Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland Ideati
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland Ideati
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland Ideati
Introduction
Information access laws have spread rapidly since the 1990s primarily as part of
the global drive for good governance, and also due to national political context
and conflicts.¹ Transparency has become one of the key concepts of contempo-
rary politics.² It is a new term in the political language of the Anglo-American
world and beyond, and there are, in addition, liberal market notions bound
up with the term that have made their way into national political contexts.
This is perhaps most apparent in developing countries that are dependent on for-
eign direct investment and development aid.³ But countries with a significant in-
stitutional history of openness, such as the Nordic countries, are also exposed to
the new connotations of transparency.⁴
International policy discourses often tend to take nationalistic forms.⁵ While
an analysis of all national variants of the debate in the Nordic countries is be-
yond the scope of this chapter, the Finnish discourse on Nordic openness is
one example of this. It constructs a nationalistic, collective positioning of
Daniel Berliner, “The Political Origins of Transparency,” The Journal of Politics 76, no. 02 (April
2014): 479 – 91, doi:10.1017/S0022381613001412; Christopher Hood, “Transparency in Historical
Perspective,” in Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?, ed. David Heald and Christopher
C. Hood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3 – 23.
Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, “Power Revealed and Concealed in the New World Order,” in
Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, ed. Todd Sand-
ers and Harry G. West (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003).
Abraham Azubuike, “Accessibility of Government Information as a Determinant of Inward
Foreign Direct Investment in Africa,” in Best Practices in Government Information: A Global Per-
spective, ed. Irina Lynden and Jane Wu (München: K.G. Saur, 2008), 243; Jeannine E. Relly and
Meghna Sabharwal, “Perceptions of Transparency of Government Policymaking: A Cross-Nation-
al Study,” Government Information Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2009): 148 – 57, doi:10.1016/
j.giq.2008.04.002.
Erkkilä, Government Transparency: Impacts and Unintended Consequences (Houndmills: Pal-
grave Macmillan, 2012).
Vivien A. Schmidt, The Futures of European Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002), 211.
OpenAccess. © 2022 Tero Erkkilä, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730104-008
154 Tero Erkkilä
Finns as members of an open Nordic society at the top of global economic com-
petition. This chapter analyses the historical tradition of institutional openness
in Finland. I will argue that there is an increasing awareness of this tradition,
apparent in policy discourse on “Nordic openness,” which portrays openness
and access to government information as distinctive characteristics of Finland.⁶
While openness is usually linked with the consensual tradition of governing typ-
ical for the Nordic countries,⁷ awareness of this globally distinctive tradition also
results from reflexivity over institutional history that is seen to provide advant-
age in global economic competition.⁸ Global rankings and indicators that mea-
sure the performance of states in regard to good governance associate transpar-
ency with economic competitiveness. The Nordic countries have fared well in
these rankings.
The public sphere has been a central element in studies of nation building,
and has been used to explain the contextual differences of collective identities,
nationhood, and nationalism.⁹ In a world where convergence is seen to occur via
grand processes such as “modernisation” and “globalisation,” there are still dif-
fering national trajectories in political and economic institutions, concerning
citizen rights and freedoms, as well as “us vs. them” narratives of nationhood.
The public sphere has been theorised as both a structure or as a discursive
space.¹⁰ The latter position marks an opening for a genealogical conceptual
analysis of the “public,” an approach which is also adopted in this text. This ap-
proach makes concepts such as “publicity,” “openness,” and “transparency” in-
strumental in defining the institutional boundaries of the public sphere.¹¹ As a
(1995): 113 – 44; Margaret R. Somers, “Let Them Eat Social Capital: Socializing the Market versus
Marketizing the Social,” Thesis Eleven 81, no. 1 (2005): 5 – 19, doi:10.1177/0725513605051611.
Eder, “The Public Sphere”; Eisenstadt and Schluchter, “Introduction: Paths to Early Modern-
ities – A Comparative View,” 17– 18; Margaret R. Somers, “Citizenship and the Place of the Public
Sphere: Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy,” American Socio-
logical Review 58, no. 5 (1993): 587– 620.
Richard van Dülmen, Die Gesellschaft Der Aufklärer: Zur Bürgerlichen Emanzipation Und Auf-
klärerischen Kultur in Deutschland. (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986); Joris
van Eijnatten, “Between Practice and Principle: Dutch Ideas on Censorship and Press Freedom,
1579 – 1795,” Redescriptions: Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History 8 (2004): 85 –
113; Andreas Gestrich, Absolutismus Und Öffentlichkeit: Politische Kommunikation in Deutschland
Zu Beginn Des 18. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); Tim Knudsen, Offen-
tlighed i Det Offentlige. Om Historiens Magt (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2003); Timo Kon-
stari, Asiakirjajulkisuudesta Hallinnossa. Tutkimus Yleisten Asiakirjain Julkisuudesta Hallinnon
Kontrollivälineenä (Helsinki: Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys, 1977); Wolfgang Martens, Die Bot-
schaft Der Tugend: Die Aufklärung Im Spiegel Der Deutschen Moralischen Wochenschriften (Stutt-
gart: Metzler, 1971); Andreas Würgler, “Conspiracy and Denunciation: A Local Affair and Its Eu-
ropean Publics (Bern, 1749),” in Cultures of Communication from Reformation to Enlightenment:
Constructing Publics in the Early Modern German Lands, ed. James Van Horn Melton (Aldershot:
Ashgate Pub Ltd, 2002), 119 – 131.
Colin J. Bennett, “Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross-National Adoption of Policy In-
struments for Bureaucratic Accountability,” Governance 10, no. 3 (1997): 213 – 33, doi:10.1111/
0952– 1895.401997040.
John Durham Peters, Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition, 1st ed. (Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Tore Grønlie and Anne-Hilde Nagel, “Administrative
History in Norway,” Jahrbuch Für Europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte 10 (1998): 307– 32; Isabelle
Häner, Öffentlichkeit Und Verwaltung (Zürich: Schulthess Polygraphisher Verlag, 1990); Knudsen,
Offentlighed i Det Offentlige: Om Historiens Magt; Konstari, Asiakirjajulkisuudesta Hallinnossa:
Tutkimus Yleisten Asiakirjain Julkisuudesta Hallinnon Kontrollivälineenä; Barry Owen, “France,”
in Comparative Public Administration, ed. J. A. Chandler (London: Routledge, 2000), 200; K. G.
Robertson, Public Secrets: A Study in the Development of Government Secrecy (New York: St. Mar-
tin’s Press, 1982); Susan Rose-Ackerman, From Elections to Democracy: Building Accountable
Government in Hungary and Poland (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Spence,
156 Tero Erkkilä
“Italy,” in Comparative Public Administration, ed. J. A. Chandler, 1st ed. (London: Routledge,
2000), 126 – 47; A. P. Tant, British Government: The Triumph of Elitism: A Study of the British Po-
litical Tradition and Its Major Challenges (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993); Richard C. Thurlow, The
Secret State: British Internal Security in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
Carol Harlow, “Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values,” The Euro-
pean Journal of International Law 17, no. 1 (2006): 193.
Finland as a former part of Sweden had a Swedish administrative model that mostly re-
mained intact over the period of Russian rule, 1809 – 1917. Konstari, Asiakirjajulkisuudesta Hal-
linnossa: Tutkimus Yleisten Asiakirjain Julkisuudesta Hallinnon Kontrollivälineenä; Seppo Tiiho-
nen, Herruus: Ruotsi ja Venäjä (Helsinki: Hallintohistoriakomitea, 1994), 6.
Finnish Const. 731/1999, 12 §.
Knudsen, Offentlighed i Det Offentlige: Om Historiens Magt, 69 – 82.
Einar Høgetveit, Hvor Hemmelig? Offentlighetsprinsippet i Norge Og USA, Særlig Med Henblikk
På Militærpolitiske Spørsmål. (Oslo: Pax Forlag, 1981), 70; Grønlie and Nagel, “Administrative
History in Norway,” 308, 329.
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland 157
there has been a shift towards notions of openness and transparency, carrying
connotations of trust and economy. These ideational shifts come about with
the help of an invented tradition³⁷ that now also includes a historical reading
of Anders Chydenius, who is often regarded as the father of the world’s first in-
formation access law, passed in Sweden in 1766.
Analysing these changes in Finland, I will show how the discourse on Nordic
openness emerged in the mid-1990s during a critical juncture for Finnish gover-
nance, due to economic crisis, intensifying economic globalisation, and Fin-
land’s accession to the EU. In explaining the rise of the policy discourse of Nor-
dic openness and its communicative and coordinative forms, I will build on the
work of Pauli Kettunen, Martin Marcussen, and Vivien Schmidt.³⁸ In assessing
the conceptual shifts and the political use of concepts, I refer to the work of Rein-
hart Koselleck and Quentin Skinner.³⁹
I will first analyse the conceptual changes in governance discourse, using
government platforms and selected publications of the Economic Council of Fin-
land as my sources. I will then explore the communicative aspects of the policy
discourse and the construction of a collective memory of Nordic openness in Fin-
land in the historical accounts of the mid-2000s, when openness was also a
theme for the Finnish EU Presidency (2006). I conclude that the “virtues” of
good governance that are circulating internationally are now seen to have histor-
ical reference points in Finnish policy discourse, portraying Anders Chydenius as
the forebear of openness in Finland. Yet, the cognitive aspects of this discourse
point to political innovation and reassessments of institutional openness as an
element of economic competitiveness.
Eric Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric
Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1– 14.
Pauli Kettunen, Globalisaatio ja Kansallinen Me: Kansallisen Katseen Historiallinen Kritiikki
(Tampere: Vastapaino, 2008); Martin Marcussen, Ideas and Elites: The Social Construction of Eco-
nomic and Monetary Union (Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 2000); Schmidt, The Futures of
European Capitalism; Vivien A. Schmidt, “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power
of Ideas and Discourse,” Annual Review of Political Science 11, no. 1 (2008): 303 – 26,
doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.
Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2004); Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,”
History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 3 – 53; Quentin Skinner, “Language and Political Change,” in
Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, ed. Terence Ball, James Farr, and Russell L. Hanson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 6 – 23.
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland 161
Margaret R. Somers and Fred Block, “From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets, and Insti-
tutions over 200 Years of Welfare Debate,” American Sociological Review 70, no. 2 (2005):
260 – 87.
Guy B. Peters, Jon Pierre, and Desmond S. King, “The Politics of Path Dependency: Political
Conflict in Historical Institutionalism,” The Journal of Politics 67, no. 04 (2005): 1275 – 1300,
doi:10.1111/j.1468 – 2508.2005.00360.x; Schmidt, The Futures of European Capitalism.
Schmidt, “Discursive Institutionalism”; Somers and Block, “From Poverty to Perversity,” 280.
Cf. Marcussen, Ideas and Elites: The Social Construction of Economic and Monetary Union;
Peters, Pierre, and King, “The Politics of Path Dependency.”
Koselleck, Futures Past; Melvin Richter, The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical
Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 17.
Koselleck, Futures Past, 256.
Bennett, “Understanding Ripple Effects.”
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland 163
Vanhanen (2003 – 2007, 2007– 2010), Mari Kiviniemi (2010 – 2011), Jyrki Katainen
(2011– 2014), Alexander Stubb (2014– 2015), Juha Sipilä (2015 – 2019), Antti Rinne
(2019) and Sanna Marin (2019‐).⁵² At the turn of the 1990s, there was an apparent
confusion between the concepts of “public” and “open” – the former referred to
the public sector and government and the latter was understood in economic
terms, as referring to “open,” unregulated, sectors. The vocabulary then shifted,
as “openness” gained democratic connotations such as “openness of gover-
nance.” The economic connotations were associated with a new term, “transpar-
ency,” which also introduced the idea that the government was responsible to
the market.
In the government platform of Prime Minister Harri Holkeri (published in
April 1987) there were no references made to “openness” with regard to respon-
sible rule, but a reference was made to “open labour markets.” Similarly, the
platform of Prime Minister Esko Aho (1991) contained references to “openness”
in the context of economy. The government platform of Paavo Lipponen (1995),
titled “The government of employment and joint responsibility,” mentioned
functioning labour markets and labour market agreements as the keys to suc-
cess. The “open” labour market deliberations became an element of national
competitiveness.⁵³
The democratic connotations of openness first started to appear systemati-
cally in 1995 in the context of European governance (Finland joined the EU in
1995). The first Lipponen government stated that Finland would “enhance the
openness of the decision-making of the European Union,” which became a legit-
imizing argument for Finnish accession to the Union. Openness remained a topic
in Finnish EU politics in the platform of the second government of Paavo Lippo-
nen (April 1999). The platform stated that the government would act so that the
EU’s decision-making and administration would be developed according to the
principles of “openness,” “responsibility,” and “efficiency.” At the same time,
there were references to openness in relation to global economics and electoral
funding. Transparency, a newcomer to the Finnish political vocabulary, appeared
for the first time as “transparency” of pricing and financing in domestic politics.
At the same time, the institutional practices were in turmoil, as the relevant
legislation was being updated and several policies were adopted.⁵⁴ This led to
the adoption of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (1999), the Per-
sonal Data Act (1999), and the Administrative Procedure Act (2004). Indeed, the
The Finnish government platforms are all available online. Finnish Government, accessed 3
September, 2021, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/tietoa/historiaa/hallitusohjelmat.
Cf. Kettunen, “The Nordic Model and the Making of the Competitive ‘Us.’”
Erkkilä, Government Transparency: Impacts and Unintended Consequences.
164 Tero Erkkilä
legislation used up until this time was from 1951 and was even drafted before the
Second World War (in 1939). Given the changes due to digitalisation of public ad-
ministration alone, it is noteworthy that the revision took this long, particularly
in a country that now identifies with openness so prominently.
The government platforms published in the 2000s continued the agenda,
where the openness of decision making in the EU was a priority. While openness
still received some mentions in the context of open markets, the economic con-
notations were mostly found under “transparency.” The government platform of
Antti Rinne (2019), taken over in turn by Sanna Marin and titled “Inclusive and
Competent Finland,” also aimed to enhance collaboration with other Nordic
countries that arguably “share similar values concerning democracy, openness
and welfare state.”
To conclude, over the years the references to open government have emerged
in the government platforms. “Openness” was first used as an antonym of “pub-
lic” and started to obtain market connotations in the late 1980s. It was later dis-
placed by the term “transparency,” a newcomer to Finnish political vocabulary
that now predominantly carries references to the market economy. The govern-
ment discourse shifted from the semantic field of democracy towards the market.
In government rhetoric, openness appeared as a state tradition that was also
promoted in the EU, which appeared as the secretive “other” of the open Nordic
countries such as Finland.
The two debates around openness and transparency – the Finnish exceptional
openness in the EU context (Nordic openness) and the economic potential of
transparency – meet in a nationalistic discourse. The Finnish concern over the
secretiveness of the EU in the mid-1990s initiated a narrative of openness as a
Nordic tradition in Finnish governing, separating “us” from “them.” National
competitiveness, which openness and transparency are increasingly seen as en-
hancing, is also debated under the same logic of inclusion and exclusion: “our”
competitive edge over “the others.” The coupling of efficiency and economic per-
formance with openness is a novel and not so readily apparent idea. In fact, in
the past, mainstream economics assumed that open systems were less efficient
than closed ones.⁵⁵ This conceptual change in government vocabulary points to
Mark Skousen, “The Perseverance of Paul Samuelson’s Economics,” Journal of Economic Per-
spectives 11, no. 2 (1997): 137– 52.
Transparency and Nordic Openness in Finland 165
World Bank and the OECD.⁶³ This also entailed a shift in the self-understanding
and narrative of Finland’s place in the world.
During the Cold War Finland was seen as a gateway between East and West
and references to “Nordic” democracy and society were used to highlight the fact
that Finland was not part of the Eastern Bloc.⁶⁴ The current references to Nordic
openness indicate a repositioning, where Finland is portrayed as a member of a
Nordic bloc within the EU but is also depicted as a leader in globalisation. The
Nordic model is now closely linked to a discourse on national competitiveness
and to a related pattern of identity, the competitive “us.”⁶⁵ The global indicators
have ranked Nordic countries high in competitiveness, democracy, and good gov-
ernance, which are also linked to institutional traditions in education, gender
equality, and welfare.
One of the institutional characteristics that stands out in global comparisons
is the history of openness and access to government information. Transparency
International’s Corruption Perception Index (published in 1995) has ranked Fin-
land and the other Nordic countries consistently within the top ten of least cor-
rupt countries. While this ranking does not measure transparency but corruption
– specifically bribery – it has been a source of great national pride in Finland
that it is now arguably one of the most “open” and least corrupt countries in
the world. Transparency is also implied in the World Economic Forum’s Global
Competitiveness Index (published in its current form since 2004) that focuses
on the institutional determinants of national economic performance. The Nordic
countries, Finland included, again rank well.
In 2006 the World Economic Forum found that the Nordic countries were
among the most competitive in the world, due to virtuous circles of transparency
and openness. Its chief economist and director of the Global Competitiveness
Programme Augusto Lopez-Claros, stated in 2006:
In many ways the [Nordic countries] have entered virtuous circles where various factors re-
inforce each other to make them among the most competitive economies in the world. […]
These are also countries that have public institutions that are characterised by an excep-
tionally high level of transparency and openness and this has contributed to improve busi-
ness confidence.⁶⁶
Together with the Finnish success in the OECD’s PISA ranking, which depicted
Finnish primary education as a global leader and a model for others to follow,
these indicators have further contributed to the discourse of Nordic openness
that builds on an imaginary of global competitiveness and is used to construct
the notion of the competitive “us.”⁶⁷ Indeed, one of the mechanisms through
which global indicators become effective is “subjectification,” where actors ac-
quire patterns of identities linked to proposed action to maintain competitive-
ness.⁶⁸ While the storyline is not always clear, there is a shared understanding
of the positive qualities of openness and transparency that carry the promise
of a governance system that is at the same time democratic and efficient. Effec-
tively, transparency becomes a “third term”⁶⁹ which allows the bypassing of di-
chotomies such as democracy/efficiency, public/private, market/hierarchy (bu-
reaucracy); instead of either-or, it promises both.
In his writings Chydenius portrays the “free state” or “free nation” not as an
enemy of libertarian freedoms, but rather as their keeper.⁷⁶ When describing the
state, he uses metaphors such as a “ship,” “body,” or “clock,” which describe
the state as an intact entity, in need of “steering” and “well-performing” compo-
nents.⁷⁷ Chydenius argued for a widening of political inclusion, for which infor-
mation on state matters was a necessity. The state was to inform its citizens
about its successes and misfortunes alike so that they would know the
“truth.” It was in the search for truth that Chydenius saw the rationality of gov-
ernance based on the “free state.”⁷⁸ The truth was to be sought by an exchange
of ideas and opinions and Chydenius encouraged his readers to engage in public
debates.⁷⁹ These debates he saw as ideally taking place through writing. The re-
sults of this “competition of pens” were to be spread across the nation through
the new printing technique.⁸⁰
A symbolic figure in Finland, his face on the old 1000 Finn Mark note, Chy-
denius is often seen as a father of Finnish state theoretical thinking,⁸¹ a Nordic
Adam Smith or an interpreter of Montesquieu.⁸² Even though Anders Chydenius
himself regarded his work for the liberalising of print as his major achieve-
ment,⁸³ it took future generations some 240 years to take an interest in this.
Since the early 2000s, Chydenius has appeared in the speeches and public ap-
pearances of Finnish politicians.⁸⁴ Chydenius’s ideas are now seen as a Finnish
“export product.”⁸⁵ Swedish politicians have also made claims for this thinker,
but it turns out that his legacy is less known in Sweden than in Finland. In
Anders Chydenius, “Den nationala vinsten,” in Politiska skrifter af Anders Chydenius (Helsin-
ki: G. W. Edlunds förlag, 1880), 31.
Chydenius, 31.
Chydenius, 31.
Chydenius, Valitut Kirjoitukset (Porvoo: Werner Söderström, 1929), 170.
Chydenius, “Den nationala vinsten,” 31.
Käkönen, “Anders Chydenius ja 1700-Luvun Suomalainen Valtio-Opillinen Ajattelu.”
Kimmo Sarje, “Anders Chydenius – Montesquieun Ihailija,” Politiikka 4 (1979): 297– 304.
Chydenius, Valitut Kirjoitukset, 434– 37.
Tuija Brax, “Julkisuusperiaatteen Haasteet.” (Tietämisen vapauden päivän seminaari, Puhe
tietämisen vapauden päivän seminaarissa, November 30, 2007), http://www.om.fi/Etusivu/Ajan-
kohtaista/Ministerinpuheita/Puhearkisto/Puheet2007Brax/1196159328843; Tarja Halonen, Puhe
Anders Chydeniuksen juhlavuoden pääjuhlassa Kokkolassa 1. 3. 2003, Anders Chydenius Säätiö,
2005) (speech at the main celebration of the Anders Chydenius Jubilee Year); Jacob Söderman,
“Salailusta on Tullut Maan Tapa,” Helsingin Sanomat, November 19, 2006, https://www.hs.fi/
sunnuntai/art-2000004441307.html; Jacob Söderman, “On Transparency” (presentation, IIAS
conference, Monterrey, Mexico, July 16, 2006).
Manninen, “Anders Chydenius and the Origins of World’s First Freedom of Information Act,”
16.
170 Tero Erkkilä
Swedish rule. In his time, Chydenius regarded himself as a Swede.⁹³ He did talk
about the prosperity of “Finns” under the Swedish King, but his understanding
of this was mostly regional, limited to Ostrobothnia and Åbo.⁹⁴
There is a tendency for historical references to political theorists to often be-
come mixed with contemporary political concepts and arguments. These theo-
rists become part of a political debate or ideological grouping that they, in
their time, would never have recognised.⁹⁵ Because of his influence on liberalis-
ing print, which also came to result in the abolition of absolutist secrecy, Chyde-
nius is now portrayed as the father of the “Freedom of Information Act”⁹⁶ or the
“right to know,” both concepts of Anglo-American origin. Chydenius is also seen
as a forbear of “free trade” or the abolition of “trade barriers.”⁹⁷ The “principle
of publicity” becomes translated into the “principle of transparency” and the
high ranking of the Nordic countries in the Transparency International’s Corrup-
tion Perception Index is seen as a legacy of Chydenius.⁹⁸ The principle of publi-
city has become a Finnish invention that has spread as far as Nokia and the
sauna.⁹⁹ A recent English translation of Ander Chydenius’s texts carries the
title “Anticipating the Wealth of Nations,” linking Chydenius to Adam
Smith.¹⁰⁰ However, Skinner highlights the importance of understanding ideas
in their context, and argues that such anticipations are mostly unwarranted in
conceptual history.¹⁰¹
Chydenius stands as a historical reference point in a time when the relations
of centre and periphery were being rethought. A vigorous opponent to mercan-
tilism, Chydenius easily gets drawn into debates where notions of (neo) mercan-
tilist and (neo) liberalist viewpoints meet. Even the Finnish narratives and im-
Conclusions
To sum up, the policy discourse on openness has resonated particularly well
with the Finnish institutional context, where the legislation on accessing govern-
ment information and the principle of publicity has existed for a long time (see
Table 1). Since the mid-1990s the discourse of Nordic openness has appeared in
Finnish government platforms and bills, in policy documents and strategies, in
public speeches of politicians, and in narratives told by civil servants.¹⁰⁴ It is also
found in governance indices and their interpretations, contemporary historical
analyses, and even in architecture and design of political relevance. The cogni-
tive aspects of this new policy discourse tap into the social scientific perceptions
of governance, and institutional and information economics. The normative, le-
gitimating discourse of Nordic openness extends to Finnish national history, in-
venting a tradition of Nordic governing. The notion of “Nordic” openness is con-
venient here, as it portrays Finns as members of a particularly open society as
opposed to other nationalities, but at the same time also references the fact
that Finland was a part of Sweden prior to 1809, highlighting and co-opting
the Swedish institutional practices that exist in Finland and that are now draw-
ing global attention. Furthermore, this (Nordic) discourse also bypasses the era
of Russian rule in Finland (1809 – 1917), characterised by censorship.
Table 1. Ideational dimensions of the discourse on openness and their representations in Fin-
land¹⁰⁵
Cognitive legislative reform, policy new social scientific per- government platforms,
on public sector informa- ceptions of governance, government bills, policy
tion, administrative ethics institutional and infor- documents, strategies,
reform, initiatives of public mation economics public speeches, public
hearings, accountability programmes, numbers (in-
reform, better regulation dices, rankings), narratives
programme of civil servants, contem-
porary historical analysis,
Normative Nordic openness, the open Openness as a Nordic
political architecture and
and direct Finn tradition of Finnish gov-
design
erning
The shifting belief systems among policy actors carry new cognitive aspects but
this is largely hidden in the normatively appealing talk on openness as a tradi-
tion. Because institutional openness has a long history as a virtue of the Enlight-
enment, the Nordic welfare state, and liberalism, the new connotations seem to
find an ideational root in the above philosophies. In the era when the Finnish
welfare state was built, the exchange of information and negotiations between
various groups were an underlying and unspoken norm of governing.¹⁰⁶ Amid
economic globalisation, “openness,” “public sector information,” and “transpar-
ency” become political and economic concerns that are actively governed. Histo-
ry is therefore not only a marker for institutional continuity but also carries a po-
tential for institutional change.
Though the above developments in political rhetoric are seemingly inde-
pendent of institutional affairs, they converge in the rationalities and mecha-
nisms of change. The shift in the political rhetoric and concepts of governing
not only reflects institutional change but also propels it. In terms of accountabil-
ity, the shift in conceptualisation reframes the mechanism of government con-
trol. This also points to new external demands and audiences to whom civil serv-
ants bear responsibilities. Somewhat paradoxically, the sudden awareness of a
democratic trajectory marks an opening for its reframing in economic terms.
Consequently, the openness of government activities has become part of a
new political imaginary of national competitiveness. There is a perceivable reas-
sessment of the responsibilities of the government, marking a new ideational
Cf. Marcussen, Ideas and Elites: The Social Construction of Economic and Monetary Union.