Show me the money!!! Or not.

Finland is considering a minimum income to replace its robust social services programs.  Under the minimum income model, qualifying citizens would be given a monthly stipend with a monetary value of between 750 and 800 US dollars, but they would lose access to state provided health services and housing benefits, among others.  A second model provides a stipend for half that amount but allows citizens to maintain their access to state services.  The program stands to save Finland’s government millions and would reduce the need for costly state run social programs.  Under the current system, citizens of Finland pay nearly half their income in taxes to support one of the most robust social services systems in the world.  Examples of this exemplary system include two state-funded options for Pre-K care, nationalized health care and the best public schools in Europe as of 2010.  So what will make the people of Finland better off: more money or exceptional state-funded programs?  

When given the choice between a social service administered by the government or a cash stipend to purchase that service themselves, people overwhelmingly prefer cash – and why not – cash is better, right? In the United States, one federal program provides food stamps to those in need, but the restrictions around what an individual can buy with food stamps makes them less valuable than money.  Government officials tend to prefer vouchers because if the government gives people money to buy food, people are going to use that money however they like – they may buy food or they may buy something else.  The government can’t control how cash is spent. But if you ask someone who receives food stamps, he or she will tell you they’d be better off with cash.  This argument is not new but is still debated.  

Finland is a really interesting case; however, because its social service programs are almost universally embraced by the citizenry.  Boasting the best public school system in Europe speaks to this.  The fact that all of Finland’s citizens send their children to public schools and use public healthcare leads to a more egalitarian society – there’s no “good” school in the affluent neighborhood or “bad” school – there’s just the public school, leading to fewer class distinctions.  Finland’s cultural identity is really tied to this notion of egalitarianism.  “Finland has no private schools or universities, no snooty clubs, no gated communities or compounds where the rich can cut themselves off from everyday life.” (1) If Finland is having such success with is state run programs, moving away from that could really harm their national culture.

If Finland decides a minimum income model is the best solution for the country, they need to have a full understanding of what they’re giving up to save money.  It’s rare to find a country with a high functioning social services system.  It would be a shame for Finland to lose that aspect of their identity.  

1) Kaiser, Robert G. "In Finland's Footsteps." Washington Post. N.p., 7 Oct. 2005. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.