Study supporting the impact assessment of the future European Social Fund proposal : achieving structural change : conditions for success in the areas of ESF intervention : Finland case study : pension reform.
Date: 2025-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU budget, EU financing, European Social Fund, Finland, case study, distribution of EU funding, pension scheme, proposal (EU), structural adjustment

Study supporting the Impact 
assessment of the future European 
Social Fund proposal. 
Achieving structural change: 
conditions for success in the areas 
of ESF intervention 

FINLAND CASE STUDY: PENSION REFORM 

Visionary Analytics, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini  
December 2024 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
Directorate G — Funds, programming and implementation 
Unit G.1 — European Social Fund + 
Contact: Darius Buinauskas 

E-mail:  empl-g1-unit@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study supporting the Impact 
assessment of the future European 
Social Fund proposal. 

Achieving structural change: 
conditions for success in the areas 
of ESF intervention  

FINLAND CASE STUDY: PENSION REFORM 

VT/2023/018  

under the multiple framework contracts 
EMPL/2020/OP/0016  

Manuscript completed in December 2024 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Authors:  Esa Jokinen 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-23879-0 

doi:10.2767/5644925 

KE-01-25-003-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

© European Union, 2025 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of 
this  document 
licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 

1.1. Context, policy and political considerations ................................................... 1 

1.1.1. Socio-economic context and reform timing ...................................................... 1 
1.1.2. Identified needs and reform objectives ............................................................ 2 
1.1.3. Integration within a broader policy context ....................................................... 3 

1.2. EU and international obligations/conditionalities .......................................... 3 

1.3. Acceptance at institutional and societal level ............................................... 5 

1.3.1. Political support and alignment ........................................................................ 5 
1.3.2. Public reception and acceptance ..................................................................... 5 
1.3.3. Target group relevance and perception ........................................................... 5 

2.  Analysis ......................................................................................................... 6 

2.1. Governance .................................................................................................. 6 

2.1.1. Implementation responsibility and leadership .................................................. 6 
2.1.2. Geographical scope of implementation ............................................................ 6 
2.1.3. Monitoring and evaluation framework .............................................................. 7 

2.2. Administrative capacity ................................................................................ 7 

2.2.1. Human resources and administrative burden .................................................. 7 
2.2.2. Administrative capacity for implementation and monitoring ............................. 7 

2.3. Mechanisms behind the reform and links with ESF and CPR ...................... 7 

2.3.1. Mechanisms for achieving reform outcomes .................................................... 8 
2.3.2. Practical activation of reform mechanisms....................................................... 8 
2.3.3. Unexpected impacts and observations ............................................................ 8 
2.3.4. Linkages to ESF(+) and strategic objectives .................................................... 9 
2.3.5. Alignment with EU Regulations and instruments ............................................. 9 

2.4. Mechanisms leading to success and bottlenecks ........................................ 9 

2.4.1. Facilitating factors for reform implementation .................................................. 9 
2.4.2. Obstacles and mitigation measures ................................................................10 
2.4.3. Impact of EU instruments on reform outcomes ...............................................10 

3.  Conclusions ................................................................................................. 10 

3.1. Impacts of the reform.................................................................................. 10 

3.1.1. Achievement of intended outcomes ................................................................10 
3.1.2. Effectiveness in reaching targeted audience ..................................................11 
3.1.3. Sustainability of reform impacts ......................................................................11 
3.1.4. Insights for future reforms ...............................................................................11 

3.2. Lessons learnt ........................................................................................... 12 

3.2.1. Successes and shortcomings .........................................................................12 
3.2.2. Alternative approaches and missed opportunities...........................................12 
3.2.3. Opportunities for ongoing improvement ..........................................................13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations 
Abbreviation 
CPR 
EK 

ESF 
ESF+ 
EU 
ETK 
Mela 

OVE 
SAK 

STTK 

ToC 

Full expression 
Common Provisions Regulation 
Elinkeinoelämän Keskusliitto [in English: Confederation of 
Finnish Industries] 
European Social Fund  
European Social Fund Plus 
European Union 
Finnish Insititute for Pensions 
Maatalousyrittäjien eläkelaitos [in English : Farmers' Social 
Insurance Institution] 
Early old-age pension 
Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö [in English: Central 
Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions] 
Toimihenkilökeskusjärjestö 
Confederation of Professionals] 
Theory of Change 

English: 

Finnish 

[in 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

This report contains a case study for the Study supporting the Impact assessment of 
the future European Social Fund proposal. Achieving structural change: conditions 
for success in the areas of ESF intervention. The reform under assessment focuses on 
the 2015 pension reform in Finland, and includes the following measures.  

•  Gradual rise of the retirement age to 65 in the employment pension system. The age 

is linked to life expectancy. 

•  Part-time pension abolished and a partial early old-age pension introduced. 

• 

Introducing  a  years-of-service  pension  as  a  new  pension  benefit  mostly  for  blue-
collar workers. 

•  The higher pension accrual rates for older workers were abolished. 

•  Adjustments, new forms and automatic stabilizers to the earnings-related pension 

calculations. 

The  pension  reform  under  study  can  be  considered  a  significant  success.  It  effectively 
achieved its key objectives: postponing retirement, improving financial sustainability of the 
pension system, and boosting labour supply, particularly among older age groups. These 
outcomes were achieved faster and more thoroughly than anticipated. The reform also led 
to  increased  employment,  especially  among  older  workers,  and  strengthened  the 
sustainability of the pension system. Employers were generally satisfied with  the results, 
and public opposition was mild, with concerns mostly limited to blue-collar workers. While 
some  challenges  remain,  such  as  high  disability  pensions  and  issues  related  to  labour 
migration,  the  reform's  overall  impact  has  been  positive.  The  popularity  of  early  partial 
retirement  and  the  limited  use  of  the  years-of-service  pension  were  notable  outcomes. 
Despite  the  long  reform  process,  the  overall  assessment  is  that  the  reform  was  a major 
success, achieving its intended goals effectively. 

1.1. Context, policy and political considerations 

•  What was the relevant socio-economic context of the country at the time when 
the  reform  was  proposed/introduced  (the  scope  depends  on  the  Thematic 
Objective/policy area)?  

•  What needs did/does the reform seek to address?  

•  Was/Is  the  reform  part  of  a  broader  policy  package?  If  so,  what  was/is  the 

overarching objective of the policy package? 

1.1.1. Socio-economic context and reform timing 

Finland had survived the major recession in the 1990s by relying on tripartite negotiations 
and austerity policies, and the temporary rise of the ICT sector in the Millenium1. However, 
the restructuring of the industries in the early 2000s had led to permanent changes in the 
labour  market  and  the  skills  demands  were  increasing  (e.g.  due  to  digitalisation  and the 
needs  of  high-tech  companies,  and  the  processing  and  marketing  of  highly  processed 

1  Kiander  J.  (2001).  Laman  opetukset.  Suomen  1990-luvun  kriisin  syyt  ja  seuraukset.  VATT-julkaisuja  27:5.  Valtion 
taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus VATT. Helsinki. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2018042618680 

1 

 
 
 
products)2. The use of early retirement schemes was popular, and the opportunity of early 
retirement  provided  in  the  2005  pension  reform  was  rather  utilised  than  the  ‘super 
accumulation’ of earnings-related pension by postponing one’s retirement.  

In 2008, the average retirement age in Finland was 63,2 years. In comparison, In Sweden 
the  average  retirement  age  was  64,7  years.  The  employment  of  older  workers  was 
significantly  lower  in  Finland  than  in  other  Nordic  countries.  Only  15%  of  the  pension 
recipients are working alongside receiving pension which is also much less in comparison 
to other countries.3 The general timeline of the reform, based on the interviews and literature 
conducted, is presented below. 

Figure 1 Timeline of the pension reform (in force since 2017) 

Source: On the basis of interviews and Uusitalo (2014)   

1.1.2. Identified needs and reform objectives 

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, the Prime Minister of Finland (Mr Matti Vanhanen) 
introduced the idea of reforming the pension system, although the previous one was only 
introduced in 2005. While those involved (mainly the social partners) did not consider this 
as an extensive point of departure from the 2005 reform, it was evident that the abundant 
years  were  over,  and  Finland  had  started  to  reach  its  growth  limits.  Both  an  increase  in 
demand  for  labour  and  rising  unemployment  were  faced,  and  at  the  same  time  stable 
structural  unemployment  persisted.  Finland  did  not  recover  from  the  financial  crisis  as 
quickly as other European countries, and slow growth followed for almost ten years. 

As confirmed by the interviews conducted for this study, there was a consensus between 
the main stakeholders regarding the objectives of the reform, and most of the (very long) 
time spent in the reform preparation stage only regarded the details of the means, e.g. the 
conditions of pension and the coefficients involved in their calculation. It needs to be pointed 
out  that  the  reform  was  conducted  on  the  system  level  involving  only  the  main  social 
partners and encompassing next to no actual innovations or implications on the level of the 
local activities in the labour market. As such, it was more like a technical adjustment to the 

2 FNBE (2019). Osaaminen 2035. Osaamisen ennakointifoorumin ensimmäisiä ennakointituloksia. The Finnish National Board 
of Education. Raportit ja selvitykset 2019:3. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/osaaminen_2035.pdf 

3 Uusitalo H., (ed.) (2011). Työurat pidemmäksi – selvityksiä työuraryhmälle. Eläketurvakeskuksen selvityksiä  

2011:1. Helsinki: The Finnish Centre for Pensions. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33464067.pdf 

2 

 
 
 
 
existing scheme with only a new political emphasis. It was this start of a shift in paradigm 
that followed this reform that may have had the most impact in the long run. 

1.1.3. Integration within a broader policy context  

Although  the  pension  system  was  quite  separate  from  other  policy  areas,  its  reform 
represented a remarkable change in the reform history. This was due to the links formed 
between  the  reform  object  and  the  national  goals,  especially  considering  the  national 
financial situation. To put it short, the reform was not about enhancing individual working 
careers or even the functioning of the labour market, but to prevent aged people from drifting 
outside  of  the  labour  market.  This  was  rationalised  by  stating  that  the  reform  was  about 
securing the supply of the labour. After all, this was not something that even the employers 
would have regarded as the reform’s main function.4  

The  spectrum  of  the  reform’s  functions  was  wide.  The  main  themes  that  were  under 
discussion  related  to  the  economic  growth,  productivity  (and  sustainability)  of  the  public 
sector  finances,  rising  of  the  employment  rate  and  tackling  unemployment,  increasing 
purchasing  power  and  competitiveness,  supporting  working  careers,  and  ensuring  the 
sustainability of the unemployment insurance fund.5 However, the question was not how to 
achieve  these  goals  but  how  far  raising  of  the  retirement  age  by  legislation  would  take 
society in all these aspects. In other words, the objective of the reform was fixed from the 
beginning, starting from the Prime Minister’s public announcement. 

1.2. EU and international obligations/conditionalities  

•  Was/Is the introduction/implementation of the reform linked to the existence of 

EU/international obligations or conditionalities? If so, which ones? 

The  reform  was  not  directly  linked  to  any  international  obligations.  In  the  agreement 
between Finland and the EU there was an exception which kept the employment pension 
system in the hands of the Finnish state. This kept the pension system within the national 
social  security  system.6  Some  researchers  have  pointed  out  that  there  were  similarities 
between the  Finnish social  policy  developments and the targets  promoted by the  EU  (in 
terms of ‘active welfare’). Consequently, there have been questions raised regarding the 
interaction  between  national  and  international  paradigms.7  Finland  was  one  of  the  first 
nations in EU to reform their pension system extensively.8 

It is noteworthy that no references to international institutions were included in the central 
report regarding different options for the pension reform prepared by the main stakeholders.9 
This reflects the system-centredness of the renewal and the sort of ‘inward’ approach, which 
was confirmed by the interviewees also.  

In  2008  the  OECD  conducted  an  evaluation  in  some  Northern  countries  regarding  their 
disability policies. Its recommendations included the renewal of the rehabilitation system, 

4 Interview of the representative of the central employer organisation. 

5 Uusitalo H. (ed.) (2011).  Työurat pidemmäksi – selvityksiä työuraryhmälle. Eläketurvakeskuksen selvityksiä 

2011:1. Helsinki: The Finnish Centre for Pensions. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33464067.pdf 

6  Rajaniemi  E.  (2004).  Integraatio  ja  työeläkevakuutusyhtiöt.  In  Marjut  Heikkilä  (toim.)  Säädöksiä,  systematiikkaa  vai 
ihmisoikeuksia? Oikeustieteen päivät 19.-21.8.2003. Lappeenranta: Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto, 77–86. 

7 Kautto M. (2004). Sosiaaliturvalta työhön: suomalaisen hyvinvointivaltion reformi.  Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 69 (2004): 1, 17–32. 
8 Uusitalo H. (2014). Työeläkeuudistuksen tarkastelua. Janus vol. 22 (4) 2014, 381–389. 
9  PMO  (2011).  Työurat  pidemmiksi  –  työeläkejärjestelmän  kehittämisvaihtoehtojen  tarkastelua.  Työurien  pidentämistä 
selvittävän 
4/2011. 
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10616/622966/J0411_Ty%C3%B6urat+pidemmiksi.pdf 

Publications 

työryhmän 

Minister’s 

raportti. 

Office 

Prime 

the 

of 

3 

 
 
 
acknowledging disabled people in the public employment services, tackling the overuse of 
disability  pension  schemes,  and  obliging  employers  to  better  take  care  of  the  sick 
employees.10 

In 2010 the EU Commission published a green paper on pensions11 and a white paper12 in 
2012.  These  encouraged  Member  States  to  consider  reforming  sustainable  pension 
systems.  Along  with  the  increased  EU  interest,  the  national  pension  policies  the 
recommendations became more common during the 2010s.13 

Specifically  for  Finland,  the  EU  Commission  gave recommendations regarding  –  at  least 
indirectly - the reforming of the pension system during 2011 – 2015. Firstly, the Commission 
repeatedly  recommended  the  stabilisation  of  public  finances  and  a  fiscal  policy  that 
promotes  economic  growth  with  respect  to  the  medium-term  goals  of  Finland's  public 
finances.  These  recommendations  were  presented  as  part  of  the  challenges  relating  to 
aging  of  population.  Secondly,  also  structural  reforms  and  annual  assessments  were 
recommended  in  order  to  tackle  the  sustainability  gap  of  public  finances  due  to  aging. 
Thirdly,  Finland  was  repeatedly  encouraged  to  take  action  in  order  to  improve  the 
employment of older workers. Fourthly, Finland was explicitly urged to introduce the pension 
reform in 2017. Fifthly, the Commission took up the need for adapting the pension system 
with the increasing life expectancy.14 

The reform of the pension system was the common theme throughout this time and took 
large  part  of  all  recommendations  directed  at  Finland.  In  2011  and  2012  the 
recommendations regarded also the quality of working life, the well-being of the population 
and  prevention  of  exclusion,  but 
financially  oriented 
recommendations.  In  2015  the  recommendation  regarding  including  increasing  life 
expectancy  considerations  into  the  system  was  left  out,  and  the  proposed  reform  was 
suggested to be accepted.15 

they  gave  way 

to  more 

While the Finnish pension reform was in alignment with the EU recommendations16, Finland 
strengthened the connection between the public finances and the reforming of the pension 
system on their part. Some interviewees noted that “the pension system should not have 
been the business of the government at all”, and also that the trend of relying on postponing 
retirement age without increasing employment pension insurance fee aimed at increasing 
tax revenues (at the expense of the tax-payers). This reflects the more profound transition 
towards  more  politically  steered  reforms.  This  is  exemplified  by  the  latest  government 
(2023) labour market reforms which was not based on tripartite cooperation17.  

10 Uusitalo H. (ed.) (2011).  Työurat pidemmäksi – selvityksiä työuraryhmälle. Eläketurvakeskuksen selvityksiä 
2011:1. Helsinki: The Finnish Centre for Pensions. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33464067.pdf  
11  European  Commission  (2010).  Green  paper:  towards  adequate,  sustainable  and  safe  European  pension  systems. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a02f57c6-a1bd-48d5-84b4-4032ee2635ec  

12 European Commission (2012). White paper: an agenda for adequate, safe and sustainable pensions. COM(2012) 55 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0055:FIN:EN:PDF  

13 Bomberg 2012, 119. 

14 Vehkoja P. (2017). Vuoden 2017 eläkeuudistus EU:n eläkejärjestelmiä koskevassa ohjeistuksessa. Master’s Thesis, June 
2017,  University  of  Helsinki.  52–53.  https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/6fad7c78-e9d5-4f92-a8d7-
f347bfb6873d/content.  Accessed 23.7.2024. 
15Ibid. 

16 Ibid. 
17 The government of 2023 introduced heavy, one-sided austerity policies and launched the next pension reform with the sole 
aim of supporting the public finances, and based by the early  government initiative. YLE (2023). Työmarkkinoilla voi kohta 
rytistä, jos hallitus saa tahtonsa läpi: tästä on kyse. 22.8.2023. https://yle.fi/a/74-20045667. Accessed 7.11.2024. 

4 

 
 
 
1.3. Acceptance at institutional and societal level 

•  Was/is the reform met with favour from all major political parties in the country? 

Or did it reflect the political programme of a single political party? 

•  Was/is the reform well received by the citizens in the country? 

•  Was/is the reform deemed relevant by the citizens it intends to target? 

1.3.1. Political support and alignment 

In the initial stages of the reform, in the early 2010s, there were discrepancies between 
the different parties within the government. The Social Democratic Party, in particular, 
resisted  the  reform  in  its  early  stage  but  eventually  let  the  social  partners  take  care  of 
formulating its solutions and details.18  

However, it was emphasized by several interviewees that, after the initial discrepancies, a 
broad political consensus was achieved regarding the objectives of the reform, and that 
the politicians were satisfied with labour market organisations taking the details into their 
own  hands.  Their  proposal  was  accepted  by  the  government  and  the  Parliament  also 
validated it in 2015. In this way, major political confrontations were avoided. 

1.3.2. Public reception and acceptance 

The citizens’ views have been studied by the Finnish Centre for Pensions19. According to 
the results, the awareness regarding the pension system increased after the reform. 
In  the  interviews,  it  was  noted  that  there  were  no  major  public  objections  to  the  reform, 
which  was  most  likely  due  to  the  major  role  of  the  labour  market  parties  and  related 
traditions.  During  that  time,  such  social  dialogue  was  still  relied  on.  This  reliance  on 
tripartite social dialogue largely explains why the citizens and pensioners trusted that the 
reform  is  relevant  and  necessary.  The  citizens  as  well  as  the  media  have  been  overall 
unanimous regarding the need of the different pension system reforms. 

1.3.3. Target group relevance and perception  

There  are  also  some  studies20  regarding  the  employers’  viewpoint.  According  to  these 
studies, along the rising of the pension age the employers have become more positive 
towards the potential of older workers. However, in 2021 around a third of the employers 
did not really consider extending working careers as an important objective.21 

18  Verkkouutiset  (2014).  Jutta  Urpilainen  vaalilupauksesta:  Tiukka  eläkelinjaus  ei  ole  kaduttanut.  26.06.20214. 
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/jutta-urpilainen-vaalilupauksesta-tiukka-elakelinjaus-ei-ole-kaduttanut-22615/#a125ab03. 
Accessed 23.7.2024. 
19 Tenhunen, S. et al. (2020) Miten hyvin eläkeasiat ja vuoden 2017 eläkeuudistus tunnetaan? Kyselytutkimus eläketurvaan 
liittyvistä 
4/2020. 
https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/140679/miten-hyvin-elakeasiat-ja-vuoden-2017-elakeuudistus-
tunnetaan.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y  

näkemyksistä. 

Publications 

Pensions 

Finnish 

Centre 

The 

for 

20  Järnefelt  N.,  Riekhoff  A-J.,  Laaksonen  M  &  Liukko  J.  (2022a).  Työnantajien  näkemyksiä  eläkeiästä  ja  työurien 
pidentämisestä.  Työnantajatutkimuste  tuloksia  vuosilta  2004,  2011  ja  2021.  Eläketurvakeskuksen  tutkimuksia  01/2022. 
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-691-344-8  
Järnefelt  N.,  Riekhoff  A-J.,  Laaksonen  M  &  Liukko  J.  (2022b).  Työnantajien  mielikuvat  yli  55-vuotiaista  työntekijöistä,  tuki 
työurien  jatkumiselle  ja  esteet  palkkaamiselle.  Eläketurvakeskuksen  tutkimuksia  5/2022.  https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-
691-350-9  
21 Ibid. 

5 

 
 
 
2. Analysis 

2.1. Governance 

•  Who was/is the entity responsible for the implementation of the reform? 

•  Was/is the reform implemented at national, regional, or local level?  

•  Was/is  the  reform  regularly  monitored/evaluated?  If  so,  who  was/is  the 

responsible entity? 

2.1.1. Implementation responsibility and leadership 

The implementation of the reform was the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Affairs 
and  Health.  It  only  impacted  the  calculation  of  pensions  and  related  rights  and  did  not 
require establishing of new administrative organs or similar. Adequate institutions were in 
place and capable of completing this task without any noticeable problems.  

2.1.2. Geographical scope of implementation 

The  implementation  of  the  Finnish  pension  reform  by  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and 
Health  at  the  national  level  reflects  the  country’s  centralised  governance  structure, 
particularly in social welfare. Finland operates a welfare state model in which the central 
government plays the primary role in designing and implementing social security systems, 
including pensions. This approach ensures uniformity in the benefits provided across the 
country,  as  pension  systems  are  governed  by  comprehensive  national  legislation  which 
establishes a unified framework and leaves little room for regional or local variation22. 

While regional and local governments in Finland have significant responsibilities in areas 
like education, healthcare, and municipal services, pensions fall firmly under the remit 
of  the  central  government.  This  structure  avoids  fragmentation  and  ensures  that  the 
system operates with consistency and equity nationwide23. The administration of pensions 
through  a  mix  of  public  and  private  providers,  coordinated  at  the  national  level,  also 
promotes institutional efficiency by reducing administrative complexity and duplication24.  

The centralised implementation of the pension reform aligns with Finland’s commitment to 
fairness and equity, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their location, benefit from the 
same standards and policies. This centralised approach, given the country’s relatively small 
population and geographical size, is both practical and effective in maintaining the integrity 
of the social welfare system25. 

22  OECD  (2021).  Pensions  at  a  Glance  2021:  OECD  and  G20  Indicators.  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org  

Ministry  of  Social Affairs  and  Health  (2023).  Overview  of  Social Security  in  Finland.  Ministry  of Social  Affairs  and  Health, 
Finland. Available at: https://stm.fi/en  

23 European Social Policy Network (2020). The Welfare State in Finland: Structure and Challenges. European Commission, 
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu  

24 Finnish Centre for Pensions (2022).  The Finnish Pension System: Structure and Reforms. Finnish Centre for Pensions. 
Available at: https://www.etk.fi  

25  OECD  (2021).  Pensions  at  a  Glance  2021:  OECD  and  G20  Indicators.  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org  

Eurostat (2023): Population and Demographics in Finland. Eurostat. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

6 

 
 
 
2.1.3. Monitoring and evaluation framework  

The evaluation study of the pension reform will be conducted in 2025, and the planning of 
the new reform is already underway. The legal obligation to monitor and evaluate the reform 
was given to the Finnish Centre for Pensions. It has produced reports which are published 
on  their  website26.  Also,  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Health  was  given  the 
responsibility  to  conduct  a  study  on  the  development  of  the  working  careers  and  the 
sustainability of the pension system in 2026. 

2.2. Administrative capacity  

•  What  did/does  the  implementation  of  the  reform  entail  in  terms  of  human 
resources needed for its implementation, and in terms of administrative burden? 

•  Did/do  the  responsible  entities  (at  national/regional/local  level)  have  sufficient 
administrative capacity to successfully implement and monitor the reform? If not, 
why? 

2.2.1. Human resources and administrative burden  

The reform was based on new legislation, and the roles of the authorities in following the 
law  were  clear.  Although  the  institutional  organisation  of  the  pension  system  was 
fragmented, all main institutions27 had been involved in the preparation of the reform details 
and  therefore  well  equipped.  The  Financial  Supervisory  Authority  supervised  the 
implementation of the new legislation as part of its responsibilities.  

2.2.2. Administrative capacity for implementation and monitoring  

The administrative capacity was not an issue in this reform. The interviewees mentioned 
that  some  changes  to  the  ICT  systems  were  naturally  required  as  well  as  some 
corresponding resources. 

2.3. Mechanisms behind the reform and links with ESF and 

CPR 

•  What  were/are  the  mechanisms  that  the  reform  envisaged/s  to  trigger,  to 

achieve its outcomes?  

•  Have these mechanisms been triggered in practice? If so, how? If not, why?  

•  Were there any unexpected impacts of the reform? If so, which ones? On whom 

and/or in what context were they observed? 

•  Was/is the reform directly or indirectly linked to the ESF(+) and its objectives? If 

so, how?  

26 https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-tietoa-elaketurvasta/ 

27  The  main  public  and  private  sector  employer  and  employee  organisations  as  well  as  many  NGOs  and  implementing 
agencies: National Pension Institute (Kela), Local Government Pensions Institution (Keva), The Farmers' Social Insurance 
Institution (Mela), Seafarers’ Pension Fund, The Finnish Institute for Pensions (ETK), Patient Insurance Center, health care 
districts  and  Patient  Injury  Board,  State  Railways  (VR)  and  Business  department  of  the  city  of  Helsinki  (based  on  the 
information provided by the representative of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health). 

7 

 
 
 
•  Was/is the need to implement the reform linked to the CPR regulation, or any 

other EU instrument? 

2.3.1. Mechanisms for achieving reform outcomes 

The  objectives  of  the  reform  were  to  encourage  people  to  have  longer  working  careers, 
guarantee the sustainability of the pensions’ funding and take into account the sustainability 
gap of the public finances. These were achieved for the most part due to the comprehensive 
nature of the national reform which decreased options for early retirement.  

2.3.2. Practical activation of reform mechanisms 

The expected retirement  for  25-year-olds rose from  61,1 in  2016 to the  intended  62,4 in 
2021, which was even sooner than expected and considered as a major achievement by 
different stakeholders. The expected retirement dropped somewhat in 2022 but rose to 62,8 
years  in  2023.28   This  outcome  was  based  on  the  rising  of  the  lowest  pension  age  and 
connecting it to one’s birthyear, so that those born before 1962 have a lower retirement age 
and  for  those  born  later,  it  will  depend  on  the  current  life  expectancy  coefficient.  The 
disability pension age also rose, and the pension level decreased. The part-time pension 
was abolished and it was replaced by partial early old-age pension (OVE), which includes 
some  freedom  of  choice.  It  provides  the  opportunity  to  combine  working  and  a  partial 
pension. It may be applied at the earliest at the age of 61 or later, and one may choose 
whether to take 25 or 50% of the accumulated pension. In addition, the so called increase 
for  late retirement  made  full  pension  level  available  only  two  years  later  than  the  lowest 
possible retirement age, which aimed at encouraging later retiring.29  

The interviewees held that the clear and quantifiable objectives of the reform helped to 
design the necessary changes, and these changes are constantly monitored by the Finnish 
Centre for Pensions. The minimum rise in average retirement age was set already in 2009, 
and it was eventually achieved four years after the reform in 2021.  

2.3.3. Unexpected impacts and observations 

The employment rate of those aged 60 – 64 years rose over 20% between 2017 and 2023, 
while  the  general  employment  rate  rose  only  about  4%.  Some  62%  of  those  who  were 
forced to postpone their retirement due to the reform, were employed.30  This must have 
been due to an alteration of different pension schemes which both forced and encouraged 
people to extend their working careers. The share of part-time work explains much of the 
employment rate, but on the other hand, this also shows that there has been a demand for 
labour which the older age group has been able to respond to even better than expected. 
On the other hand, also the amount of unemployed and disability pensioners increased after 
the reform.31 

In addition to surpassing its intended outcomes, another unexpected consequence was the 
popularity of Partial Early Retirement Pension (OVE). One in five individuals who reached 
the eligibility age took up this pension in 2022. One factor behind this was the exceptionally 
high  index  adjustment  in  earnings-related  pensions  in  2022  compared  to  the  adjustment 
after  that.  The  OVE  scheme  made  also  possible  to  cover  income  losses  due  to 

28 ETK (2024a). Eläkkeellesiirtymisikä työeläkejärjestelmässä. The Finnich Centre for Pensions.  https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-
tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. Accessed 13.7.2024.   

29 ETK (2024b). Eläkeuudistusten 2017 ja 2005 vaikutuksia. https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-
tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. Accessed 13.7.2024.  
30 Ibid. 

31 Ibid. 

8 

 
 
 
unemployment in the late career stage by taking it up in advance. In addition, the years-of-
service pension for blue-collar workers turned extremely unpopular. The matter is of small 
significance in the overall system and was not considered a failure in the reform design. 

2.3.4. Linkages to ESF(+) and strategic objectives 

While the measures under study were not funded by the ESF or other EU funds, they were 
largely aligned with the ESF and the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) provisions to 
protect older workers and promote their participation in the labour market. 

2.3.5. Alignment with EU Regulations and instruments 

As  the  pension  reform  was  a  national  initiative,  it  was  also  not  linked  to  any  other  EU 
instrument. 

2.4. Mechanisms leading to success and bottlenecks 

•  Were/are  there  any  factors  that  facilitated  the  implementation  of  the  reform  and 

positively impacted on its outcomes? If so, which ones?  

•  Were/are there any obstacles that hindered the implementation of the reform and 
negatively  impacted  on  its  outcomes?  If  so,  which  ones?  How  (if  at  all)  were  the 
obstacles resolved?  

•  Did/do any EU instruments impact (positively or negatively) on the implementation 

and outcomes of the reform? If so, which ones? How? 

2.4.1. Facilitating factors for reform implementation 

The deep involvement of the social partners was crucial to the success of the reform, 
as emphasized by all interviewees. The cooperation with the government was an important 
facilitator, but it also had its difficulties. It should be noted, however, that the employment 
pension system was originally (in the 1960s) developed by the central social partners and 
its developing was something that they were used to do. Against this background, giving 
the task for the social partners was not a major innovation. 

The single most important facilitator in the process was the provision of exact and reliable 
quantitative  data  regarding  the  different  pension  scenarios.  The  Finnish  Centre  for 
Pension provided high level academic information in this field, and it was emphasized by 
the  interviewees  that  it  was  probably  a  Finnish  peculiarity  that  this  information  was  not 
questioned, which facilitated the search of solutions. The mentioned expert institution was 
very much present during the years of negotiations, which served as a counterweight for 
the interested parties in the process. 

The interviewees identified some important factors involved in the smooth progression of 
the reform from the citizen perspective. First, the citizens were used to being excluded from 
such  system-level  decision-making  processes.  No  one  really  experienced  any  need  of 
stronger involvement of the people. Second, the rights of the (future) pensioners were taken 
care of by the labour unions, at least to a certain degree, even though they would not be 
their members at that point anymore. Third, the  media set to favour the pension reform, 
which gradually helped shape the general attitudes. Fourth, there was much information 
provided  for  the  citizens,  workplaces  and  e.g.  for  the  union  representatives  at  the 
workplaces. The Finnish Centre for Pensions had an important role in this regard. Fifth, the 
youth organisations started to support the reform, too. 

9 

 
 
2.4.2. Obstacles and mitigation measures  

The main insufficiencies of the reform related to the wrong estimation regarding declining 
birth rate and low level of economic migration. These will be taken into account in the new 
pension  reform  under  preparation.  The  interviewees  assessed  that  this  was  not  a 
shortcoming of the 2017 reform but an unforeseen change in circumstances. 

2.4.3. Impact of EU instruments on reform outcomes 

As  previously  discussed,  the  reform  was  primarily  a  national  endeavour,  and  it  was  not 
linked to any EU instruments. Nevertheless, EU CSRs may have had some impact on the 
decision-making process leading up to the reform of the pension system. This was mainly 
because there was political controversy and hesitation along the reform process, and the 
Commission  urged  Finland’s  Parliament  to  approve the  government’s  proposition  for  the 
reform in 2015. 
3. Conclusions 

3.1. Impacts of the reform 

•  Did the reform successfully achieve all of its intended outcomes? If not, why?  

•  Did the reform successfully reach its targeted audience? If not, or if only partially, 

why?  

•  Were/are the impacts achieved sustainable in the long-term? 

•  How can the design and implementation of this reform provide insights for future 

reforms? 

3.1.1. Achievement of intended outcomes 

The main objectives of the reform, as discussed, were to postpone retirement in large scale 
to reduce the pressure to increase employment pension insurance fees, to strengthen the 
financial sustainability of the pension system and to increase supply of labour. This would 
have  also  helped  the  public  finances  due  to  increases  in  tax  revenue  as  a  result  of  the 
pension reform.  

The reform achieved its intended outcomes even better and faster than expected in terms 
of postponing the expected retirement age and by increasing the employment significantly, 
especially in the oldest age groups. The change seems to be more sustainable in these age 
groups  compared  to  other  age  groups.  The  sustainability  of  the  pension  system  was 
strengthened and also the employers were satisfied with the results. On the individual level, 
the  lowest  employment-related  retirement  age  has  risen  from  3  months  to  over  2  years 
gradually  depending  on  the  birth  year.  The  general  public’s  criticism  has  been  relatively 
mild, with the exception of the blue-collar workers, who were afraid that the pension age 
would  increase  significantly.  Informing  the  public  and  the  slow  reform  process  helped 
dealing with these fears. 

Overall,  it  was  assessed  by  the  interviewees  that  the  reform  was  a  major  success 
considering the Finnish circumstances as a country with rapidly aging population and lower 
retirement  age  and  employment  rate  in  the  older  cohorts  compared  to  other  Nordic 
countries.  Different  alternatives  were  thoroughly  discussed,  but  it  was  clear  from  the 
beginning that this was a reform that could be done and needed to be done, and the only 
question regarded the process and the details. The role of the expert institution in the whole 

10 

 
 
process was something that everyone agreed was of vital importance and will be also in the 
future. 

There  are  still  problems  that  the  reform  has  not  solved,  but  they  are  not  fixable  by  the 
pension  system  alone.  The  number  of  disability  pensions  is  still  high,  and  they  have 
increased in younger age groups also. Some impacts remain still to be seen, since there is 
annual  fluctuation  in  the  large  scale  of  retiring.  Some  interviewees  regarded  the  labour 
migration to be an important factor in the future to improve Finland’s dependency ratio. 

Maybe the only surprise related to the high popularity of the early partial retirement. It has 
been used also by unemployed aged people to compensate for the loss of income before 
retirement.  The  years-of-service  pension  for  mostly  blue-collar  workers  did  not  become 
commonly used scheme, as it will be abolished in the future probably. 

To summarise, although the main evaluation is forthcoming in 2025, there is no doubt that 
this reform was very successful and reached all its intended outcomes. The partial old-age 
pension became popular alongside full employment. The only ‘minus’ was the long reform 
process, which is reconsidered in the last section of this study.  

3.1.2. Effectiveness in reaching targeted audience 

The  reform  largely  succeeded  in  reaching  its  targeted  audience  by  achieving  its  primary 
objectives,  including  postponing  the  retirement  age,  strengthening  the  pension  system’s 
financial sustainability, and increasing employment, particularly among older age groups. 
The  gradual  implementation  and  effective  communication  strategy  were  pivotal  in 
addressing  public  concerns,  including  the  fears  of  blue-collar  workers.  However,  certain 
issues  persist.  The  reform  did  not  fully  address  the  high  number  of  disability  pensions, 
particularly  among  younger  age  groups,  and  the  years-of-service  pension  scheme  was 
underutilized. Moreover, while the reform adapted well to changing circumstances, such as 
a declining birthrate and low labour migration, these emerging challenges highlight areas 
for future focus. Overall, despite these limitations, the reform was considered a significant 
success under Finland’s demographic and economic conditions. 

3.1.3. Sustainability of reform impacts  

The sustainability of the reform seems actually good, but the need for the next reform is 
already acknowledged. This relates to the surprising decrease of the birthrate recorded in 
the  country  since  2017,  and  also  the  relatively  low  inflow  of  migrant  workers.  However, 
according to the interviewees, this was not due to some failure in the previous reform, but 
only  about  changing  circumstances.  Many  reminded  that  the  pension  system  has  been 
reformed once every 10 years and this seems to be the expected trend for the future, too. 

3.1.4. Insights for future reforms 

Specific insights from the design and implementation of this reform that can inform future 
reforms  include  1)  gradual  implementation:  the  reform’s  gradual  approach,  which 
incrementally  increased  the  retirement  age  based  on  birth  year,  helped  ease  public 
concerns and allowed individuals to adjust; 2) effective communication: transparent and 
consistent communication with the public was crucial in addressing fears, especially among 
blue-collar workers; hence, future reforms should prioritize clear, ongoing communication 
to build trust and manage expectations; 3) stakeholder involvement: engaging employers 
and other stakeholders early in the process ensured their support and satisfaction with the 
outcomes;  hence,  future  reforms  should  involve  key  stakeholders  from  the  beginning  to 
gather diverse perspectives and foster collaboration; 4) expert guidance: future reforms 
should  also  leverage  expert  advice  and  research  to  design  evidence-based  policies  and 
anticipate potential challenges; 5) flexibility and adaptation: the reform’s ability to adapt 
to changing  circumstances,  such  as the  unexpected  decline  in birthrate and low  migrant 

11 

 
 
worker inflow, highlights the importance of flexibility; hence, future reforms should include 
mechanisms to adjust policies in response to demographic and economic shifts; 6) public 
acceptance:  the  relatively  mild  public  criticism  indicates  the  importance  of  public 
acceptance.  Future  reforms  should  aim  to  achieve  broad  public  support  by  addressing 
concerns and highlighting benefits. 

3.2. Lessons learnt 

•  What worked well? What did not? Why? 

•  What could have been done differently? How? 

•  What  can  still  be  done  to  improve  the  reform?  How  can  the  reform  be  still 

improved? 

3.2.1. Successes and shortcomings 

The main lesson gathered from the design and implementation of this reform, was that while 
the employment pension system was based on the agreement between the main employer 
and employee organisations, the required specific changes in the principles and regulations 
of  the  system  were  also  best  left  to  them  to  decide,  within  existing  tradition  of  social 
dialogue.  This  guaranteed  that  such  a  difficult  reform  was  able  to  succeed,  and  it  was 
received relatively well among most social partners and even the society as a whole. This 
was agreed on by all interviewees. 

3.2.2. Alternative approaches and missed opportunities  

The implementation of the reform brought with it a few lessons, that could be relevant for 
the new pension reform under preparation. These are outlined below.  

•  Earlier and clearer political involvement: The reform process was prolonged due 
to the initial involvement of the Prime Minister, which stirred opposition, especially 
among blue-collar unions. A more strategic and less direct approach by politicians 
could have streamlined the process. Politicians could have facilitated the dialogue 
without  being  the  face  of  the  reform,  reducing  resistance  and  speeding  up  the 
process. 

•  Enhanced  stakeholder  coordination:  The  deep 

involvement  of  multiple 
stakeholders  extended  the  reform’s  timeline.  A  more  coordinated  approach  with 
clear  timelines  and  milestones  could  have  expedited  the  process.  Establishing  a 
dedicated task force to manage stakeholder input and streamline decision-making 
might have been beneficial. 

•  Clearer communication on automatic stabilizers: The introduction of automatic 
stabilizers  made  the  system  less  clear  to  some  stakeholders.  Providing  more 
detailed  explanations  and  educational  resources  about  these  mechanisms  could 
have improved understanding and acceptance. 

•  Proactive addressing of public concerns: The reform faced some criticism from 
blue-collar  workers.  Proactively  addressing  their  concerns  through  targeted 
communication  and  engagement  strategies  could  have  mitigated  opposition  and 
built broader support. 

12 

 
 
3.2.3. Opportunities for ongoing improvement 

There will be soon the next pension reform, which may lead to more controversy without 
taking into account the points mentioned above. Overall it would be beneficial to engage 
public more strongly to maintain public trust and support. This may be difficult due to the 
overall deterioration of public finances and austerity policies. It would also be beneficial to 
address wider spectrum of issues relating to extending working careers like by focusing e.g. 
on reducing the number of disability pensions, particularly among younger age groups. This 
could  involve  targeted  health  and  wellness  programs,  workplace  accommodations,  and 
early intervention strategies. Encouraging and increasing of labour migration counteracts 
the pressure on the pension system by improving the dependency ratio. It also seems that 
the  tripartite  social  dialogue  requires  revitalizing.  This  collaborative  approach  can  help 
address future challenges effectively. 

13 

 
 
 
 
References 
ETK  (2024a).  Eläkkeellesiirtymisikä  työeläkejärjestelmässä.  The  Finnish  Centre  for 
  https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-
Accessed 

Pensions. 
tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. 
13.7.2024.   

ETK  (2024a).  Eläkkeellesiirtymisikä  työeläkejärjestelmässä.  The  Finnish  Centre  for 
  https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-
Accessed 

Pensions. 
tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. 
13.7.2024.   

ETK  (2024b).  Eläkeuudistusten  2017  ja  2005  vaikutuksia.  https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-
tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-
2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. Accessed 13.7.2024.  

ETK  (2024b).  Eläkeuudistusten  2017  ja  2005  vaikutuksia.  https://www.etk.fi/tutkimus-
tilastot-ja-ennusteet/tutkimus/tutkittua-tietoa-elaketurvasta/elakeuudistusten-
2017-ja-2005-vaikutuksia/. Accessed 13.7.2024.  

European  Commission  (2010).  Green  paper:  towards  adequate,  sustainable  and  safe 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

European 
/publication/a02f57c6-a1bd-48d5-84b4-4032ee2635ec    

systems. 

pension 

  European Commission (2012). White paper: an agenda for adequate, safe and sustainable 
https://eur-

pensions. 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0055:FIN:EN:PDF  

COM(2012) 

final. 

55 

European  Social  Policy  Network  (2020).  The  Welfare  State  in  Finland:  Structure  and 
Challenges.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social 
Affairs and Inclusion. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu 

Eurostat  (2023).  Population  and  Demographics  in  Finland.  Eurostat.  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat  

Finnish Centre for Pensions (2022). The Finnish Pension System: Structure and Reforms. 

Finnish Centre for Pensions. Available at: https://www.etk.fi  

FNBE 

(2019).  Osaaminen  2035.  Osaamisen  ennakointifoorumin  ensimmäisiä 
ennakointituloksia.  The  Finnish  National  Board  of  Education.  Raportit  ja  selvitykset 
2019:3. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/osaaminen_2035.pdf  

FNBE 

(2019).  Osaaminen  2035.  Osaamisen  ennakointifoorumin  ensimmäisiä 
ennakointituloksia.  The  Finnish  National  Board  of  Education.  Raportit  ja  selvitykset 
2019:3. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/osaaminen_2035.pdf  

Helsinki: 

The 

Finnish 

Centre 

for 

Pensions. 

2011:1. 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33464067.pdf  

Helsinki: 

The 

Finnish 

Centre 

for 

Pensions. 

2011:1.https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33464067.pdf  

Järnefelt N., Riekhoff A-J., Laaksonen M. & Liukko J. (2022a). Työnantajien näkemyksiä 
eläkeiästä  ja  työurien  pidentämisestä.  Työnantajatutkimuste  tuloksia  vuosilta  2004, 
2011 
01/2022. 
Eläketurvakeskuksen 
2021. 
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-691-344-8  

tutkimuksia 

ja 

Järnefelt N., Riekhoff A-J., Laaksonen M. & Liukko J. (2022b). Työnantajien mielikuvat yli 
55-vuotiaista  työntekijöistä,  tuki  työurien  jatkumiselle  ja  esteet  palkkaamiselle. 

14 

 
 
Eläketurvakeskuksen tutkimuksia 5/2022. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-691-350-
9  

Kautto  M.  (2004).  Sosiaaliturvalta 

työhön:  suomalaisen  hyvinvointivaltion  reformi.  

Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 69 (2004): 1, 17–32. 

Kiander J. (2001). Laman opetukset. Suomen 1990-luvun kriisin syyt ja seuraukset. VATT-
tutkimuskeskus  VATT.  Helsinki. 

taloudellinen 

julkaisuja 
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2018042618680  

27:5.  Valtion 

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2023). Overview of Social Security in Finland. Ministry 

of Social Affairs and Health, Finland. Available at: https://stm.fi/en 

 OECD  (2021).  Pensions  at  a  Glance  2021:  OECD  and G20 Indicators. Organisation  for 

Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org 

PMO 

(2011).  Työurat  pidemmiksi  – 

työeläkejärjestelmän  kehittämisvaihtoehtojen 
tarkastelua. Työurien pidentämistä selvittävän työryhmän raportti. Publications of the 
4/2011. 
Prime 
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10616/622966/J0411_Ty%C3%B6urat+pidem
miksi.pdf  

Minister’s 

Office 

Rajaniemi  E.  (2004).  Integraatio  ja  työeläkevakuutusyhtiöt.  In  Marjut  Heikkilä  (toim.) 
Säädöksiä,  systematiikkaa  vai  ihmisoikeuksia?  Oikeustieteen  päivät  19.-21.8.2003. 
Lappeenranta: Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto, 77–86. 

Tela 

(2024). 

Työeläkejärjestelmän 

https://www.tela.fi/tyoelakejarjestelma/jarjestelman-historia/. 
30.7.2024. 

historia. 
Accessed 

Tenhunen, S. et al. (2020) Miten hyvin eläkeasiat ja vuoden 2017 eläkeuudistus tunnetaan? 
Kyselytutkimus eläketurvaan liittyvistä näkemyksistä. The Finnish Centre for Pensions 
Publications 4/2020. https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/140679/miten-
hyvin-elakeasiat-ja-vuoden-2017-elakeuudistus-
tunnetaan.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y 

Uusitalo H. (2014). Työeläkeuudistuksen tarkastelua. Janus vol. 22 (4) 2014, 381–389. 

Uusitalo  H. 

(ed.) 

(2011). 

  Työurat  pidemmäksi  –  selvityksiä 

työuraryhmälle. 

Eläketurvakeskuksen selvityksiä 

Vehkoja  P.  (2017).  Vuoden  2017  eläkeuudistus  EU:n  eläkejärjestelmiä  koskevassa 
of  Helsinki. 

ohjeistuksessa.  Master’s  Thesis, 
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/6fad7c78-e9d5-4f92-a8d7-
f347bfb6873d/content. Accessed 23.7.2024. 

2017,  University 

June 

Verkkouutiset  (2014).  Jutta  Urpilainen  vaalilupauksesta:  Tiukka  eläkelinjaus  ei  ole 
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/jutta-urpilainen-

kaduttanut. 
vaalilupauksesta-tiukka-elakelinjaus-ei-ole-kaduttanut-22615/#a125ab03. 
Accessed 23.7.2024. 

26.06.20214. 

15 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1 Interviewees 
No.  Type 
1. 

Role 
Negotiator 

/ 

2. 

3. 

Policy  maker 
social partner 
Policy  maker 
social partner 
Policy  maker 
social  partner 
Insurance 
institution 

Negotiator 

Negotiator 

/ 

/ 
/ 

4.  Government official  Special 

5. 

Evaluator 
/ 
research institution 

6.  NGO 

7.  NGO 

expert 
involved  in  the  new 
pension reform 
Production 
independent data 
Consultative 

of 

Consultative 

Organisation 
The  Finnish  Confederation  of 
Professionals (STTK) 
The  Confederation  of  Finnish 
Industries (EK) 
The  Central  Organisation  of 
Finnish  Trade  Unions  (SAK  and 
Akava) 

Date 
26.6.2024 

28.6.2024 

27.6.2024 

The Ministry of Social Affairs and 
Health 

24.6.2024 

The Finnish Centre for Pensions 

11.6.2024 

Finnish 

The 
Federation 
Youth Organisation Allianssi 

Pensioners 

26.7.2024 

26.7.2024 

16 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
E
-
0
1
-
2
5
-
0
0
3
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN 978-92-68-23879-0