Kilpailukykyvaltion koululainsäädännön rakentuminen : Suomen eduskunta ja 1990-luvun koulutuspoliittinen käänne

Finnish education policy, educational legislation and the entire education system changed significantly during the 1990s as part of a general restructuring of public administration. There has been a clear divergence from the former tradition of a system of regulation, founded on detailed legislation and the principle of equality. The new governance, which is based more on individual choice, efficiency and evaluation, emphasizes that the development of a high standard of education is a necessity in the light of global competition. This study explores the legislative process regarding education policy in the Finnish Parliament during the 1990s, and highlights in particular how the international discourse on education policies was restructured in the context of Finnish legislation. The research material consists of all the public parliamentary documents relating to education, including government proposals, minutes from the discussions in the chamber and archive material (final protocols, reports and statements) for the Committee for Education and Culture. The discourse on the process of drafting and passing education legislation is modelled on three interrelated policy technologies (market, management and performance), which are understood here as mechanisms connecting general political ideas to normative legislation. The changes in the regulation of education were part of a general public administration reform instigated during the mid 1980s. The research results will prove that during the left-right coalition cabinet of PM Harri Holkeri, new policy technologies affected the parliamentary discourse on education policy. This was particularly influenced by a change in the preconditions for the management of education that was created as a result of the numerous demands to deregulate and delegate decision-making authority to the local and school levels while rendering the whole education system more effective. At the turn of the decade, market-type mechanisms were more indirectly manifested in the forms of individuality and freedom of choice, which were reflected, for example, in proposals to “lower the hurdles” by separating general from vocational secondary education with a view to encouraging students to select courses from other educational establishments, in addition to relaxing the requirements for establishing private schools and abolishing a hundred-year-old strict national catchment-area system. Later, in the course of the 1990s, after the subjects, players, and methods of evaluation had been more precisely defined, evaluation based on performance would result in the active measurement of the attainment of set objectives. In the spring of 1991, from the outset of PM Esko Aho's right-centre coalition cabinet, the education budget suffered cutbacks as a result of a global recession and this influenced the legislative work of, and discourses in, parliament. Representatives of the parties in power regarded the recession solely as an external factor that was remote from the political arena. In their view, the education system should rise to the challenge by ensuring the efficient and innovative use of the resources available and by developing new forms of indicators for evaluating results. Representatives of the opposition opposed the cabinet’s standpoint as a result of the recession, criticized the measures taken by pointing out the harmful effect of constantly cutting the budget and argued that the government had made political capital out of the recession by using it as an opportunity to give more room to market, management and performance technologies within the Finnish education system. Criticism of the new education policy became even stronger during PM Paavo Lipponen's first “rainbow” coalition cabinet with critical views being expressed not only from the opposition but also from representatives within the government. Representatives from the left demanded legislative restrictions and the instigation of measures to relieve the presumed negative effects of market, management and performance in the name of educational equality. The new management by results steering method within the university sector and the introduction of commercial education services in compulsory education were fiercely criticized. The argument over “setting outer limits” including, for example, the demands for more detailed legislation and earmarked state subsidies was characteristic of Parliament’s legislative discourse in the latter part of the 1990s. Keywords: education policy, education legislation, Parliament of Finland

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.