Finland is one of Europe’s most stable societies, yet its economy has grown slowly for years. Strategist Konstantinos Apostolatos argues the country lacks urgency and focus. Political strategist Taru Tujunen agrees reform can be slow, but says stability and consensus politics are also central to Finland’s success.
That contradiction brought a Brussels-based strategist to Helsinki for a week of meetings with political leaders, investors, family offices, and founders.
Konstantinos Apostolatos, a Greek-born advisor who has worked across governments and corporations, arrived with a simple argument: Finland’s challenge is not capability but ambition, focus, governance, and execution.
Konstantinos Apostolatos is a Greek-born advisor who has worked across governments and corporations. Photo by Apostolatos.
During the visit, Apostolatos met a small group of decision-makers in private discussions about how a country that functions well might still be underperforming economically.
His message, repeated in conversations and in a memo shared with Finnish leaders and politicians, was simple. Finland is one of Europe’s most stable, intelligent, and well-functioning societies, yet its economic growth remains weak.
The comfort paradox
To Apostolatos, Finland suffers from what might be called a comfort paradox.
Its institutions function well, and society is stable. These qualities make the country resilient and trustworthy. They also make it slower to act.
Countries often move fastest when they are forced to. Greece faced a debt crisis that left little room for delay and pushed through sweeping reforms.
Today, it has returned to growth and regained investor confidence. The difference, he argues, was urgency and the political alignment that came with it.
Faced with collapse, political leaders, ministers, and business executives adopted a collective “let’s get it done” mindset. Under pressure, Greece aligned around a few priorities — digitalization, tax reform, tourism, and green energy — pushed through reforms quickly, and has since outgrown eurozone averages while regaining investor confidence.
Finland faces the opposite situation: no immediate crisis and therefore less pressure to make difficult, concentrated bets or to align politics and business behind a small set of priorities.
In Apostolato’s view, the country lacks a clearly stated and aligned national ambition definition of success for the next decade.
Without measurable goals for growth, employment, and competitiveness relative to other countries, strategies risk becoming diffuse.
Successful transformations, he writes in his memo, begin with a stretch ambition defined in concrete terms and benchmarked against peers.
Competing only with oneself, he suggests, is not enough.
Over the past fifteen years, Finland’s economic performance has lagged behind many comparable European economies. Recent economic data suggest that Apostolato’s concerns are not easily dismissed.
Since the financial crisis, GDP growth has been significantly weaker than in Sweden and Denmark, while productivity growth has remained largely stagnant. Investment levels have also trailed several peer countries. For a nation that consistently ranks among the world’s most stable, educated, and well-governed societies, the gap between institutional strength and economic dynamism has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
A Finnish perspective
Taru Tujunen, a senior advisor for Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, broadly agrees that stability can slow reform.
“Finland’s stability has been an enormous strength,” says Tujunen, who has worked closely with governments and national decision-makers. “But it has also meant we have often been slow to implement major societal changes. In a rapidly changing global environment, this can make it harder to respond to new opportunities.”
In her view, the link between stability and slower reform has not always been fully acknowledged in Finnish political debate.
Over the decades, Finland has evolved from what was once described as a “nation of melancholy songs” into the world’s happiest society. Yet success has also reduced the perceived urgency for structural change.
The consequences, she argues, can be seen in modest economic growth, expanding bureaucracy, and increasingly complex public administrative structures.
Consensus politics and the limits of urgency
Tujunen believes the explanation lies as much in political culture as in institutional design.
“Finns have historically not demanded large societal changes,” she says. “We are still a strongly consensus-oriented society, even though political polarization has increased somewhat in recent years.”
Finland’s electoral system reinforces this dynamic. Coalition governments composed of several parties require continuous negotiation and compromise.
“This collaborative model is excellent from a democratic perspective,” she notes. “But the downside is that making large strategic prioritizations can be difficult.”
Still, she cautions that urgency can emerge quickly when a situation is widely perceived as a crisis.
“Very few societies change without some form of external pressure,” she says.
Finland’s decision to join NATO illustrates the point. Public opinion shifted rapidly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the political system moved with unusual speed.
“Consensus formed almost overnight,” Tujunen says. “And the political system carried the decision through very effectively.”
Fewer priorities, bigger bets
Apostolatos's diagnosis follows his central prescription.
He argues Finland should align around a measurable national ambition and select a small number of flagship initiatives for the next decade.
These initiatives should be treated less like traditional policy programs and more like investment vehicles: clear mandates, measurable outcomes, professional management, stable multi-year funding, and continuity across political cycles.
Transparent metrics and independent evaluation would allow programmes to be adjusted or abandoned if they fail to deliver. Structured correctly, such initiatives could also attract private capital through new forms of public-private partnerships.
He suggests Finland could position itself as a European “resilience lab”, integrating education, security, clean industry, and social cohesion into a competitive model.
Potential focus areas include higher education, cybersecurity, energy systems, clean industrial value chains, and advanced biomaterials — sectors where Finland already has strong capabilities but has yet to scale its efforts globally.
Tujunen believes strategic prioritisation is politically possible, but only to a point.
Finland has experience with nationally agreed initiatives prepared through parliamentary cooperation, she notes, and there is broad consensus on the importance of investing in education and research.
“The difficulty is rarely agreeing on what to support,” she says. “The difficulty is deciding what not to support.”
Competing for talent and capital
Apostolatos also points to competitiveness for talent and investment.
In a global market for entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals, Finland’s tax and incentive structures are often seen as uncompetitive, he argues. Without stronger conditions for founders and high-skill workers, reversing slow growth and relatively high unemployment will be difficult.
Tujunen agrees that Finland could strengthen its attractiveness but believes the country often underestimates its own advantages.
“Finland is in many ways a better place to build a company or pursue education than its reputation suggests,” she says.
From strategy to execution
Apostolatos is equally critical of what he sees as the gap between strategy and execution.
National strategies, he argues, often look compelling on paper but lack financial rigour and clear accountability. Each major initiative should therefore be backed by what he calls “investor-grade” planning — specifying capital commitments, expected returns, timelines, and responsibility.
Regular independent evaluations would allow programs to be adjusted or discontinued if they fail to deliver. Long-term public–private partnerships would also be essential, he adds, rather than expecting governments alone to drive the transformation.
Tujunen notes that the challenge is not uniquely Finnish.
“Implementing strategies is difficult for public institutions everywhere,” she says. “Politics operates in a world of dispersed power, where decision-making and execution are intentionally separated.”
Private companies operate differently, with more centralized authority and faster decision-making.
“That comparison is not entirely fair,” she says. “But if the question is whether the public sector needs stronger execution capability, the answer is clearly yes.”
Choosing the future
If Finland were forced to concentrate its efforts, Tujunen believes the country should build on areas where it already has structural strengths.
Energy systems are one example. Finland has successfully developed a diversified energy sector spanning nuclear power, wind, and emerging hydrogen infrastructure.
Education remains another obvious priority, both for raising domestic skill levels and attracting international talent and researchers.
Digitalization should cut across all policy areas, she argues, while industries such as pharmaceuticals and defence technology also hold significant potential.
The challenge is not identifying promising sectors but making difficult choices about where to concentrate resources.
In a world of intensifying economic competition, she suggests, the real test for Finland will be whether it can move from broad consensus to focused national ambition.
Finland’s challenge may therefore not be whether it has the capabilities to succeed, but whether a country that functions well can generate enough urgency to compete in a faster-moving world.
