My paper will analyze the use of the concept ‘economic democracy’ in Finnish political rhetoric from the 1960s until early 1990s. Drawing on the conceptual historical approaches of Quentin Skinner and Reinhart Koselleck, I will examine how different political and labor market parties used and defined the concept of economic democracy in their programmatic statements – both as a general goal of societal development and as connected to concrete reform proposals. I will also analyze its connection to different side- or sub-concepts, such as industrial democracy and workplace democracy. Even though I restrict my analysis to Finland, it should be noted that the debates and trends examined were largely transnational.
Drawing on Skinner’s methodology, I will concentrate on struggles between different uses of concepts and on ways of legitimizing them. As suggested by Mark Bevir, I will also sketch out the webs of beliefs of historical actors which can explain their different uses of concepts. This includes value hierarchies that could legitimize and delegitimize different conceptions of economic democracy. In this respect especially the tension between the concepts of democracy and competitiveness as components of the national interest becomes significant.
In the 1960s and 1970s, economic and working life democracy were standard ideals in all Finnish party programs from left to right. It was widely agreed that economic power should be distributed more equally, but there were substantial differences as to what was considered “true” or desirable economic democracy. In leftist rhetoric the concept was close to the concept of socialism and its claims to economic planning and socialization of ownership. Leftist parties and trade unions called for actual possibilities of employee decision-making within companies and collective forms of ownership such as wage-earner funds. Bourgeois parties and Finnish business, in turn, wanted to promote small-scale ownership in stocks and real estate, as well as employee participation without actual redistribution of managerial power. The leftist alternatives were portrayed as detrimental to competitiveness. The reforms made in Finland during the 1970s and 1980s were mostly in line with the stance of business organizations. They increased employee participation but did not redistribute power or ownership.
After being a normal part of the political vocabulary even for the right-wing, terms such as economic and working life democracy practically vanished from political rhetoric in the 1990s. This was connected to a new conception of economic necessities, the rise of neo-liberal economic thinking and discrediting of leftist/socialist critique of capitalism after the end of the Cold War. The close connection of economic democracy and socialism apparently led to the concept being set aside from mainstream political rhetoric rather than defining new, neo-liberal or neo-leftist content to democratic economy and working life. In Finland this seems to have consolidated the conception of the economy and working life as apolitical domains, where decision-making is based on necessities and expertise instead of democracy. Citizens can get more ‘participation’, but decisions should be left for managers and economists who are aware of economic facts.
