Vappu Renko: Comparing Finnish and Swedish regional cultural policies

Culture was distinguished as a specific area of political concerns in Finland, Sweden and other Nordic countries in the 1960s upon the emergence of the welfare state. The established ‘Nordic Model’ in cultural policy included the public authorities assuming a substantial responsibility for cultural life, the promotion of an equal access to culture and welfare-oriented support systems to individual artists.

Decentralisation—a shift of state power from central to more local branches of the state—was introduced as a guiding cultural policy principle. In this context, the regional level was involved in promoting culture as one of the main sectors for public policies.

Finland and Sweden provide different institutional contexts for the construction of the regional cultural administration.

Sweden is a country with hundreds of years of independence, basing its cultural policies on feudal and aristocratic traditions. Finland has developed its national cultural policies and public cultural institutions within a much shorter time span.

For long, Finland used to constitute a Swedish province during which time many common administrative structures were developed. The self-governing regions were only reintroduced into the Swedish political system after Finland had become a part of the Russian empire before gaining independence. This led to a divergence in the two countries’ regional administrative structures that remains visible today: the self-governing regions in Sweden have gained a key responsibility for regional cultural policy whereas the Finnish regional cultural administration is characterised by a multi-actor structure.

Within the Finnish regional administration, cultural policy power and responsibilities are currently distributed by legislation among four organisations. The regional cultural administration includes 18 regional councils [Finnish: maakunnan liitot], six Regional State Administrative Agencies [aluehallintovirastot, AVI], 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment [elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskukset, ELY] and 11 regional offices and 13 regional arts councils of the Arts Promotion Centre. As the different numbers show, the organisations have differing geographical areas of operation. The organisations’ administrative tasks and responsibilities also vary: each approaches culture from the perspective of their general mission and tasks. Simplified, culture is perceived as a tool for regional development (regional councils), as a public service (AVIs), as business (ELYs), and as arts (Arts Promotion Centre).

In Sweden, the main responsibility for regional cultural policy has been addressed to the 21 regional councils [Swedish: region]. The regional councils are self-governing authorities directly elected by the citizens. The County Administrative Boards’ [länsstyrelse] responsibilities in regional cultural policy have been limited to coordinating the regional development in line with national policy goals in cultural heritage.

The regions’ role in Swedish cultural policy has been increasingly emphasised by the introduction of a Cultural Cooperation Model [kultursamverkansmodellen] that marked a major cultural policy shift. First introduced in 2011, the model granted the regions a right to reallocate national cultural funding within the regional level. To receive national funding, each region is required to produce a regional cultural plan in cooperation with municipalities and in dialogue with the cultural sector and civil society.

The different regional administrative structures make comparing Finnish and Swedish regional cultural policies difficult.

In Finland, the multi-actor and multi-border nature of regional cultural administration has been found to complicate the construction of regional cultural policy. Each organisation has different aims, and no distinct organisation has been addressed the main responsibility for regional cultural policy coordination.

In Sweden, the responsibility for regional cultural policy coordination has been clearly addressed to the regions with distinct geographical borders. The regional cultural plans serve as a platform for discussing policy contents. However, the stagnant state cultural funding has led to a situation where the state funding to a distinct region is not likely to increase, no matter how ambitious regional cultural plan the region creates. This can diminish the regional actors’ motivation to participate in preparing the regional cultural plans.

Despite structural differences, the regional cultural policy activities conducted in Finland and Sweden have been found to be in many ways similar: the regional organisations define culture as a policy field, decide on operations and connect actors in their distinctive regions. Unlike in Finland, the Swedish regions also finance and maintain many regional cultural institutions.

Starting from 2023, self-governing regions were established in Finland for health, social and rescue services provision. While culture remains excluded from these wellbeing services counties’ tasks, the self-governing regions represent a significant change in Finnish regional policy. They may also have cultural policy implications. Especially the municipalities’ increasing differentiation in cultural service provision may provide arguments for reconstructing the Finnish regional cultural administration according to the Swedish model.