Search

This paper discusses understandings of higher education and the public good in the context of Finland. A lexical-based comparison of public goods terminology reveals that the Finnish translation of public good—julkishyödyke—is used in comparatively recent (post-1970s) scholarship, mainly limited to the fields of economics, forestry and agriculture. It is notably absent in discussions of higher education. Instead, universities’ contribution to the public good is expressed as sivistys, service, social impact and national development. The second half of the paper discusses findings from a qualitative study of university staff and policymaker understandings of public good(s) (n = 21). Participants framed the contribution of universities to the public good as sivistys, service and social impact and also highlighted the dimension of social equality. These goods were viewed as applicable to local, national and global levels, flowing both out of and into Finland, thus benefiting everyone. As such, responses were closely aligned with the UNESCO (2015) definition of higher education as a global common good. Recent higher education policies that are based on the logic of higher education as a private good (education export, tuition fees for international students) threaten this model, revealing a conflict in the role of the state as protector of the public good at the national level and promoter of higher education as a private good at the global level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reign of Alexander II (1855-1881) provided room for new ideas in the Russian Empire. In Finland, it was a time of liberal socio-economic reform and dawning nationalism, which led to reconsideration of the relationship between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and St Petersburg, and between the Finnish Senate and the Diet. This study focuses on these relations and explores the political conditions for the government's response to the famine of the 1860s. It shows that the decisions made at the Finnish Diet of 1863-1864 pushed the Senate aside from the markets and reduced its means to cope with severe economic fluctuations in the short term. The lack of defined support from the estates also affected the Senate's ability to acquire foreign credit in Finland's name. The study examines the pivotal position of Johan Vilhelm Snellman, an early promoter of Hegelian state theory in Finland and the main controller of the Finnish Senate's expenditure during the period 1863-1868. It is argued that Snellman's ideas about national state development and the autonomous position of the Senate led to reservedness in government action concerning credit supply, the initiation of grain purchases and co-operation with the Russian authorities; this reservedness contributed to the outcome of the famine. Finally, the study shows that the credit provided by the Imperial government for seed grain purchase in the spring of 1868 was essential to avoid prolonging the crisis in Finland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]