Government Programme as a Strategy—The Finnish Experience

adminis a i e sciences A icle Go e nmen P og amme as a S a egy—The Finnish Expe ience Jan-E ik Johanson 1,*,†, Elias Pekkola 1,† and Päi i Husman 2,† 1School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, 33100 Tampe e, Finland; [email p o ec ed] 2Finnish Ins i u e o Occupa ional Heal h, PB 40, 00251 Helsinki, Finland; [email p o ec ed] *Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]; Tel.: +358-50-318-5960 † These au ho s con ibu ed equally o his wo k. Academic Edi o : Aidan R. Vining Recei ed: 22 Decembe 2016; Accep ed: 18 May 2017; Published: 24 May 2017 Abs ac : This a icle uses s a egy me apho s consis ing o a plan, a home and a game o s udy go e nmen p og amme o ma ion in Finland. The s a egy app oach bo h con adic s and complemen s he adi ional poli ical science app oach o go e nmen o ma ion. The go e nmen p og amme has been s a egic in he sense o sepa a ing he o mula ion and implemen a ion pa s o he s a egy. The mos impo an unc ion o he me apho o plan is o hold coali ion pa ies oge he . The adop ed aus e i y policy p o ides a meag e con ibu ion o he expansion o se ices and he inc ease in go e nmen spending. Consequen ly, he home me apho in he go e nmen p og amme appea s in he dis an u u e and in comba ing ex e nal h ea s. The game me apho is appa en in he goal o making con ac s wi h social pa ne s. The ocabula y change om poli ics o s a egy al e s he go e nmen p og amme’s posi ion in e ms o ca e ing o he needs o ci il se an s, ci izens and s akeholde s. The s a egy pe spec i e migh be ins umen al in shi ing open democ a ic deba es o closed and sec e i e policy o ma ions. Keywo ds: s a egy; go e nmen ; policy; go e nmen p og amme 1. In oduc ion S a egic managemen deals wi h he mos impo an issues in socie y, which makes i a highly ele an pe spec i e when de ining and implemen ing goals wi hin a go e nmen . P e ious esea ch has le a legacy o wa and compe i ion ha has impeded he applica ion o s a egic hinking in he public sec o con ex . Fi s ly, he o igin o s a egy in wa a e lies in o ien ing he oops o de ea he enemy [ 1 ]. Secondly, he legacy o compe i ion is connec ed wi h he managemen o la ge Ame ican companies in hei a emp o adap o he changing ci cums ances in he pos -Wo ld Wa II e a [ 2 ]. Bo h o hese legacies a e inhe en ly alien o managing a go e nmen . Mos o en, he e a e nei he ex e nal enemies o be de ea ed no in e nal compe i i e ma ke s c ea ing i al y be ween public agencies. Howe e , s a egy is abou pu pose, di ec ion and goals; hese a e as impo an in public sec o o ganisa ions as in p i a e ones. The ques ion is: Which pu pose, wha di ec ion and whose goals a e add essed? The answe , as always, depends on he obse e ’s iew o s a egy. The e is a g owing body o li e a u e on public sec o s a egies [ 3 – 10 ]. Mo e o en han no , i ends o concen a e on he lowe le els o go e nmen , policy issues, agencies and local go e nmen in pa icula . The nexus o poli ical decision-making in go e nmen o ma ion has no been on he agenda o s a egic managemen hough . In ou a icle, we ask a simple ques ion: Wha is he ole o he Finnish go e nmen p og amme as a s a egy in i s policy p ocess, and how ha e i s s a egies been implemen ed so a ? We a e in e es ed in he de elopmen o he Finnish go e nmen p og amme om he s a egy and he policy p ocess pe spec i es. We use s a egy me apho s consis ing o a plan, a home and a game and compa e hem wi h he basic poli ical science concep s o policy and poli y. Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16; doi:10.3390/admsci7020016 www.mdpi.com/jou nal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 2 o 15 Thus, we also e lec on he ollowing ques ion: Wha a e we s udying when we analyse a s a egic go e nmen p og amme? These la e wo gene ic ques ions mo i a ed us o w i e his a icle. Wha does i mean when a coun y adap s he ocabula y o s a egic managemen a he highes possible le el and in he mos poli ical documen — he go e nmen p og amme? Should esea che s also change hei analy ical ools o align wi h his ocabula y? Finland p o ides an excellen case example because o i s compa ably igh ly coupled public adminis a ion, well- unc ioning and homogenous poli ical sys em and mul ipa y majo i y go e nmen , leading o a si ua ion whe e he go e nmen p og amme plays a uly signi ican ole in shaping he poli ical landscape. The eal-li e de elopmen s in Eu ope and elsewhe e encou age analysis o go e nmen o ma ion as a esea ch subjec in i s own igh . The poli ical u moil ollowing he inancial c ises o 2008 is one impe us o poli ical ins abili y, bu he ole o exogenous c isis has also unea hed exis ing la en di e gences wi hin poli ical sys ems. In gene al, he ise o new igh -wing o na ional populism wi h he de ea s o le -wing pa ies has been ins umen al in b inging abou new ins abili y in Eu opean poli ics. Coali ion go e nmen o ma ion has been p oblema ic in I aly, I eland, Spain and Belgium, no o men ion he o ma ion o a coali ion go e nmen in p edominan ly majo i a ian go e nmen sys ems, such as in he UK in 2010. In Sec ion 2, he concep ual analysis begins by discussing he s a egic and he poli ical aming o he go e nmen p og amme. In Sec ion 3, he empi ical analysis deals wi h he applica ion o s a egic managemen and poli ical hough in he o ma ion o he Finnish go e nmen p og amme. Sec ion 4 assembles he di e en pe spec i es om s a egic managemen and poli ical science as applied o he changing na u e o he go e nmen p og amme. 2. S a egy and Policy as an App oach o he S udy o he Go e nmen P og amme S a egy language has been used o app oxima ely wo decades in Finnish public adminis a ion; howe e , he s a egies ha e no been analysed om he pe spec i e o ei he s a egic managemen ( o ge ing he policy aspec ) o policy (assuming ha he s a egy is only a endy name o a policy). Empi ically, he Finnish go e nmen and i s minis ies ha e s a ed o e e o hei policies in e ms o s a egy concep s. Fo his eason, we analyse s a egy as a me apho and ask how s a egy can be unde s ood in he language o poli ics. The s uc u e o ou p esen a ion is ollowing. Fi s , we sho ly p esen he s a egy me apho s. Second, we discuss policy as a concep s and i s ela ion o poli ical and adminis a i e dimension o public sec o ac i i ies. Thi d, we p o ide ou unde s anding o s a egy as a policy p ocess. In nex chap e (3) we will desc ibe he poli ical his o y o Finnish go e nmen p og ammes ollowed by analysis o cu en s a egic go e nmen p og amme h ough he s a egy me apho s (3.1–3.3). In chap e ou , we will conclude ou analysis. In chap e i e, we will p o ide some me hodological limi a ions o he s udy. Me apho s a e no only linguis ic exp essions ha equa e concep s wi h o he and o en mo e ambiguous concep s— hey a e powe ul ools o mapping exis ing ideas in a no el ashion [ 11 ]. Me apho s ha e been used in p e ious s a egy esea ch o map he s a egy p ocess [ 12 , 13 ]. He e, he plan, home and game me apho s aim o ga he he heo e ical pe spec i es o he esea ch adi ion in o a limi ed numbe o concep s. Fi s , he me apho o planning co e s he mos p ominen aspec o s a egic hough in ying o p epa e o he u u e ha is ye o come, o en wi h p ojec ions and measu emen s [ 14 ]. Second, s a egy as a home deals wi h he li e a u e on he human side o he s a egy, which appea s, o ins ance, in s a egic human esou ce managemen [ 15 ] o leade ship ideas p omo ing he cha isma ic aspec o s a egy [ 16 ]. Thi d, he game me apho e e s o manage s’ alen and cunning in manoeu ing o ul il hei o ganisa ions’ goals; game heo y is a o mal exp ession o such an idea [17]. This dis inc ion in o h ee s a egy me apho s is based on heo e ical de elopmen s in o h ee main sou ces o s a egy in he business con ex : (1) indus ial o ganisa ion economics; (2) he heo y o i m g ow h; and (3) leade ship s udies [ 18 ] a he han on he discu si e o p ac ice app oach in Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 3 o 15 s a egic hough . Fi s , indus ial o ganisa ion economics pu s o wa d a delibe a e a ional idea o planning wi hin indus ies. Second, he me apho o game is p esen in he heo y o he g ow h o he i ms in o ches a ing he esou ces in o new ui ul combina ions. The image is ha o a child’s play in he cons an ea angemen o blocks in o new cons ella ions o imi a e eal de elopmen s a he han building on ‘sa age’ an asies o unassis ed imagina ion [ 19 ] (p. 63). Fu he , he image o game is p esen in indus ial o ganisa ion economics as a game o powe in gaining a dominan posi ion in he indus y as well as an independen aspec in he game’s heo e ical o mula ion [ 17 ]. Thi d, he leade ship quali ies sough in he human esou ces app oach ha e a di ec link o he me apho o home in p oducing secu e and meaning ul social en i onmen s. S a egy has nume ous in e links wi h he e m policy. Simila o s a egy, policy has mul iple meanings. I is a label o a ield o ac i i y, an exp ession o a desi ed s a e o a ai s, a p oposal, a go e nmen decision, a o mal au ho isa ion, a p og amme, an ou pu and an ou come and a p ocess (e.g., [ 20 ]). Recen ly, De V ies [ 21 ] c ea ed an in en o y o how policy has been de ined in he classical ex s o public adminis a ion, p oposing ha public policy can mean wha go e nmen s choose o do and no do [ 22 ], an au ho i a i e alloca ion o alues [ 23 ], acing he p oblems o he public [ 24 ], he go e nmen ’s ac ions [ 25 ] o he in eg a ion o he go e nmen ’s and o he s akeholde s’ iews [ 26 ]. Howe e , De V ies p oposes analysing public policy h ough he en i e policy cycle, lea ing us wi hou a de ini ion because i includes e e y single ac i i y done in he public sys em. Ano he way o c ea ing a de ini ion is o app oach i om he angle o no mal language. Acco ding o he Ox o d Dic iona y [ 27 ], synonyms o go e nmen policy include ‘plan, s a egy, p oposed ac ion, bluep in , app oach, scheme, s a agem, p og am, schedule, code, sys em, guideline, in en ion, no ion, heo y, line, posi ion, s ance and a i ude’. An online hesau us [ 28 ] p oposes ‘diso ganisa ion’ as an an onym o go e nmen policy, while Pa sons [ 29 ] sugges s ‘aimlessness’. I we adop a posi i e way o de ining policy concep , i is some hing ha o ganises and p o ides an aim o ac ion. These links be ween he e minology o policy analysis and s a egy esea ch a e e iden in e e yday discussions. Policies a e o med simila ly o s a egies, using he s eng hs, weaknesses, oppo uni ies and h ea s (SWOT) analysis in addi ion o o he echniques. Policy documen s a e called s a egies, and hey a e pu in o ac ion. Thus, is he e any di e ence be ween hese wo p ocesses and p ac ices? F ed ickson e al. [ 30 ] make a clea dis inc ion be ween policy and adminis a ion. Wi h policy, hey e e o goal se ing and isions in he public sec o (poli ics), and wi h adminis a ion, hey e e o implemen a ion and managemen (bu eauc acy). This is one adi ional way o de ining policy. I we make a clea dis inc ion be ween poli ics and adminis a ion, he s a egy can be hough o as a ool, a p ocess o a documen p o ided by he adminis a i e (manage ial) public o ice holde s and he policy guidelines o adminis a o s (manage s). A ounding a he , Wood ow Wilson o Ame ican adminis a i e science, pu his as ollows: Poli ics is hus he special p o ince o he s a esman, adminis a ion o he echnical o icial. “Policy does no hing wi hou he aid o adminis a ion”; bu adminis a ion is no he e o e poli ics . . . [T] his disc imina ion be ween adminis a ion and poli ics is now, happily, oo ob ious o need u he discussion. [31] (pp. 210–211) I we ake a mo e con inen al app oach, which ega ds public adminis a ion as pa o he public en i y o he s a e, we a e doomed o his exac discussion (see [ 32 ]). Pie e exp esses i as ollows: ([ 33 ], ci ed in [34] (p. 143)): [O]n he o he hand we see policy-make s using adminis a i e e o m o displace accoun abili y om public policy; on he o he hand, we see he e y same policy-make s ying o inc ease hei con ol o e bu eauc acy. Whils his appea s o be wo inconsis en de elopmen s, hey may in ac e lec a gene al desi e among elec ed poli icians o inc ease hei in luence o e bu eauc acy while a he same ime a oiding esponsibili y o he ac ions o he bu eauc a s. Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 4 o 15 This simple dicho omy is he o ically p oblema ic— he ‘s a egy’ as a concep is pa o he managemen ocabula y; i na u ally alls unde he con ex o public managemen ha is e iden ly pa o adminis a ion, no policymaking. In ou empi ical se ing, he go e nmen ’s p og amme ( he mos poli ical and aim-p o iding documen ) is called a s a egy, so does i imply ha policymaking has become managemen ? Answe ing his ques ion seems easy a i s glance—i is e iden ha policy and s a egy a e wo dis inc concep s and ha e qui e di e en meanings. Howe e , when a go e nmen s a s o call i s poli ical p og amme and implemen a ion plan a s a egy, i p omp s se e al undamen al ques ions. Fundamen al ques ions ha e no undamen al answe s; howe e , we can d aw on some dimensions o add ess he challenge o esponding o he ques ion. The di e ence be ween he policy and he s a egy p ocesses can be app oached om a leas h ee pe spec i es: con ex ual, eleological and p ocessual. (1) Con ex ual. The o ganisa ional and esou ce en i onmen is undamen ally di e en (legally, on ologically o inancially) in he public and p i a e sec o s. This means ha in he public sec o , he e a e no s a egies (in he same sense as in he p i a e sec o ), bu ins ead he e a e policies ha a e called s a egies. I we ake his as a s a ing poin , we end up discussing he di e ences be ween public and p i a e ealms o managemen (see [34]). (2) Teleological. We can dis inguish he s a egy om he policy p ocess based on he aimed o ou come. Consequen ly, all u u e-o ien ed p ocesses ( ega dless o he wo ding and he echniques) aiming o he public good a e policies, while u u e-o ien ed p ocesses aiming o p o i a e s a egies. This means ha he public sec o migh ha e s a egies, bu only in publicly owned companies and o he public agencies wi h a p o i mo i e. This can be connec ed o he discussions on public alue [35] and alues [36]. (3) P ocessual. We can dis inguish he s a egy om he policy p ocess by assuming ha he p ocess i sel is somehow di e en (see [37,38]. He e, we migh ha e wo di e en posi ions: a. Rhe o ic. We can assume ha i he s a egy language is used, we will ind ha s a egies (i.e., wha a e called s a egies) should be app oached as such ega dless o he sec o . b. Realis ic. We can assume ha i he u u e-o ien ed p ocess is ope a ed wi h echniques, ools and s eps peculia o he public ( egula o y) p ocess, i is a s a egy. This leads o ano he in e es ing discussion on he di e ences be ween policy and poli y. Poli y is loosely de ined in poli ical science. Fo ins ance, acco ding o he de ini ion in And ew Heywood’s p ominen ex book Poli ics [ 39 ], ‘poli y is a sys em o social o ganisa ion cen ed on he machine y o go e nmen ’ (p. 5), while he policy concep is na owly de ined as an ‘ou pu o poli ics’ (p. 400). Howe e , he connec ion be ween policy and poli y is c ucial o his discussion on public s a egy because s a egy inco po a es aspec s o bo h concep s. Especially when he go e nmen p og amme is aken as an example, which is a he co e o poli y, i is as poli ical as a documen can be and s ill p o ides a di ec ion o he adminis a ion, is pa ly p epa ed by he adminis a ion, is used o limi he adminis a ion’s powe and is called s a egic. A concep ual dis inc ion be ween policy and poli y p o ides a good amewo k o analysing he changes in go e nmen p og amme o mula ion and he implemen a ion p ocess, ha is, he duali y o poli ical (p o iding he aim) and adminis a i e (o ganising) s ee ing in he s a egy p ocess. Acco ding o his hinking, policy e e s o he egula ing o goal-se ing aspec s o poli ics; i is o med by poli icking, ha is, ac ing o beha ing poli ically. Poli y e e s o a poli ical space o a ena ha is needed o policymaking [40]. Poli y is ac i ely shaped and e o mula ed by poli icising issues o be ope a ional and deba able in he poli ical a ena. The ac i e p ocess o poli icking and poli icising du ing go e nmen p og amme nego ia ions is o en neglec ed, and he p og amme is s udied as a neu al s ee ing documen . Policy has a eleological conno a ion, an o ien a ion as a ou e map o ac i i ies owa d a selec ed, admi able possible u u e [ 41 ]. Pa adoxically, he go e nmen p og amme as a policy is he mechanism o enable Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 5 o 15 change, bu i is also a way o c ea e con inui y in ela ion o p io go e nmen p og ammes and o pa liamen a ian decision making. 3. Go e nmen P og ammes in S a egic and Poli ical Con ex s The p e ious esea ch on go e nmen o ma ion has iden i ied he ollowing aspec s ha in luence he p ocess: exogenous con ex ual ac o s, esou ce dis ibu ion among poli ical ac o s, poli icians’ p e e ences, ins i u ions and c i ical e en s. In an a emp o amalgama e hese aspec s in o a single heo e ical amewo k, he e is an idea ha ba gaining equi emen s comp ise wo main aspec s (1) ag eemen s wi h o he pa ies; and (2) he p ac ice o pleasing o e s [42]. The cu en Finnish go e nmen was appoin ed a he end o May 2015, and he go e nmen p og amme was published a he same ime. The go e nmen comp ises h ee pa ies: he Cen e Pa y (Suomen keskus a, es ablished in 1906), he Conse a i e Pa y (Kansallinen Kokoomus, es ablished in 1918) and he Finns Pa y (Pe ussuomalaise , es ablished in 1995). T adi ionally, he Cen e Pa y has enjoyed suppo om u al a eas. The Conse a i e Pa y gains suppo om he majo ci ies, p o essionals and he ich. The Finns Pa y is a populis pa y, which ypically ga he s suppo om hose classed as middle-income and people wi h lowe educa ional a ainmen . The Finnish poli ical sys em con ains a s ong co po a is elemen , which emphasises he need o nego ia ions wi h social pa ne s, as wi nessed in o he No dic coun ies [43]. Recen poli ical p ac ices in Wes e n and Eas e n Eu ope om 1990–2012 show ha he mos basic ypes o go e nmen s include (1) single-pa y majo i y go e nmen , (2) minimal-winning coali ion go e nmen (whe e he e a e mul iple pa ies in go e nmen and he suppo o e e y single pa y is equi ed o main ain a pa liamen a y majo i y), (3) su plus coali ion go e nmen (whe e he e a e mul iple pa ies in go e nmen bu he suppo o all pa ies is no needed o main ain a pa liamen a y majo i y), (4) single-pa y mino i y go e nmen (whe e he e is only one pa y in go e nmen wi hou a pa liamen a y majo i y), and (5) coali ion mino i y go e nmen (in which mul iple pa ies do no con ol a pa liamen a y majo i y) [ 44 ]. The cu en Finnish go e nmen is a minimal winning coali ion (Cen e pa y wi h 49 sea s, T ue Finns wi h 38 and a coali ion pa y wi h 37 sea s ou o he 200 o al sea s in pa liamen ). As all he pa ies a e needed o p og ess go e nmen policies, he e is a p essu e o ca e o he poli ical aspi a ions o all pa ies equally. The poli ical nexus lies in he cabine and he minis ies, which a e he agencies esponsible o adminis a i e implemen a ion. In he 1990s, minis ies and cen al agencies sha ed esponsibili ies in he di ision o labou wi hin he cen al go e nmen , bu adminis a i e changes mean ha he minis ies and he minis e s became he p ima y ope a o s in he o ma ion o he go e nmen agenda. The p oblem wi h his de elopmen was ha i weakened he ole o he cabine as he collegial decision-making body s ee ing he minis ies. S eng hening o he cabine has been sough in a numbe o e o m p ojec s ia alloca ing a wo k o ce, esea ch unds and expe knowledge o he cabine ’s use. Many o hese e o m p ojec s a e ela ed o p epa ing he go e nmen p og amme. Since i s independence in 1917, Finland has been unde 73 go e nmen s. Un il he 1980s, he p esiden ial poli ical sys em and he poli ical cul u e p oduced sho - e m go e nmen s, ypically se ing o only a yea o wo. Beginning in he 1980s, he pa liamen a ian adi ion o he Finnish poli ical sys em gained s eng h, and he e ms o go e nmen s con o med o he e ms o pa liamen s. In he in e im, he s a us o he p ime minis e and he ole o he pa liamen became s onge wi h he e o m o he Finnish cons i u ion in 1999; his was a he expense o he p esiden , who was cha ged wi h handling o eign ela ions (excluding he Eu opean Union (EU)) and conduc ing mos ly ce emonial du ies in in e nal (and EU) poli ics. The p og ammes o he ea ly pos -independence go e nmen s we e published in newspape s, and hey we e only a ew pages long, consis ing o poli ical decla a ions wi h a ying le els o poli ical isions o de ails o ac ion. In he la e 1980s, he go e nmen p og amme o a ou -yea e m (1983–1987) was s ill only a ew pages long—i simply indica ed he main poli ical aims in he majo poli ical sec o s. F om he 1990s onwa d, he p og ammes gained leng h, e m by e m, wi h he Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 6 o 15 p e ious go e nmen ’s p og amme being 79 pages long and con aining a de ailed ac ion plan o he minis ies. In he mul ipa y se ing, he go e nmen p og amme is inhe en ly a comp omise among he pa ies ep esen ing di e en cons i uencies and poli ical ideologies. The go e nmen documen has become mo e binding in he sense ha new policies canno be aken up in he go e nmen agenda i hey a e no al eady included in i . In his ega d, he go e nmen p og amme se es as an ins umen o es ic he endency o o e spend common esou ces in mul ipa y go e nmen s [ 45 ]. Fu he , in his se ing, minis e s om di e en pa ies ha e an incen i e o inc ease hei own budge s o gain poli ical c edi o hei own pa y, al hough his easily leads o excessi e spending, which is no desi ed by he go e nmen coali ion as a whole [ 45 ]. Needless o say, he binding na u e o he p og amme makes i e y di icul o ackle any sudden poli ical change. The de elopmen o he go e nmen p og amme om he cabine ’s decla a ion o he adminis a i e–poli ical agenda can be desc ibed as ‘o ganic’. The documen and he p ocess a e egula ed wi h only a ew gene al guiding p inciples. Acco ding o he Finnish cons i u ion, ‘ he g oups ep esen ed in he Pa liamen nego ia e on he poli ical p og am and composi ion o he Go e nmen be o e he P ime Minis e is elec ed’ (Sec ion 61). When he go e nmen has been o med, ‘[ ]he Go e nmen shall wi hou delay submi i s p og am o he Pa liamen in he o m o a s a emen ’ (Sec ion 62). In he p ime minis e ’s o ice, he de elopmen o he go e nmen p og amme has been pe cei ed as a challenge o he s a egic managemen o he Finnish cen al go e nmen . Acco ding o he e o m p oposals, he go e nmen p og amme should comp ise a sho lis o he 3–5 mos impo an policy goals o he new go e nmen . In addi ion o he main aims, he go e nmen should, in close collabo a ion wi h he minis ies, p o ide a go e nmen ac ion plan wi h a mo e de ailed desc ip ion o he policy goals and he esou ces used o achie e hese goals. This new documen should combine he cu en wo dis inc p ocesses o se ing he poli ical agenda and he budge amewo k. The ime ame o he new go e nmen p og amme is longe han be o e. The mo e de ailed ac ion plan was p epa ed a e he go e nmen p og amme by ga he ing expe knowledge o e alua e changes in he en i onmen and o se a ge s in a mo e in o med manne . The cu en Finnish go e nmen eached an ag eemen on he go e nmen p og amme a he end o May 2015. I was desc ibed as s a egic because i ollowed he s uc u e o a ypical s a egy documen in iden i ying s eng hs (e.g., s ong and unc ional democ acy, capaci y o in en ), weaknesses (e.g., igid s uc u es, bu eauc acy), oppo uni ies (e.g., agile coun y, ee ade) and h ea s (e.g., in e na ional secu i y, lack o Eu opean compe i i eness). I con ains long- e m (10-yea ) goals as well as goals o be a ained du ing he elec o al e m. The documen is 34 pages long, and i includes a 36-page appendix. The cu en go e nmen p og amme con ains i e key s a egic a eas: (1) s eng hening employmen and compe i i eness; (2) enewing knowledge and educa ion; (3) imp o ing heal h and well-being; (4) speeding up bio echnology and ‘clean ech’ solu ions; and (5) e o ming p ocedu es h ough digi alisa ion, expe imen a ion and de egula ion. The go e nmen p og amme also includes social and heal h e o m, he aim o ind a solu ion (wi h social pa ne s) o inc ease he Finnish economy’s compe i i eness by 5% (social con ac , la e called a ‘compe i i eness con ac ’), dec easing he esponsibili ies o local go e nmen s, and eo ganising egional au ho i ies. Mos o hese a eas ha e a 10-yea a ge , a a ge o he elec o al e m, ideas abou how o measu e he a ge s and iden i ied spea head p og ammes o he speci ic s a egy a eas. The measu emen o he a ge s is e y limi ed; in many cases, i is s a ed ha he indica o s o he a ge s will be de eloped la e . These goals a e ope a ionalised in 27 s a egic p io i y p ojec s, which a e u he di ided in o a numbe o sub asks. Addi ionally, he go e nmen p og amme includes guidelines o inancial and iscal policies; s uc u al e o ms; EU policy; o eign, secu i y and de ence policies; and jus ice, in e nal and immig a ion policies. Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 7 o 15 3.1. S a egy as a Plan ‘The go e nmen now has a common solu ion on he whole package and he his o ic e o m will inally happen’ (PM Sipilä and pa y chai man o he cen e pa y on social and heal h e o m, 21 Decembe 2016, Reu e s). The go e nmen p og amme s a es ‘The Go e nmen will implemen he decisions in acco dance wi h i s plan’, [46] (p. 13). The s a egy discussion emphasises he o esigh acqui ed h ough planning. In he public sphe e, he analy ical policy app oach also illus a es he planning adi ion o ying o di ide go e nmen ac ions in o angible a eas and speci ic p og ammes, such as indus ial, economic and social policies. In s ee ing he cen al go e nmen , he planning, p og amming and budge ing ideas de eloped in he US in he 1960s gained some in e es in o he de eloped coun ies as well [ 47 ]. In he Finnish con ex , he igidi y and slowness o he cen al planning did no p o ide a good pla o m o de elop goals o changing ci cums ances, which included go e nmen s se ing less han hei elec o al e ms. In a somewha simila ein, he Finnish go e nmen employed policy p og ammes aimed a eaching b oade - han-minis e ial a ge s, such as employmen , en ep eneu ship, knowledge socie y and pa icipa ion o ci izens in he 2000s; howe e , he lack o unding o hese p og ammes and he coo dina ing p oblems wi h he budge cycle hinde ed hei success ul implemen a ion [48]. The cu en go e nmen p og amme aims o balance he € 10 billion long- e m de ici o public inances by he 2030s. The measu es o a ain hese goals include employmen and economic g ow h ( € 1.5 billion), cu backs and s uc u al changes ( € 4.5 billion), social and heal h e o m and e iciency inc ease ( € 3 billion) and educ ion o local go e nmen esponsibili ies ( € 1 billion). The s a ed 10-yea a ge s, such as he bene icial cha ac e is ic o paid labou in con as o social bene i s, he mo i a ion o con inuous lea ning and balancing public expendi u es a e b a e and wo hwhile a ge s, bu he measu emen p oblems a e ob ious. Long- e m a ge s a e p oblema ic since no one can gua an ee ha hese will emain on he agenda o subsequen go e nmen s. The social and heal h e o m is a p ime example o he appea ance o and p oblems wi h planning. The documen con ains h ee s eps, consis ing o he in eg a ion o social and heal h se ices, he uni ica ion o inancing hese se ices and he inc eased op ions o choice and ole o he p i a e sec o in p o iding public se ices. The e is a widesp ead ag eemen on he need o change, bu disc epan s akeholde in e es s canno easily be combined. The ac ual e o m has been unde p epa a ion by wo p e ious go e nmen s, bu hey ha e been unable o sol e he poli ical p oblems included in i . The main con o e sy deals wi h he local go e nmen au ho i y and go e nmen in e en ion. Local go e nmen s a e esponsible o social and heal h se ices, bu he numbe o local go e nmen s (317) and hei unequal sizes make he sys em ex emely decen alised. P e ious a emp s o amalgama e local go e nmen s in a olun a y ashion ha e been e y slow. Di ec go e nmen in e en ion o o ce local go e nmen s o o m la ge uni s o o eo ganise social and heal h se ices has encoun e ed local go e nmen opposi ion, backed by he s ong cons i u ional gua an ee o local go e nmen au onomy. The cu en go e nmen aims o educe he numbe o social and heal h p o ide s o no mo e han 19 uni s, which would include democ a ically elec ed councils o he uni s. In e ms o planning, he go e nmen p og amme has a sha p disc epancy be ween he pas and he u u e. In i s s a egy documen , he go e nmen akes a s ong s ance on he dis an u u e, many imes un il he 2030s, bu he e is e y li le desc ip ion o he pas e o s o p e ious go e nmen s o he his o y o Finnish socie y. O cou se, his is how s anda d s a egy documen s a e w i en, bu in he poli ical sphe e, i gi es a clea signal o change and is agains con inui y wi h he pas . The implemen a ion phase has p o en o be complica ed, bu he p ocess also wi nessed un o eseen de elopmen s [ 49 ] when he conse a i e pa y changed i s pa y chai men due o pe cei ed lack o pa y in e es in he adop ed social and heal h ca e model. F om he policy pe spec i e, s a egy as a plan neglec s he poli icking and poli icising aspec s wi hin he go e nmen . Planning is a a ional p ocess, p o iding policy as an ou come ha can be achie ed wi hou poli icising and poli icking. Fo he las ew e ms, he minis ies ha e done a lo o planning p io o he p og amme nego ia ions. Du ing he p epa a ion o he cu en go e nmen Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 8 o 15 p og amme, he minis ies aced a new si ua ion in which hei plans we e no aken as s a ing poin s, and he nego ia ions had a new poli ical a mosphe e whe e he poli icians we e he main playe s in s a egy o mula ion. This c ea es a pa adox in a co po a is socie y such as Finland; when planning is made mo e poli ical (by he go e nmen coali ion), he o he s akeholde s o socie y (such as labou ma ke pa ies) a e excluded om he discussion. Thus, in a sense, he poli ically managed planning p ocess is mo e apoli ical (manage ial) han he bu eauc a ic policy o mula ion and planning. 3.2. S a egy as a Home ‘No way has oil and NATO, Iceland has ish and NATO and Finland has he EU. Wi hou i , we would be economically weake and ha e less secu i y’ (Fo me Minis e o Finance and pa y chai man o conse a i e pa y Alexande S ubb, quo ehd.com). S a egy ela es o he goals o he o ganisa ions. S a egies o e hope o a be e u u e when all hope is abandoned. The e o e, s a egies enable su i al unde he condi ions in which he u u e seems bleak. The ollowing ex ac illus a es his poin : The young lieu enan o a small Hunga ian de achmen in he Alps sen a econnaissance uni in o he icy wilde ness. I began o snow immedia ely, snowed o wo days and he uni did no e u n. The lieu enan su e ed, ea ing ha he [had] sen his own people o dea h, bu on he hi d day he uni came back. Whe e had hey been? How had hey made hei way? Yes, hey said, we conside ed ou sel es los and wai ed o he end. Then one o us ound a map in his pocke . Tha calmed us down. We pi ched camp, las ed he snows o m, and hen wi h he map we disco e ed ou bea ings. And he e we a e. The lieu enan bo owed his ema kable map and had a good look a i . He disco e ed o his as onishmen ha i was no a map o he Alps, bu a map o he Py enees. [ 50 ] (p. 54) The lesson o his exce p is ha in many cases, he powe o s a egy canno be ound in i s accu acy o le el o de ail bu in i s abili y o gi e guidance and com o in ambiguous si ua ions. Mo eo e , he genuine belie in he s a egy enables he concen a ion o e o e en i he belie e en ually p o es o be aul y. Fo he manage s, s a egies p o ide cla i y in con on ing ambiguous en i onmen s. In his sense, s a egy in i sel is a human-made a e ac c ea ed o he psychological secu i y o he manage s. S a egy se es as a bounda y objec o he op managemen o handle he undamen ally unp edic able na u e o he en i onmen . S a egy is a manage ’s cuddly oy o eddy bea , bu e en alse secu i y could be be e han con on ing insecu i y in i s ull o ce. The same applies o he audiences o he op decision make s. Cha isma ic leade s a e able o con ey he message o pu pose, secu i y and posi i e u u e p ospec s o hei ollowe s [51]. S a egy as a home ela es o he limi a ions o human’s in o ma ion-p ocessing abili y [ 52 ]. S a egy enables us o iden i y ou basic needs in a simpli ied o m. In his sense, s a egy comes close o one o he ideals o heo y building, as i o e s insigh s in o he basic ea u es o ou en i onmen wi hou being en angled in he minu e de ails o ou exis ence. In democ a ic poli ical sys ems, decision make s wo king unde he manda e o hei cons i uencies and appoin ed o icials o e he basic ing edien s o a home whe e we eel com o able li ing. Wi hin adminis a i e p ocesses, he limi a ions o human in o ma ion p ocessing lead o inc emen al decision-making in which pas ac ions a e used as an ancho poin [ 53 ], o muddle h ough adminis a i e p oblems [ 54 ] and o collec op ions o p oblem sol ing, in o he wo ds, ‘ga bage can decision-making’ [55]. The go e nmen p og amme gi es some hope o a b igh e u u e. The i le o he documen is ‘The solu ions o Finland’, and he ision o he s a egy is ‘Finland 2025—build oge he ’. In he si ua ional analysis, Finland is desc ibed as sa e, inno a i e, economically sus ainable and pa o Eu ope. Commen a o s ha e been quick o iden i y he s a egy language in which he lack o appea ance means he lack o a en ion. The e has been he c i ique ha he go e nmen does no espouse equali y and solida i y because hey a e no s a ed as goals in he go e nmen p og amme. Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 16 9 o 15 I is also no ewo hy ha ‘wel a e socie y’ appea s as an a ea o s eng h bu no as a subjec o be de eloped. Wi hin he go e nmen p og amme, he aspec o he com o and secu i y o home comes om di e en sou ces o he han he ad ancemen o a wel a e socie y. The sac i ices made by he ci izens h ough cu backs and ax inc eases gua an ee he con inui y o hei exis ing well-being and ela i e p ospe i y in he u u e. The go e nmen p og amme s a es ‘The Finnish people a e eady o accep e en di icul decisions, i hey a e implemen ed in a ai manne wi h an eye o a be e u u e’, [ 46 ] (p. 8). The secu i y o home i sel appea s in he aims o an icipa e and sol e ex e nal and in e nal secu i y h ea s. The wo sening o he in e na ional secu i y si ua ion and he consequences o he Uk ainian c isis emphasise he impo ance o he EU as a p o ide o secu i y, oge he wi h o he in e na ional o ganisa ions. The Uni ed Na ions, he No h A lan ic T ea y O ganiza ion and he O ganiza ion o Secu i y and Co-ope a ion in Eu ope a e pe cei ed as o ming he backbone o in e na ional coope a ion in in e na ional secu i y. F om he poli ical pe spec i e, home ep esen s an apoli ical poli y—a space ha is s able, sa e and secu e. Wi hin i s limi s, all ques ions can be sol ed in an app op ia e manne , and poli ical issues a e aised in he agenda as pa o he sys em and i s decision-making machine y. Thus, he people can us ha p o essional membe s o pa liamen , minis e s and public adminis a o s a e managing hei common issues. The home me apho emphasises he ci izen no as an ac i e membe o socie y bu as a amily membe , ollowing he ules and discipline o he amily and i s head. In he a ea o policy, he go e nmen p og amme s a es ha Finland is and will be a ca ing socie y based on us and espec , bu con a y o his gene al s a emen , mos o he nume ical da a in he documen indica e a sha p dec ease in he mos impo an a eas o public spending, such as educa ion o social and heal h se ices. He e, he go e nmen p og amme’s s a egic emphasis has c ea ed a si ua ion in which he go e nmen , and especially he p ime minis e , pe sonally hold a posi ion o us in secu ing he poli y. This is a new si ua ion in Finland, whe e he public has laid i s us in he law, bu eauc acy and he public as an en i y. The s a egic app oach in he go e nmen p og amme o mula ion has shi ed poli icising and poli icking om he planning and o mula ion phase o he implemen a ion phase, while he go e nmen p og amme o mula ion has become a mo e clandes ine p ocess. 3.3. S a egy as a Game ‘T u h is he s onges o ce’ (Fo eign Minis e Timo Soini and pa y chai man o he Finns pa y on he G eek deb c isis, 11 Augus 2015, Eu onews). I is o en he case ha s a egy is depic ed wi h he game me apho . In a game, i is possible o an icipa e he opponen ’s mo es, and he basic ing edien o he game is ha an opponen exis s. The game o chess se es o illus a e his poin . The pieces ha e a limi ed bu conside able numbe o possibili ies o mo emen on he boa d, and a ull command o he game equi es a subs an ial unde s anding o he sequence o di e en mo es. The galloping o he ho se and he mo emen o he bishop a e ai ly uncomplica ed, whe eas en passan and he cas ling a e mo e complica ed p ocedu es. The s uggles among poli ical pa ies o ad ance he in e es s o hei espec i e cons i uencies and he i al ies among agencies ega ding he limi ed budge app op ia ions a e illus a ions o gaming in he public con ex [ 56 ]. In games, he e a e winne s and lose s. The ad ancemen o a con ende ’s own posi ion in he poli ical comba is a ze o-sum game in which he s ong playe s conque and he weak playe s su ende . A playe ’s cunning may ake many o ms—some imes, hiding one’s own goals and he abili y o di ide he opposing o ces can be ins umen al in eaching he in ended u u e. In game heo y, he e is an in e es ing un esol ed ques ion o alliance o ma ion, as he ele ance o powe esou ces in alliance o ma ion has ye o be sol ed [ 17 ]. Mo e gene ally, wi hin he language o poli ics, a e e ence o a game p omp s ques ions o powe , bu games can also be jus games—joy ul exe cises o leisu ely ac i i ies. The game me apho is a ele an pa o he in e cou se be ween s a egic and poli ical analyses. The language o s a egy in he discipline o poli ics ela es o he oppo unis ic calcula ing beha iou