Janne Holmén: University autonomy in Finland and Sweden

Due to their common history, Finland and Sweden share many similarities. However, important differences have also developed in constitutional law, political culture and governance. These are also reflected in the implementation of international trends in higher education governance.

Both countries have tried to increase the economic and social output of universities while adhering the ideals of increased autonomy. The protection for academic freedom and university autonomy has been strengthened in legal texts, while the influence of external stakeholders over the governance of higher education has increased. At Finnish universities, the second trend has been slowed by the Constitutional law committee’s interpretation of the constitutional safeguards for university autonomy.

This reflects a greater emphasis in Finnish political culture on counterbalances to the political government. Similar checks and balances on political power over universities have been introduced in other constitutions revised after periods of societal upheaval, such as in California in the 1870s. Thus, many differences in Swedish and Finnish reforms of higher education are rooted in old differences in political culture formed during Finland’s period as a part of the Russian empire and during the civil war. The prospects that the country could be ruled by autocrats or revolutionaries made Finnish political culture value institutions independent of political power. Sweden lacks similar experiences, and government has been perceived as benevolent. There, political culture was shaped by the long reign of the Social Democratic party, and constitutional counterweights were considered undemocratic brakes on the will of the people.

The defence of collegiality at Swedish universities after the so-called autonomy reform in 2011 has mainly focused on maintaining collegial bodies at the departmental level. Autonomous universities of the Finnish model, where the majority of the board is elected by the collegium, has not been envisioned. Only recently, after the emergence of a strong Swedish populist party, the constitution’s stipulation that government is obliged to promote its values in all areas of society have been put into question.

In both countries, higher education institutions have been reshaped into new legal entities, such as foundations and joint stock companies, in an attempt to make them more independent, competent to manage their finances, and able to engage in international cooperation. In Finland, practical concern seems to have dominated, particularly an ambition to keep costs down, while in Sweden openly ideological concerns were aired.

In the Finnish University reform of 2009, new forms of legal entities were part of a reform package inspired by top-down business management. Thereby these new forms, the foundations and associations under public law, became associated with reduced internal collegiality and democracy, although this is not a necessary consequence of shifting to a legal entity with greater autonomy. The simultaneous Swedish autonomy reform, which facilitated top-down management without a restructuring into autonomous legal entities, left faculty in an even more powerless position.

The rationales behind the Swedish and Finnish experiments with the legal entities have been similar, and so have the suggested reforms. An idea of transforming Swedish universities into independent legal entities was put forward around the same time as Finnish universities became associations under public law. However, the greater reliance on public agencies in Sweden and the familiarity with a multiplicity of legal entities in Finland made the transition of universities into independent legal entities seem natural in Finland, while it was too radical in the Swedish context.

Universities related to national security, such as the defence universities and in Finland also the Police University of Applied Sciences, are still government agencies, and remain tied to the Departments of Defence and the Interior. Perhaps they are not expected to interact with society and attract external funding to the same degree as other universities.

Globalisation and European integration have levelled out some differences between the countries’ systems of higher education. Internationalisation will probably continue to assert pressure on higher education reform. For example, Swedish state universities are still hindered from entering agreements in international collaborations, as they are not independent legal subjects.

Future reforms will inevitably be influenced both by global trends and by the political environment in which they originate. An understanding of how international currents interact with historically evolved national cultures of governance is vital when evaluating alternative paths forward.