Controversies in Measures - Activity Increasing liquidity is a way to foster economic activity. Finland as lately introduced activity increasing measures that are targeted to “activate” the unemployed. One dimension of these measures is decreasing benefits from those who do not meet the defined criteria of being “active”. Perhaps it is expected that creating simultaneous push and pull effect would create a wished behavior. But what do they wish to achieve by this kind of “activation”? Who has the right to decide, which activities are allowed to survive? What kind of activities are likely to bring economic growth? Because of the before mentioned measures, one can get an impression that some actors of the system consider probable that the unemployed would behave differently than the rest of the economy. Why are such measures implemented? Should we interpret that the preferences of unemployed are expected to be generally unacceptable, or that the unemployed are not expected to engage in any (commercial or beneficial) activity, due to any funds they gain access to? Should we interpret that that the unemployed, irrespective of how educated or capable, are considered unable to bring any value on their own? Or should we consider the measures rather a sign of willingness to increase the control of public sector or perhaps simply a proof of an effort to change things? Is spending public money on and allocating human resources to activities that do not benefit anybody a more acceptable solution? Inappropriate allocation of resources creates inefficiencies and is likely to retard economic growth and the development of technology. The globality of markets and international / national opportunities should not be scorned. At the moment, a large part of the responsibility to look after employment has been given to municipalities, thus to a party that should not be responsible for any business or profit related activities. One consequence may be that the employment will concentrate to local activities and, if no business-related work is available, to some activities e.g. within the public sector. There are cases in which self-motivated interest towards entrepreneurship or employment has been overlooked or strongly discouraged by the public sector and the job seeker has been directed to employment programs provided by public sector instead. Should this kind of guidance be called an activation measure? I know of cases, where an academic job seeker was offered tasks related to cleaning CDs in a library or an opportunity to participate elderly care (such as reading to elderly people or walking them). When asked, if they really needed the extra resource, the response had been that they did not have need for an extra resource, but that they had promised to employ certain amount of people. Creating inefficiencies to activities that would actually need efficiency measures can lead to a situation, where we have plenty of work, but no money to pay for it to be accomplished or automated. Trying to create low income jobs (and partly subsidizing those), is not likely to create huge growth. At the moment, Finland supports the creation of certain low-income jobs, e.g. through tax related incentives. Different types of direct and indirect subsidies also seem to be visible in the vacancy situation. Is the straightforward thinking of filling open vacancies with unemployed people the best way to handle the situation? Should we rather encourage the creation of substitutes, innovations and future income? Among other things, today’s public spending and employment related measures shape the future of our economy. Clusters, networks and possibility to engage globally Any idea needs an accumulation of resources to succeed. Networks make the implementation possible. If we tie human resources in purely local activities and create incentives that only serve local needs, we have less time (and motivation) to get involved in efforts that benefit certain development or the utilization of specific competencies. We also have less time to create networks that benefit the achievement of related goals. Creating savings or costs? I think that any potential savings in the payment of social benefits should be challenged e.g. with costs of increased bureaucracy, handling of complaints, possible future costs related to benefits, missed economic opportunities, and lowered pace of development. Any activation measures should be challenged by costs of activation and the losses that are likely to materialize, when people are prohibited from using their competencies, knowledge and skills by the public sector. Importing models from elsewhere It seems that Finland is experimenting many models imported from elsewhere. Since no model should be brought from one environment to another without first evaluating its applicability to existing conditions and the effects that the differences in operating environment and implementation may have on the end results, I truly hope the evaluations are properly done before experimenting the models on people. I just wish I didn't have to hope and fear and would rather be able to expect and prepare. Johanna Sandman Published: 3.4.2018