Valueless politics? 

3.9.2024 0 Tykkää 0 kommenttia

The justification we have heard for cuts in the cultural sector is financial necessity. The reason can’t be money and having enough of it, however, as we are simultaneously allocating billions of euros of public funds to support actions that undermine natural capital and accelerate climate change, for example.  

Even though we know – to quote Orpo’s Government Programme – that “culture plays an important role in enhancing citizens’ resilience, comprehensive security and a sense of national cohesion” and that “growth in the cultural sector supports the whole society, strengthening its wellbeing, creativity and sustainability”, the plan is to make record-big cuts in the arts and cultural sector. 

Even though we know that our economy and life on this planet is entirely dependent on preserving biodiversity, guidelines and legislation concerning forest management, for example, are not observed, because violating them brings financial advantages, but penalties are rare.   

What mussels and culture seem to have in common is that in both cases, obeying decisions and principles is determined whether breaching them causes a public stir. 

It’s not about the amount of money but about how it’s used 

The 50 million-euro tax relief for high-emission vehicles alone will cost Finns as much as is considered to be saved by cuts in the cultural sector. According to the Finnish Climate Change Panel, lowering the fuel distribution obligation will result in costs ranging from 100 million to as much as one billion euros. The Natural Resources Institute Finland estimates that the reduction of carbon sinks due to forest felling and land use will lead to costs of 2–7 billion euros in the coming years. 

The publication 2023:7² by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment shows that the majority of business subsidies paid annually from public funds increases greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduces them. The same report states that for the most part, it is inaccurate to say that tax or business subsidies promote long-term international competitiveness or renewal.  

So essentially, it’s not about money, but about values and perhaps also about the inability to face the realities that define the future of Finland. 

Two things that determine our future 

Even though making good politics is challenging in our ever more complex and uncertain world, there are still things we can be sure of. It’s clear that our future depends, above all, on what direction the development of human and natural capital will take. All political measures must be evaluated based on this development. 

We talk about the PISA results and the shrinking age groups, but less so about how strong the effect that the decline in mental wellbeing is on labour productivity and the national economy. Mental health problems have increased after 2016, and they have become by far the most common reason for Finns’ long absences due to sickness. According to the OECD’s estimates, the costs of mental health problems go up to about 11 billion euros per year in Finland.  

As we move away from material consumption and price competition based on production efficiency towards intangible value creation with a high degree of added value, it is our mental, social and physical wellbeing that become increasingly important as both goals and prerequisites for value creation. Whether it’s production growth or a thriving society that we aim for, our faith in future and experiences of inclusion, togetherness, autonomy and meaningfulness of life are at least equally important elements of human capital as level of education. 

Finland is inevitably facing either a major transformation of business life or a negative downward spiral of development, the engine – or rather ballast – of which is low-value-added material- and energy-intensive industry. At the moment, over half of Finland’s gross domestic product is based on utilising natural capital. Based on Eurostat statistics, we are using domestic natural resources more than any other EU country. The externalities of business activities on wellbeing, society and natural capital must play an increasingly important role in reviewing public investments and their productivity.  

We are aware of the problem of labour productivity and how to solve it – we just need actions 

Labour productivity and economic growth can only be achieved sustainably in the area of intangible value creation that is based on human capital. Finland can’t compete with its price of products or labour, and the limits of growth in material consumption are up. The business operations of the world’s largest companies by stock market capitalisation are mainly based on intangible value creation, such as knowledge, competence, creativity, patents, copyrights, design and a better service experience. The question we need to ask is whether we want to a part of this growth.  

The quality and meaningfulness of life, subjective wellbeing and smooth everyday life are aspects that we are willing to pay a little extra for. The main challenge in regard to value creation ends up being understanding and solving people’s wellbeing needs and problems. In this sense, even our discourse over wellbeing politics is too narrow in its scope. It emphasises problems related to physical health and material scarcity. Their importance remains, but in the current society, people also have various mental and subjective wellbeing-related problems that are not given enough attention.  

Understanding the root causes of subjective wellbeing problems and developing solutions to them requires a deep understanding of people’s lives, activities and operating environment from the perspective of mental wellbeing.  

In RDI activities, we need to shift the focus from technology and more efficient production to activities that study things like ways to improve the coherence of everyday life (its clarity, controllability and meaningfulness), social relations as well as effects of the environment, marketing and media on subjective wellbeing.  

Four things that need to be acknowledged in the budget session and Government Programme 

1. Let’s support the transformation of business life by drawing up a growth strategy for the creative industries.  

The allocation of business subsidies and RDI investments must be altered from a preservationist policy to a policy that generates a competitive edge in the long term. Sustainable production with high added value requires that it always generates not only economic, functional and meaningful value for the customer, but also broader cultural and social value. Therefore, the focus must be shifted from sectors with negative externalities to intangible value creation that generates diverse, wide-ranging and sustainable benefits for all citizens – without significant harm to nature. The creative industries, which had a turnover of approximately 14 billion euros in 2022, have enormous growth potential. These industries need a tailored growth strategy drawn up specifically for them, and Finland should urgently define a broader goal, covering areas beyond research and product development in traditional sectors, as the country makes future-oriented investments and reallocates business subsidies and tax reliefs.  

I teamed up with research advisor Petri Rouvinen from ETLA Economic Research and wrote about this very topic, and our opinion piece was published in Kauppalehti on Monday, 26 September. 

2. Let’s break the downward spiral of mental wellbeing by investing in arts education and culture. 

Our own wellbeing is both the most essential production factor and the most important objective for social and public policy. The cultural sector produces services that are vital for mental wellbeing, and developing these services is crucially important not only for the productivity of work but also in terms of leading a meaningful life and contributing to a positive societal development. Polarisation, rise in inequality, deterioration of democracy, biodiversity loss, climate change and increase in foreign policy tensions reduce our faith in future and highlight the key role that culture plays in dealing with difficult issues that affect our lives. 

3. The Government must stick to what was outlined in the Government Programme concerning the cultural sector.  

Smart politics in this case would be to acknowledge the realities and invest in what is truly necessary right now. The Finnish Government must be able to stand behind its Government Programme with integrity. It’s contradictory to promise investments in culture through, for example, the cultural policy report and to recognise the significance of culture as a diverse resource in the Government Programme and then after these promises to go on and announce historically large cuts in culture. 

4. The overall cuts must be reconsidered and distributed evenly in the budget session. 

The cultural sector is on the verge of facing unreasonably drastic cuts. Ultimately, it all comes down to value judgements, not necessity. Recognising the intrinsic value of art and culture is also a prerequisite for the transformation of business life and our mental wellbeing. Through culture and the arts, we share life’s meanings, understand ourselves and are in contact with each other. Besides the intrinsic value, art plays a key role in our ability to create intangible value and competitive advantage through creative solutions and interesting and meaningful content. Cuts in the cultural sector would cause a chain reaction that would severely and permanently undermine the growth potential of the creative sector and the accessibility of cultural services in Finland. That’s something we can’t afford. 

Text: Kaarlo Hildén, rector of Uniarts Helsinki

Orpo’s government budget session is held on 3–4 September 2024.