Photograph by Mika Federley
Katja Valaskivi
Professor in Religious Studies and Media ResearchUniversity of Helsinki
Finland
Director
Helsinki Research Hub on Religion, Media and Social Change
Finland
Research Programme Director, Datafication Research Programme
Helsinki Institute for Social Sciences and Humanities
University of Helsinki
Finland
Sweden was among the very first countries in the Western Europe to introduce a nation brand in 2005. The brand focused on the equality, innovativeness and progressiveness of the country. These emphases were inspired by a theory of Professor Richard Florida who in his book The Rise of the Creative Class (2002) asserted that highest levels of economic growth can be detected in open and tolerant metropolitan areas where artist, musicians, technology workers mingle and there is no discrimination against homosexual people.
Finland started its own project in 2008 by establishing a nation branding committee to “re-imagine Finland’s image and to build a national brand for the demands of the 21st century”. The committee published its nation branding report “Mission for Finland” in late 2010 stating among other things that the strengths of Finland are that its people share same values (on progress, equality and innovativeness) and that the Finns are pragmatics who orient towards solving problems without complicating things with unnecessary politics. According to the report, this made Finland a “doctor of the world” and an easy place to live in for the desired top-notch workforce.
The logic of nation branding is that all nations are in a constant competition with each other over highly educated workforce, tourists – and in general, over growth and competitiveness. Success in competition required a strong brand that would distinguish the country from others. Paradoxically enough, during the first decade of the new millennium both Sweden and Finland branded themselves as the modern functional welfare state.
In order to understand why nation branding circulated so widely and why it became such a transnational policy fashion, it is necessary to look into the historical situation. After the collapse of Soviet Union, there was an urgent need for the post-Soviet countries in Europe to convince other nations that they are “normal” states well on their way towards capitalism and a democratic system. Western PR and advertising agencies as well as media companies (including the UK national broadcaster BBC) were eager to gain their portion of this new market and began selling their services to the governments of these post-Soviet countries. During the same time the proliferation of media and communication technologies was accelerated with the introduction of internet and later social media.
The collapse of Soviet Union also generated theories about the primary importance of soft power in international politics. Introduced by the American political scientist Joseph Nye in 2004, the concept of soft power referred to a country’s ability to persuade and attract other countries without using hard, military power. At the time this perception was with the belief that creative and tech industries would increase the competitiveness of Western countries losing their manufacturing industries to countries of cheap labor. When at the same time the resources of public sector – including bodies responsible for international relations – were severely cut because of neoliberalist ideas of the new public management, branding with the help of consultants was seen as a tool for distinction and increasing visibility for competitiveness and growth. Together with creative industries and culture, branding was perceived as a vehicle for country image building and even enhancement of diplomatic relations.
Critical research on nation branding practices pointed out early on that the weakness of the idea of nation branding is the core value of competitiveness. To see nation branding as a feasible policy measure, one must perceive the world as an arena where nations compete against each other; a zero-sum game in which are only winners or losers. Combined with the current commodified and algorithmic communication environment with vulnerabilities that enhance spread of disinformation and even propaganda, self-serving and one-directional modes of communication such as branding can among other things contribute to erosion of trust in international relations.
The so-called refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 already made nation branding acutely problematic for both Sweden and Finland. The connectedness of the world suddenly became visible when instead of top-notch workforce and cosmopolitan experts both Finland and Sweden began to attract refugees from the Near East, who were not considered the desired target groups of nation branding. Finland even introduced a counter-branding campaign to discourage further immigrants from taking Finland as their destination.
Since the Russian invasion on Ukraine in early 2022, the of NATO membership negotiations of Finland and Sweden have demonstrated that it is in fact a privilege and luxury to for ministries and diplomats to spend their working time in thinking about a country image. If not sooner, it has now become evident that the might of “hard power” has not vanished from international relations. It is, however, even more important to understand that if the humankind continues to see itself as divided into competing nations, it is close to impossible to innovate processes of dialogue for limiting the climate disaster on this planet that we all share.