Finland: the limits of the unitary decentralized model
Finland: the limits of the unitary decentralized model
复制标题
芬兰：单一分散模式的局限性
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199562978.003.0011
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Stefan Sjöblom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stefan Sjöblom
芬兰作为瑞典的一部分存在了七个多世纪，作为俄罗斯的一个自治大公国存在了世纪，芬兰于1917年获得独立。瑞典的长期统治无疑影响了芬兰的法律的和社会制度。1808年被俄国征服后，芬兰由俄国沙皇根据旧的瑞典宪法统治。在从衰弱的俄罗斯获得独立两年后，芬兰颁布了第一部宪法。1919年的《宪法法案》保留了1906年《议会法案》的主要原则。这是共和主义和君主主义理想之间的妥协。在两次反苏战争和城市化、工业化时期之后，芬兰的福利国家和行政机构经历了一次转型。这些发展进程与北欧国家相似，但稍落后。芬兰的社会发展使社会条件得以改善，芬兰的行政发展使提供福利国家服务的责任逐步从国家行政部门转移到市政府。本文重点介绍芬兰及其单一分权治理模式的局限性。它还讨论了芬兰地方民主和地方政府面临的一些挑战。这些挑战的部分原因是单一分权模式的局限性，其特点是有许多小城市，在区域一级缺乏全能组织和代表机构，以及区域分裂。
After more than seven centuries as a part of Sweden and one century as an autonomous grand duchy of Russia, Finland gained its independence in 1917. The long period of Swedish rule undoubtedly influenced the Finnish legal and social system. Conquered by Russia in 1808, Finland was ruled by the Czar of Russia under old Swedish constitutional laws. Two years after gaining independence from the weakened Russia, Finland enacted its first own Constitution Act. This Constitution Act of 1919 retained the leading principles of the 1906 Parliamentary Act. It was a compromised between republican and monarchist ideals. Following the two wars against the Soviet Union and the period of urbanization and industrialization, Finnish welfare state and administrative institutions underwent a transformation. These developmental processes were similar to that of Nordic countries however lagging slightly behind. Finland'societal development allowed for an improvement in social conditions and Finland's administrative development allowed for the gradual transfer of responsibility for the production of welfare state services from the state administration to the municipalities. This article focuses on Finland and the limits of its unitary decentralized model of governance. It also discusses several challenges faced by the Finnish subnational democracy and the local government. These challenges were partly due to the limitations of the unitary decentralized model, characterized by a large number of small municipalities, lack of an all-purpose organization and representative bodies at the regional level, and regional cleavages.