Karl Magnus Johansson
Affiliate Professor of Political Science
Södertörn University
Sweden
Tapio Raunio
Professor of Political Science
Tampere University
Finland
Communications is one of the most pressing challenges facing government day by day. Government communication – defined broadly as the structures, practices and processes of the executive in its communication aspects – is required to handle those challenges. In this article, we outline the main elements of government communication in Finland and Sweden and then contrast the two countries. Our analysis covers both broader, over time developments as well as communication during the crises of the early 2020s.
FINLAND
The Finnish case displays a relatively clear trend towards centralization of government communications to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), but certainly much weaker than in Sweden. In Finland party-political advisors, particularly in PMO, have become significant shapers of government-media relations, while the civil servant media staff seek to maintain a neutral position. Through constitutional reform the role of the PMO has become considerably stronger in recent decades, and this extends to communication. Centralization to PMO is further facilitated by strategic management thinking in recent governments, with cross-sectoral programmes and key targets coordinated from the PMO. Party politics also facilitates centralization: Finnish governments are typically ideologically heterogenous multi-party coalitions, and centralizing communication more to the PMO is logical when the goal is to ensure that the government speaks with one voice. However, individual ministries as well as cabinet parties and their ministers continue to produce their own communication, and therefore it is a question of finding a balance between centralization and delegation to ministries (Niemikari et al. 2019).
During COVID further centralization of communication to PMO took place, but again it was far from complete, with individual ministries, ministers, and public sector agencies also releasing their own information. As Finland’s foreign and security policy leadership is shared between the president and the government, particular attention has been paid to coordinating the public positions of the two executives after Putin’s attack into Ukraine.
SWEDEN
The level of centralization is higher in Sweden, both regarding organizational structures and strategic leadership from PMO. There are two major trends: a steady increase in the number of staff dedicated to communications and a strengthening of the government’s structures for communication. Over time, government communication has become highly centralized around the prime minister (Johansson 2022). However, the centre-right government which came to power in October 2022 has been partly undoing some of this centralizing strategy. It is a governing coalition consisting of three political parties and relying on an agreement with the nationalist Sweden Democrats, largest of the four cooperation parties but outside the government. That agreement extends to principles for external communication. The press secretaries are now employed in the ministries, as was the situation before the new, more centralized communication framework was adopted in 2014. It was a framework where press secretaries became more closely linked to the prime minister, through their employment in PMO. Moreover, it introduced daily morning meetings led by the head of press at PMO. That procedure, too, has been relaxed with the new government. Even so, a lot is still controlled from the PMO, which provides overall leadership and has incentives for a unified structure.
A mixed picture for the government’s communications during COVID also applies to the Swedish case, with contrasting interpretations of the extent to which there was central control. Regardless of how crisis or management is framed, in times of crisis the need to respond comprehensively prompts a more controlling media management of the central government. Russia’s war in Ukraine is another case in point.
SUMMARY
In summary, the organizations relating to government communication in Finland and Sweden are broadly similar, yet different (Johansson & Raunio 2020). Significant concerns about functional efficiency explain the similarity and are reflected in institutional arrangements. The governments are under pressure to become more coordinated, enabling a greater integration of communications. That requires increasing resources devoted to communications and a management system run from the political centre. Therefore, the trend towards a more centralized approach is likely to continue. But even with more centralized arrangements, coherent communication is challenging when considering that in the age of social media coalition parties and individual ministries have their own interests to defend. Yet, it is clear that Finland and Sweden are, to varying extent, examples of a more centralized coordination of government communications to the media through the office of the prime minister.
References
Johansson, Karl Magnus (2022). The Prime Minister–Media Nexus: Centralization Logic and Application. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johansson, Karl Magnus & Raunio, Tapio (2020). Centralizing Government Communication? Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Politics & Policy 48 (6): 1138–1160.
Niemikari, Risto, Raunio, Tapio & Moring, Tom (2019). Finland: Informal Interdependence and Occasional Clashes. In Karl Magnus Johansson & Gunnar Nygren (eds), Close and Distant: Political Executive–Media Relations in Four Countries (pp. 29–54). Nordicom. http://www.nordicom.gu.se/sv/publikationer/close-and-distant