets between 1995 and 2003. Interviews with fourteen ministers as well as with fourteen top officials were conducted. In addition, administrative reform documents and documents related to strategic steering tools were analysed. The empirical conclusions of the study can be summarised as follows: There were few signs of strategic political steering in the Lipponen Cabinets. Although the Government Programmes of both Cabinets introduced strategic thinking, the strategic guidelines set forth at the beginning of the Programme were not linked to the GSP or to Frame Budgeting. The GSP could be characterised as the collected strategic agendas of each ministry, while there was neither the will nor the courage among Cabinet members to prioritise the projects and to make selections. The Cabinet used Frame Budgeting mainly in the sense of spending limits, not in making strategic allocation decisions. As for the GSP at the departmental level, projects were suggested by top officials, and ministers only approved the suggested list. Frame Budgeting at the departmental level proved to be the most interesting strategic steering tool from ministers viewpoint: they actively participated in defining which issues would need extra financing. Because the chances for extra financing were minimal, ministers had an effect only on a marginal share of the budget. At the departmental level, the study shows that strategic plans were considered the domain of officials. As for strategies concerning specific substances, there was variation in the interest shown by the ministers. A few ministers emphasised the importance of strategic work and led strategy processes. In most cases, however, officials led the process while ministers offered comments on the drafts of strategy documents. The results of this study together with experiences reported in other countries and local politics show that political decision-makers have difficulty operating at the strategic level. The conclusion is that politicians do not have sufficient incentive to perform the strategic role implied by the NPM type of reforms. Overall, the empirical results of the study indicate the power of politics over management reforms.

Reinventing Nordic Openness : Transparency and State Information in Finland

The study explores new ideational changes in the information strategy of the Finnish state between 1998 and 2007, after a juncture in Finnish governing in the early 1990s. The study scrutinizes the economic reframing of institutional openness in Finland that comes with significant and often unintended institutional consequences of transparency. Most notably, the constitutional principle of publicity (julkisuusperiaate), a Nordic institutional peculiarity allowing public access to state information, is now becoming an instrument of economic performance and accountability through results. Finland has a long institutional history in the publicity of government information, acknowledged by law since 1951. Nevertheless, access to government information became a policy concern in the mid-1990s, involving a historical narrative of openness as a Nordic tradition of Finnish governing Nordic openness (pohjoismainen avoimuus). International interest in transparency of governance has also marked an opening for institutional re-descriptions in Nordic context. The essential added value, or contradictory term, that transparency has on the Finnish conceptualisation of governing is the innovation that public acts of governing can be economically efficient. This is most apparent in the new attempts at providing standardised information on government and expressing it in numbers. In Finland, the publicity of government information has been a concept of democratic connotations, but new internationally diffusing ideas of performance and national economic competitiveness are discussed under the notion of transparency and its peer concepts openness and public (sector) information, which are also newcomers to Finnish vocabulary of governing. The above concepts often conflict with one another, paving the way to unintended consequences for the reforms conducted in their name. Moreover, the study argues that the policy concerns over openness and public sector information are linked to the new drive for transparency. Drawing on theories of new institutionalism, political economy, and conceptual history, the study argues for a reinvention of Nordic openness in two senses. First, in referring to institutional history, the policy discourse of Nordic openness discovers an administrative tradition in response to new dilemmas of public governance. Moreover, this normatively appealing discourse also legitimizes the new ideational changes. Second, a former mechanism of democratic accountability is being reframed with market and performance ideas, mostly originating from the sphere of transnational governance and governance indices. Mobilizing different research techniques and data (public documents of the Finnish government and international organizations, some 30 interviews of Finnish civil servants, and statistical time series), the study asks how the above ideational changes have been possible, pointing to the importance of nationalistically appealing historical narratives and normative concepts of governing. Concerning institutional developments, the study analyses the ideational changes in central steering mechanisms (political, normative and financial steering) and the introduction of budget transparency and performance management in two cases: census data (Population Register Centre) and foreign political information (Ministry for Foreign Affairs). The new policy domain of governance indices is also explored as a type of transparency. The study further asks what institutional transformations are to be observed in the above cases and in the accountability system. The study concludes that while the information rights of citizens have been reinforced and recalibrated during the period under scrutiny, there has also been a conversion of institutional practices towards economic performance. As the discourse of Nordic openness has been rather unquestioned, the new internationally circulating ideas of transparency and the knowledge economy have entered this discourse without public notice. Since the mid 1990s, state registry data has been perceived as an exploitable economic resource in Finland and in the EU public sector information. This is a parallel development to the new drive for budget transparency in organisations as vital to the state as the Population Register Centre, which has led to marketization of census data in Finland, an international exceptionality. In the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the post-Cold War rhetorical shift from secrecy to performance-driven openness marked a conversion in institutional practices that now see information services with high regards. But this has not necessarily led to the increased publicity of foreign political information. In this context, openness is also defined as sharing information with select actors, as a trust based non-public activity, deemed necessary amid the global economic competition. Regarding accountability system, deliberation and performance now overlap, making it increasingly difficult to identify to whom and for what the public administration is accountable. These evolving institutional practices are characterised by unintended consequences and paradoxes. History is a paradoxical component in the above institutional change, as long-term institutional developments now justify short-term reforms.

Supistamista, rationalisointia vai kehittämistä? : Valtiovarainministeriön järjestelyosaston järjestämän henkilöstökoulutus- ja tutkimustoiminnan rakentuminen osaksi valtionhallintoa vuosina 1943-1971

The study examines the personnel training and research activities carried out by the Organization and Methods Division of the Ministry of Finance and their becoming a part and parcel of the state administration in 1943-1971. The study is a combination of institutional and ideological historical research in recent history on adult education, using a constructionist approach. Material salient to the study comes from the files of the Organization and Methods Division in the National Archives, parliamentary documents, committee reports, and the magazines. The concentrated training and research activities arranged by the Organization and Methods Division, became a part and parcel of the state administration in the midst of controversial challenges and opportunities. They served to solve social problems which beset the state administration as well as contextual challenges besetting rationalization measures, and organizational challenges. The activities were also affected by a dependence on decision-makers, administrative units, and civil servants organizations, by different views on rationalization and the holistic nature of reforms, as well as by the formal theories that served as resources. It chose long-term projects which extended to the political decision-makers and administrative units turf, and which were intended to reform the structures of the state administration and to rationalize the practices of the administrative units. The crucial questions emerged in opposite pairs (a constitutional state vs. the ideology of an administratively governed state, a system of national boards vs. a system of government through ministries, efficiency of work vs. pleasantness of work, centralized vs. decentralized rationalization activities) which were not solvable problems but impossible questions with no ultimate answers. The aim and intent of the rationalization of the state administration (the reform of the central, provincial, and local governments) was to facilitate integrated management and to render a greater amount of work by approaching management procedures scientifically and by clarifying administrative instances and their respon-sibilities in regards to each other. The means resorted to were organizational studies and committee work. In the rationalization of office work and finance control, the idea was to effect savings in administrative costs and to pare down those costs as well as to rationalize and heighten those functions by developing the institution of work study practitioners in order to coordinate employer and employee relationships and benefits (the training of work study practitioners, work study, and a two-tier work study practitioner organization). A major part of the training meant teaching and implementing leadership skills in practice, which, in turn, meant that the learning environment was the genuine work community and efforts to change it. In office rationalization, the solution to regulate the relations between the employer and the employees was the co-existence of the technical and biological rationalization and the human resource administration and the accounting and planning systems at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s. The former were based on the school of scientific management and human relations, the latter on system thinking, which was a combination of the former two. In the rationalization of the state administration, efforts were made to find solutions to stabilize management ideologies and to arrange the relationships of administrative systems in administrative science - among other things, in the Hoover Committee and the Simon decision making theory, and, in the 1960s, in system thinking. Despite the development-related vocabulary, the practical work was advanced rationalization. It was said that the practical activities of both the state administration and the administrative units depended on professional managers who saw to production results and human relations. The pedagogic experts hired to develop training came up with a training system, based on the training-technological model where the training was made a function of its own. The State Training Center was established and the training office of the Organization and Methods Division became the leader and coordinator of personnel training.