|
Finland Occupational and Wage Structure
Finland's export-dependent economy continuously adapted
to
the world market; in doing so, it changed Finnish society
as
well. The prolonged worldwide boom, beginning in the late
1940s
and lasting until the first oil crisis in 1973, was a
challenge
that Finland met and from which it emerged with a highly
sophisticated and diversified economy, including a new
occupational structure
(see Economic Development
, ch. 3).
Some
sectors kept a fairly constant share of the work force.
Transportation and construction, for example, each
accounted for
between 7 and 8 percent in both 1950 and 1985, and
manufacturing's share rose only from 22 to 24 percent;
however,
both the commercial and the service sectors more than
doubled
their share of the work force, accounting, respectively,
for 21
and 28 percent in 1985. The greatest change was the
decline of
the economically active population employed in agriculture
and
forestry, from approximately 50 percent in 1950 to 10
percent in
1985. The exodus from farms and forests provided the
manpower
needed for the growth of other sectors.
Studies of Finnish mobility patterns since World War II
have
confirmed the significance of this exodus. Sociologists
have
found that people with a farming background were present
in other
occupations to a considerably greater extent in Finland
than in
other West European countries. Finnish data for the early
1980s
showed that 30 to 40 percent of those in occupations not
requiring much education were the children of farmers, as
were
about 25 percent in upper-level occupations, a rate two to
three
times that of France and noticeably higher than that even
of
neighboring Sweden. Finland also differed from the other
Nordic
countries in that the generational transition from the
rural
occupations to white-collar positions was more likely to
be
direct, bypassing manual occupations.
The most important factor determining social mobility
in
Finland was education. Children who attained a higher
level of
education than their parents were often able to rise in
the
hierarchy of occupations. A tripling or quadrupling in any
one
generation of the numbers receiving schooling beyond the
required
minimum reflected the needs of a developing economy for
skilled
employees. Obtaining advanced training or education was
easier
for some than for others, however, and the children of
whitecollar employees still were more likely to become
white-collar
employees themselves than were the children of farmers and
bluecollar workers. In addition, children of white-collar
professionals were more likely than not to remain in that
class.
The economic transformation also altered income
structure. A
noticeable shift was the reduction in wage differentials.
The
increased wealth produced by an advanced economy was
distributed
to wage earners via the system of broad income agreements
that
evolved in the postwar era
(see Industrial Relations
, ch.
3).
Organized sectors of the economy received wage hikes even
greater
than the economy's growth rate. As a result, blue-collar
workers'
income came, in time, to match more closely the pay of
lowerlevel white-collar employees, and the income of the upper
middle
class declined in relation to that of other groups.
The wage structure of the 1980s contrasted sharply with
that
of 1900. At the turn of the century, the pay of a senior
government official was many times greater than that of an
industrial worker, and households headed by professionals
customarily employed servants. By the 1980s, the household
of a
university-educated professional had an average income not
quite
twice that of a manual worker in the farming or forestry
sector.
According to the Central Statistical Office of Finland, if
the
average household income is measured at 100 in 1984, that
of a
professional household is 169; of a salaried employee,
118; of a
construction worker, 112; and of an ordinary service
sector
employee, 104. Among households with incomes below the
average
are those of farm and forestry workers, with an average
income
measured at 92; those receiving unemployment benefits at
73; and
those retired at 44.
Despite a more even distribution of income, Finnish
government statistics showed that a considerable portion
of
taxable income was earned by small segments of the
population. In
1985 the top 10 percent of taxpayers earned 26.9 percent
of
taxable income, and the top 20 percent earned 43.7 percent
of
income. The bottom 10 percent of taxpayers earned only 0.5
percent of taxable income; the bottom 20 percent, only 3
percent.
These figures had remained stable since at least the late
1970s,
and they were unlikely to change greatly by the early
1990s, as
Finnish taxes remained relatively modest compared with
those of
other West European countries. Although Finland's income
distribution was the most unequal of the five Nordic
countries,
it did not differ greatly from its neighbors. Sweden, for
example, had the most equal distribution, with the top 20
percent
earning 38.1 percent of taxable income, and the bottom 20
percent, 5.3 percent.
Data as of December 1988
|
