Would Finland’s Recipe for Gender Equality Work in Other Countries?
By: Nour Attalla
Tags: Politics, Society, Feminism, Inequality, Change

The slogans used in a gender equality protest in the US (Source: Getty Images)

In 2020, the World Economic Forum ranked Finland as the third most gender equal country in the world. Still, Finland has the fourth largest gender pay gap of any developed country, much higher than for example the US or the Czech Republic, which are ranked 53rd and 78th respectively for gender equality.

For many feminists, reducing income inequality between genders is seen as a key factor in empowering women. In the US, A Pew Research Center survey showed that the public considers the gender wage gap the most important factor in gendered differences in quality of life. This surprisingly contrasts with Finland, a much more gender equal country, where the gender wage gap is considered a significantly less important factor in female empowerment.

This raises questions about why these two countries have such different views on gender equality, and if the pay gap really is that important.

A key difference in how the economies of Finland and the US are organized may help explain why people in these countries hold such different views on gender equality.

Whilst both Finland and the US have market economies, the mentality of the people in these countries are very dissimilar when it comes to economic matters. American society holds money, and the ability to obtain it, in very high esteem. Because of these values, higher-income individuals are considered to be more ‘successful’. This is reflected in the country’s culture as well, as the long-standing goal of the lower and middle classes is the so-called “American Dream”. This is an individualistic goal that focuses on a person creating wealth for themselves and rising through the ranks of society. High net worth individuals such as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are considered ideal success stories, not in virtue of their contributions to humanity, but due to their ability to create wealth for themselves. What this mentality also implies is that poorer people are ‘losers’ because of their failure to create wealth for themselves.

Finland on the other hand holds very different economic values, which support its social-democratic system of government. Social security is a constitutional right, and the state has to provide subsistence to anyone who for whatever reason cannot do so themselves. Because of this, a person’s income or wealth is much less important in determining their quality of life and position in society. Whilst these differences in mentality are quite subtle in everyday interactions, they have massive consequences for how these two countries’ social and economic policies are shaped.

“Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care.” - 1999 Finnish Constitution, Section 19

To illustrate, the US is the only developed country in the world without any paid parental leave. The Boston College Center for Work & Family says that although public opinion is shifting, the reason why the US is lagging behind in this respect is because the idea that one should be ‘rewarded’ for choosing not to work clashes with the idea that one is responsible for creating their own success.

Finland has taken a totally different approach to parental leave. Unlike the US, the Nordic country has 140 days of paid leave for each parent after a child is born, which helps guarantee equality of employment for men and women. This is important, as a 2019 study by the Economist showed that without equal parental leave there is a large “motherhood penalty”, meaning that after childbirth women’s employment rate and income decrease compared to men. Data from Switzerland shows that when parental leave was introduced in the country, the motherhood penalty decreased significantly. Other policies, such as practically free childcare in Finland allow women to return to work sooner as well. This also contributes to the fact that Finland has a childhood poverty rate of 5%, compared to 25% in the US, which does not have free childcare. Not only can these policies improve women’s ability to maintain a career after having children, but they also increase economic efficiency by allowing capable professionals to continue working after having children.

Whilst differences in parental leave between the two countries directly impacts gender equality, there are also many indirect ways in which the countries’ different economic values affect women’s quality of life.

Across both the US and Finland, polls show that on aggregate women have higher preference for occupations such as nursing, teaching, etc. that are often less financially rewarding than male-dominated fields such as engineering and finance.

In the US, this preference for lower-paying jobs means that women often have a lower quality of life because of their job “choice”. The US is the developed country with the highest healthcare and university education costs, meaning that poverty significantly affects people’s lifestyles and career opportunities. Studies have shown that American people with lower incomes are less likely to obtain quality education and are also more likely to have health problems linked to low income. An International Sociological Association study has shown that in Finland poverty has a smaller impact on health compared to other developed countries. This is important because it means that a lower average income doesn’t mean that women have to have a lower quality of life

This can largely be attributed to Finland’s strong social security system. The country has free public education and universal healthcare. Equal access to education is actually a constitutional right in the country, and the Finnish education system is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world. Different societal values mean that in the US, there is less support for universal healthcare and education, since they are often seen as an individual’s responsibility.

The difference in economic values and consequently policies clearly explains why the gender wage gap is considered so important in the US. As one’s income and wealth are directly linked to quality of life, it is natural that feminists would try to promote increased income equality.

At the same time, the case of Finland gives a totally different solution: income inequality does not have to be a major problem when success in a society is not defined by a person’s income.

This puts the goals of the feminist movement into perspective, as reducing the gender wage gap doesn’t break down the systematic indifference towards poverty in the US, but rather ensures that they are not affected by this poverty themselves.

A 2018 survey in the US showed that many people believed that the feminist movement has improved the quality of life for women. Still, whilst 26% of respondents said that the feminist movement has done “a lot” for white women, only 13% believed that the movement made significant improvements for women of color, and even less so for poor women.

By ignoring the fact that gender is not the only determinant of inequality, the feminist movement overlooks many possible solutions that could benefit a much larger part of the population. The US economic system causes deprivation to most poor people. By working to change the mentality that is the foundation to this system, the way poor people are treated in the country can be fundamentally changed. This wouldn’t only be a victory for the feminist cause, but also for all other groups that have been made to feel like second-class citizens because of their lower incomes.

This is an important consideration for the feminist movement, because it questions how effective the movement can really be in empowering people if it doesn’t work to change the system’s underlying values. A prominent 20th century feminist, Audre Lorde, aptly said that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”: In order for genuine change to be brought about, there needs to be a change in the way society views income and treats those that are less well off.