Is the time for leisure now? : The growth paradigm in the Finnish welfare debate

Abstract: The government of Finland has the ambition of making Finland the first fossil-free welfare state in the world and reaching carbon neutrality in 2035. Simultaneously, worktime reduction and basic income have been matters of vivid political debate. Both worktime reduction and basic income are go-to solutions for post-growth scholars as ways to arrange welfare in a non-growing economy. These initiatives could thereby support the climate goals of the government– but are concerns with limits to growth distinguishable in the debates? In this thesis, I have mapped out the political debate in Finland surrounding the welfare reforms of worktime reduction and basic income to explore how growth-sustainability tensions are addressed and if welfare alternatives are limited due to the growth paradigm. To see whether post-growth ideas are present in Finnish party politics, I interviewed eleven candidates from seven parties in the Finnish parliament to see on which grounds these initiatives are proposed and opposed. I found that the main driver of the debate is the transformation of work in the 21st Century, rather than the ecological crises we are facing. Most interviewees did not link Finland’s environmental goals to the two welfare initiatives discussed. Nevertheless, a minority considered basic income and worktime reduction to be sustainability strategies. There is recognition of limits to growth among politicians, and possibly more broadly in the parties they stood election for. It appears that the growth paradigm is being politically contested. Although most respondents considered economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems, growth was given instrumental value rather than being blindly pursued. The welfare state of Finland is embedded in a system depending on growth, whereby there is concern that current levels of welfare cannot be realised in a non-growing economy. Thereby the barriers to transition are more structural than narrative, although the latter was also distinguishable in the data. I conclude that concerns with limits to growth are present in Finnish party politics. The political discussions on worktime reduction and basic income would benefit from including the potential co-benefits between social and environmental sustainability that post-growth scholars argue these initiatives have. This connection is however not without tension. As alternative methods of financing the welfare state have not been convincingly mapped out, reliance on growth to solve ecological and social problems is likely to continue.