Finland is a northern country (60º-70º N), rather
large in terms of area (338,145 km²) but small in terms of population
(5.21 million; 2004) thus on the average sparsely populated (17.1
inhabitants / km²). However, there are large spatial disparities in
population density. Of the population 82.3 % lives in densely built
areas covering 2.2 % of the total land area (Westerholm 2002: 133).
Majority lives in southern and coastal parts with the density of over
hundred inhabitants per square kilometre. In the vast northern part,
about one third of the country, there are less than two persons per
square kilometre. Two thirds of Finland (divided into grids of one
km²) does not have any inhabitants (Figure 1). Figure 1: Population density in Finland. Source:
Statistics Finland It is complex to measure urban development statistically.
In Finland, about 60 % dwells in towns that are 114 of all 444 municipalities.
However, all towns are not quite urban because every municipality
can proclaim itself a town regardless of its characteristics. All
Finnish towns are small or medium-sized and six municipalities exceed
100,000 inhabitants. Four are located at the southern coast, namely
the capital Helsinki (559,000 inhabitants) as well as Espoo (224,000),
Vantaa (184,000), and Turku (175,000). Tampere (201,000) is the southern
inlands and Oulu (126,000) is at the northern coast of the Baltic
Sea (Figure 2). The metropolitan area of Helsinki has 1.2-1.8 million
inhabitants depending on the territorial limitation (OECD 2003). Figure 2: Regions of Finland and the population in their major towns. On the map the largest town
Helsinki has 559,000 and the smallest Mariehamn 10,000 inhabitants.
The six largest and growing towns are in black, particularly declining
towns in grey, and the remaining towns are centres of regions. Figure
by Jauhiainen, facts from Statistic Finland 2004. The population development of Finland has become
quite stable. In 1970, there were 4.60 million inhabitants, in 2004
their number was 5.23 million and the estimation for 2030 is 5.29
million. As elsewhere in Europe, the population is ageing and in the
coming decade the large immediate post-war generation will reach the
retirement age. In 1970, less than one tenth had 65 years or more
(0.43 million; 9.3 %), in 2003 they are one out of seven (0.81 million;15.6
%) and it is estimated that by 2030 they are more than every fourth
(1.38 million; 26.0 %). A difference with many European countries
is the rather delayed change in the ethnical composition in Finland.
In 1970, there were only 12,000 people in Finland born outside the
country, their number rose slowly to 17,000 in 1985 and from the 1990s
faster until the present 107,000, i.e. 2.0 % of the whole population.
The majority of foreign-born population lives in Helsinki and its
surroundings in which their share is up to 5 % (all facts by Statistics
Finland 2004). The ageing population structure, low fertility and
low immigration means a shortage of labour in the 2010s and increasing
pressure on social welfare and taxation. At the moment there are no
national demographic policies and immigration policies are very strict.
Concerning urban growth and decline one can distinguish
in Finland periods from urbanisation through suburbanisation to counterurbanisation
and to reurbanisation (van den Berg et
al. 1982; Geyer & Kontuly 1996). In general, urbanisation
started late in Finland by comparison with many European countries
but the processes have been fast. It was only in 1960 when the majority
lived in towns. For example, in Sweden this was evident three decades
earlier. The amount of people in rural activities continued to increase
due to the post-war resettlement of 400,000 persons from Karelia and
those involved in the war. About 100,000 new farms were established
around the country, especially in east and north. Urbanisation was relatively fast in the 1950s-60s.
The “Great Move”, as it called in the Finnish social history,
took place in the 1960s–70s. Following the mechanisation of forestry
and farming people migrated to towns: from countryside to large urban
areas, to university towns and other large industrial and administrative
centres, and also to Sweden. The large post-war generation found employment
and living place in the south in large industrial and administrative
towns and their new suburban neighbourhoods. It was also the period
when clearly defined regional policy was implemented for the first
time. The main idea was to balance the settlement structure and to
act against the migration patterns. In the east and north agricultural
production was supported (for example in Kainuu) and created industrial
employment (for example in Oulu). In 1970–80, employment in industry
(in 1980 568,000 employed) grew everywhere in Finland except in the
three largest towns of the period Helsinki, Tampere and Turku. The
growth was based on labour-intensive light industry and expansion
of traditional manufacturing (Tykkyläinen 2002, 224). Towards the
end of 1970s migration concentrated in the municipalities surrounding
the large towns, but also to regional centres and to towns in the
countryside (Table 1; Figure 3). The net in-migration into towns reverted
to net out-migration in 1977 (Heikkilä 2003: 50). During the 1980s migration diminished and the suburbanisation
shifted into counterurbanisation. All towns of different size lost
population (Heikkilä 2003: 50, 53). There was a constant out-migration
from large urban centres to the urban fringe (Table 1; Figure 3).
It was the highest period of the welfare society and distributive
regional policy. There was almost full employment, however, due to
restructuring of labour-intensive industry towards automatic process-industry
industrial jobs (in 1990 466,000 employed) were lost everywhere except
in small localities (Statistics Finland 2004). For example, the employment
in heavy industry in the Oulu region declined rapidly. However, in
compensation the service sector expanded in large towns. Many rural
areas were heavily dependent on external subsidies such as Kainuu. During the 1990s the Finnish economy was profoundly
transformed related to geopolitical and economic changes. The demise
of the Soviet Union ended the favourable barter trade in which Finnish
industrial goods (manufacturing, metal products and medium-quality
textile goods) were changed into Soviet energy (low-priced oil and
gas). In the early 1990s, Finland suffered of the “Great Recession”.
The volume of GDP declined in four consecutive years, the average
unemployment rose to 18 % and every fifth job was lost in industry
(in 1995 370,000 employed) (Statistics Finland 2004). Finland joined
the European Union in 1995 that opened the economy and expanded the
restructuring in industry and agriculture. The financial crisis of
the public sector meant fewer resources for regional redistribution.
The restructuring of rural areas is seen in the dramatic decline of
farms. In 1980, there were 224,700 farms in Finland, in 1990 199,400,
and in 2000 78,400 (Statistics Finland 2004). The recession hit severely
the peripheral regions and industrial towns. In the recession years the migration diminished in
general but migration from rural to urban areas increased, especially
to larger towns (Table 1; Figure 3). One third of municipalities had
positive net migration and the population loss of small towns increased.
However, a dramatic economic upturn took place in the latter 1990s.
Since 1994 the volume and value of GDP has grown annually when high
technology became significant in the national economy. The migration
to largest towns and their centres increased leading into “regionalisation”
of large urban areas through urban sprawl. The value of industrial
production increased rapidly (+50 % in 1995-2000) but not the industrial
employment (+8 %; 425,000 in 2000) (Statistics Finland 2004). The
fastest developing sub-regions during the 1990s were those involved
in R&D-driven ICT-industry, namely urban and semi-urban localities
of Salo, Helsinki, Lohja and Oulu. In general, the industrial Finland is located in
the south with exceptions of port towns by the Baltic Sea and the
local resource-dependent mining towns in the north and forest industry
towns in the east – most of the Finnish territory (76 %) is covered
by forest. During the 1990s the peripheral rural areas, towns in the
countryside and small industrial towns could not take advantage of
the technological turn and they continued to lose population. In particular,
the small towns of large mass-production industries declined such
as Kotka, Imatra, Kemi, Uusikaupunki and Varkaus (Figure 2). Today,
the Finnish countryside is consisted of rural-urban areas close to
towns around the country, the core countryside south from Oulu –
Joensuu line, and peripheral countryside north from the line (Figure
2). Economically weakest are the municipalities in the peripheral
countryside (such as Kainuu) with unemployment peaking over 30 %,
over three times the average (8.9 %) (Statistics Finland 2004). These
areas lose population both by out-migration and natural decrease.
Most of northern and eastern Finland belongs to the objective 1 area
of the European Union structural policies. During the 1990s the most competitive functional
urban regions were the capital region (including Helsinki, Espoo and
Vantaa), Oulu, Salo, Tampere, Turku, and Jyväskylä (Figure 2). They
had strong positive net migration and high GDP per capita with partial
exceptions of Turku and Tampere. According to Antikainen & Vartiainen
(2002: 168), the losers in regional development were the districts
of primary production, basic industries and public services. The winners
were the many-sided large university towns and specialised centres
of electronics industry. For many small ICT-driven localities (such
as Salo and Lohja) the success has arrived rapidly and coincidentally,
e.g. due to the location of one large ICT enterprise (Nokia, Elcoteq,
etc.) in the locality rather than due to a long-term strategy of the
locality. However, in 2000-2003, there has been only a modest growth
(+3 %) in the volume of industrial production, and decline in industrial
employment (-5 %, in 2003 405,000 employed), largest in metal production
and electronics. This has created problems for “technology-dependent”
localities. In 2003, the population of the national capital declined
for the first time after 1990. The figure 3 illustrates how the total
net migration of the six largest towns became negative (Statistics
Finland 2004). Figure 3. Net migration in different size group of towns in Finland, 1941–2003
(per 1000 of population). Modified from Heikkilä (2003). There are commonalities in the recent development
of six largest Finnish towns. Throughout the 1990s, unlike in many
European countries, all Finnish larger towns had both positive net
migration and natural population development. In the second largest
town Espoo the annual total population growth peaked 2.5 % (Statistics
Finland 2004). However, during the 2000s the positive net migration
has decreased substantially mostly related to weakened economy, especially
in the ICT sector. Natural population development has remained highly
positive in Espoo, Vantaa and Oulu but it has turned into decrease
in Turku (Table 2). There has not been active housing policy in Turku
for families with children and their immigration has been rather low. In the land-use, all six towns have been active in
the regeneration of former industrial land. Especially evident has
been revitalisation of waterfront into housing, leisure and technology
in similar way as elsewhere in Europe. All towns have developed technology
parks – some with clear successful outcomes (Oulu, Espoo), others
with modest (Helsinki, Vantaa, Tampere) or poor (Turku). Nevertheless,
the share of these urban regions of the national GDP has increased
to 47 % (Okko 2004: 28). Gentrification of former working-class wooden-house
areas in the inner city is another common phenomenon. One challenge
is how the growth could be smart. In the US context the smart growth
strategies must preserve public goods, minimise adverse and maximise
positive land use impacts; minimise public fiscal costs and maximise
social equity (Nelson 2002). In the growing Finnish towns urban sprawl
is taking place despite construction of new housing because the towns
do not provide enough variety in housing, especially detached housing
preferred by families with young children. The cost of housing is
a serious problem though the towns are major land-owners and can regulate
the land-use. Currently, the national government promotes policy for
low and dense housing areas, however, it is unclear whether this meets
the principles of smart growth and the wishes of people and local
authorities. Urban growth characterises larger towns in Finland,
but not all towns are successful. Between 1990 and 2003, all Finnish
towns of over 40,000 inhabitants have grown except Pori with a decline
of 268 inhabitants to 76,357 and Kotka with decline of 2,016 inhabitants
to 54,618. Nevertheless, almost half of smaller towns (10,000–40,000
inhabitants) have declined in population and economy, especially those
of traditional heavy industry (Figure 2). Largest loss of population
between 1990 and 2003 was in Imatra (-3,587; -10.7 %), Kemi (-2,318;
-9.1 %), Uusikaupunki (-2,027; -11.0 %) and Varkaus (-1,818; -7.4
%) (Statistics Finland 2004). The decline has been rather modest compared
to many European countries. All declining towns have hosted mass-production industry
plants, they are one-sided in their functional specialisation and
do not have broad higher education opportunities (Antikainen &
Vartiainen 2004). The amount highly educated is significantly lower
compared to larger towns as well as the capacity for innovations and
technology-intensive development. Employment has diminished due to
restructuring in industry and public sector. Particular job loss was
in industries in which the state has been the majority enterprise
owner. However, none of the towns have yet serious physical degradation
or extended unoccupied housing rate. It seems that the severe social
problems are not more accentuated than in the larger towns. Nevertheless,
the unemployment rate varies between 14.7–16.8 % (Statistics
Finland 2004). The natural population development has become negative
in all of declining towns and it is expanding. From 1990 the annual
population loss has been on the average slightly under one per cent
with peaks reaching 1.8 %. Kotka and Pori are the only declining towns
that have been able to turn the net migration in positive during the
last years (Table 2). Recently, they have activated opportunities
for higher education and diversified their economic base. Due to small
size of towns the URBAN programme is not applicable. However, in Joensuu
and its surroundings the programme was implemented in 1995–99
to improve social and physical environment of two residential areas
and to encourage residents to actively look for a job. The long-term
effects of over 200 projects are not yet known. The polarised population density and the sparse settlement
structure create an obvious challenge to urban and regional policies
in Finland. Nevertheless, the aim of regional policy has been and
still is to keep the whole country populated, balance migration and
to ensure adequate services nationwide (Government 2004). A lot of
attention has been paid on rural and peripheral areas. Regional policy
has been mostly the duty of the central authorities. In the 1960s-80s
they supported the peripheral areas by opening there industrial plants,
locating and relocating there administrative functions and subsidising
agriculture. The redistribution and supporting policy has delayed
the out-migration from these areas. However, eastern and northern
Finland is still less developed than the rest of the country. The integration of Finland to the European Union
in 1995 brought changes in regional policy and its administration.
Regional policy became programme-based and there was a partial devolution
of regional development powers to regions. The 20 regions in Finland
consist of unions of local authorities and they each bear responsibility
to make the regional strategy and plan. However, the central authorities
are crucial through general policies and funding. A step towards more
comprehensive regional autonomy will take place in 2005–2010
when in Kainuu an experiment of extended regional autonomy in development
and funding decisions is carried out. The target region is the poorest
in Finland. Actually, the unemployment rate (17.0 %) is the highest
and the rate of employed (55.3 %) among 15-64 years is the lowest
in Finland. (Statistics Finland 2004). Urban policies in Finland have been implemented since
the mid-1990s and they rely on the idea of networks linked to EU policies.
One successful example is the Centre of Expertise programme started
already in 1994. The task of the Centres of Expertise, currently in
22 locations (19 towns and three thematic networks), is to support
the development of internationally competitive top expertise in welfare
services, business and industry (Government 2004). Universities, polytechnics,
leading enterprises and local and regional authorities cooperate in
selected economic activities to promote business and regional development.
The six largest towns take part of the programme in which 41 projects
were completed in 1999 – 2002 with the budget of 14.4 million
euro. One case is the “regionalisation” of the technological
transformation of Oulu urban region to northern Finland. This is done
through Multipolis, a co-operation network and activity between technology
enterprises and regional developers in northern Finland. The network
connects 15 specialised spatial clusters (polis) of technology enterprises
and expertise in northern Finland and it is used as an active instrument
of regional innovation policy improving the initiation and development
of technology-related products, enterprises and activities (Jauhiainen
et al. 2004; Multipolis
2004). Another is the programme for regional centres, initiated
in 2000 and currently covering 34 centres around the country. The
target is to balance regional development through an urban network.
The main task is to provide basic settings for entrepreneurship and
services and to support regional centres and their surroundings. The
promotion of competences in selected economic activities of the centres
is important. By 2006, the regional centres should have clear and
working cooperation within their sphere of influence and the current
negative demographic and economic trends should have been tackled
(Sisäministeriö 2004). Still not yet focused is the policy for the largest
towns and for the Helsinki metropolitan area. Cooperation between
municipalities in the Helsinki metropolitan area and central government
are being developed in housing, transport and community planning.
There has been a long cooperation in transport and health care in
the Helsinki metropolitan area. Nevertheless, formal and informal
bodies have recently emerged to develop strategies. An example of
an informal body is the discussion group between the mayors of Helsinki,
Espoo and Vantaa and a more formal is the politically appointed strategy
commission. The central government has demanded stronger cooperation
in the metropolitan area that has caused debate because Finnish municipalities
traditionally enjoy autonomy in local development. One particular
phenomenon has been the “Six-pack”, e.g. the lobby group
of six largest towns to negotiate with the central authorities on
issues relevant to them. In summer 2004 a nationwide commission to
develop a national policy for “large towns” (i.e. of more
than 70,000 inhabitants) was established. Governance is a challenging topic in the intra-municipal
cooperation since there are not real administrative bodies for functional
urban regions. Nevertheless, common strategies of land-use and economic
policies are needed to achieve sustainability for urban regions. The
central government has cut resources resulting problems in towns to
provide the obligatory basic services. The inter-municipal organisation
of services and their private-led organisation is a reactive possibility
Finnish municipalities are considering. The Oulu urban region is an
example. The negotiations between the mayors in respective municipalities
started in 1992 and a collective agreement about the principles and
strategies for the urban region was formed in 1996. In 2003, the cooperative
body consists of council, government and development groups for the
urban region. The aim is that it orders certain statutory services
for the urban region based on public-private partnership. For strategic
land-use questions a common master plan has been approved (Oulun Seutu
2004). There has been signed also a proactive voluntary “growth
agreement for 2006” in Oulu between public and private sector
to create 6,000 new jobs, 150 new enterprises and 1,500 million euro
of additional turnover by 2006 (Oulu 2004). Finland has experienced different stages of urbanisation
more rapidly than many European countries. The economy declined and
grew in the 1990s. The many-sided larger university towns took the
advantages of the technological transformation as well as smaller
towns with large ICT R&D, component production and assembling
activities. Small towns (10,000-40,000) specialised in traditional
industry declined. There is not yet physical decay but unemployment
is a severe social problem. So far the principles of welfare policy
have prevented a profound depression in declining towns. The rapid growth and decline are materialised in
the physical and social infrastructure of towns. The growing and declining towns are facing the same challenges but from
different, often opposing viewpoints. The local strategies
of Finnish municipalities in fastest
growing and declining Oulu and Kainuu regions are studied in the research
project “Eco-efficiency
in growing and declining residential areas: The physical, social and
ecological sustainability of a changing urban structure” at the
University of Oulu. The multidisciplinary study is conducted in 2003–05
to find appropriate indicators to measure the outcomes of growth
and decline at local level, to find successful local strategies and
enhance land-use
planning in redirecting the development towards ecologically,
economically and socially sustainable environment. The growth and decline of residential areas as well as ecological, social
and material efficiency of growth and decline and their interaction
are researched simultaneously with extensive (Where? How much? How
general?) and intensive (How did it happen? What where the mechanisms of change? Why
did it happen?) research methods. These include land-use
analysis with time series GIS, semi-structured questionnaires and
thematic interviews of adult inhabitants, children, planners and experts,
and participatory observation of planning processes regarding growing
and declining neighborhoods (Hentilä et
al. 2004). The
research results so far indicate that there is no guarantee for long-term
growth or decline. It seems that towns are still trying to find too
much alone the successful strategies for the challenges of growth,
decline and regeneration – there is needed more national and
international cooperation. For example, the practice of sustainable
“smart growth” has been carried out in the US for more than
a decade (Szold & Carbonell 2002). However, the discussion about
its principles and its implementation in Finland has been limited.
The towns must pay attention to their main resources, land and people,
and how they are connected in sustainable and smart way within the
town and to a broader urban network. The contemporary Finnish urban network has a large
distance, small population and limited expertise. National urban policies
support specialisation, competition and complementary within the national
urban network. However, strong specialisation means also vulnerability,
especially for small and medium-sized towns that are all Finnish towns
except the capital region. The recent years show that low and high
technologies do not provide any safer future for towns than traditional
industry, especially in employment. The rapid urban growth in Finland
is turning into a decline in ICT localities. Besides the declined
“rust-belt” of traditional industries one may find soon
in Finland the declined “bit-belt” of technology-dependent
areas. The central authorities should understand more profoundly
the risks of specialisation and the impossibility to transfer the
ICT-based growth. The urban network cannot be directed like the growth-oriented
private international enterprise based on strategic out-sourcing,
international mergers and focusing on one key activity. The economies
of towns specialised in traditional industry and contemporary technology
need to be diversified. Finnish towns should pay attention to governance
and pooling of resources within the urban network instead of intensifying
competition with other towns about shrinking investment, enterprises
and qualified labour force. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, PhD (Geography) is Professor
of Geography and Regional Planning at the University of Oulu, Finland
and Associate Professor of Urban Geography at the University of Tartu,
Estonia. His publications in 2004 include: (1) Baltic Sea Region - Netzwerke
und Innovationen. In: Gamerith, W., Messerli, P., Meusberger, P. & Wanner,
H. (Eds.) Alpenwelt - Gebirgswelten. Inseln, Brücken, Grenzen. Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Geographie, Bern; (2) Power, networks and governance:
the Contexts of the Baltic Sea region. In: Kurki, K. (Ed.) Power and
Control. University of Turku, Turku; (3) Urban transition in Estonia:
challenges for urban regions. In: Valpola, T. (ed.) Ignoble Industrial
Heritage - Discussions of Urban Transition in the Nordic and Baltic
Countries. Helsinki. Antikainen, J. & Vartiainen, P. (2002). Finnish
districts and regional differentiation. Fennia 180:1-2, 183-190. Antikainen,
J & Vartiainen, P. (2004). Kansallinen kaupunkiverkko ja kaupunkiseudut.
Sisäministeriön julkaisu Alueiden kehittäminen
14/2004, 20-26. Geyer, H. & Kontuly, T. (1996). A theoretical
foundation for the concept of differential urbanisation. In Geyer,
H. & Kontuly, T. (Eds.) Differential
urbanisation, integrating spatial models, 290-308. London: Arnold. Government (2004). The national government programme
for regional policy. <http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/vn/liston/base.lsp?r=36379&k=en&page=1&old=696>
23 August 2004 Heikkilä, E. (2003). Differential
urbanisation in Finland. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
94:1, 49-63. Hentilä, H., Mäntysalo, R., Jauhiainen, J.,
Luoma, P., Ijäs, H., Karjalainen, J., Kiimamaa, J., Mönkkönen, M.,
Ryhänen, A. & Villanen, H (2004). Eco-Efficiency in Growing and Declining Residential Areas: The Physical,
Social and Ecological Sustainability of a Changing Urban Structure.
Research plan. University of Oulu. <http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/sos/SuKaT/ecores.htm>
23 August 2004 Jauhiainen,
J., Alarämi, K. & Suorsa, K. (2004). Multipolis – teknologian,
osaamisen ja kehittämisen yhteistyöverkosto. (English summary:
Multipolis – co-operation network of technology, competence and
development. Evaluation report of Multipolis activities 2000 –
2004). Sisäministeriön julkaisu Alueiden kehittäminen 00/2004. [in print] Multipolis
(2004). Multipolis. <http://www.multipolis.com/index.php?179>
23 August 2004 Nelson, A. (2002). How do we know smart growth when
we see it? In Szold, T. & Carborell, A. (Eds.) Smart
growth. Form and consequences, 82-101. Toronto: Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy. OECD (2003). Helsinki, Finland. OECD Territorial
Reviews. Paris: OECD. Okko,
P. (2004). Kaupunkiseutujen uusi aluetalous. Sisäministeriön
julkaisu Alueiden kehittäminen 14/2004, 27-30. Oulu (2004).
Growth agreement 2006. <http://www.oulu.ouka.fi/kasvusopimus/
> 23 August 2004 Oulun
Seutu (2004). Oulun seudun kuntien
yhteinen yleiskaava 2020 [master plan for the urban region of
Oulu 2020, in Finnish]. Oulu. Sisäministeriö (2004). Aluekeskusohjelma. <http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/hankkeet/aky/home.nsf/pages/2213310EAB65E5EDC2256DC2003071C3>
23 August 2004. Statistics Finland (2004). Statistics on demography
and towns. <http://www.stat.fi>
23 August 2004 Szold, T. & Carborell, A. (Eds.) (2002). Smart growth. Form and consequences. Toronto:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Tykkyläinen, M. (2004). Spatial turns of manufacturing
since 1970. Fennia 180:1-2,
213-226. van den
Berg, L. (1982). Urban Europe.
London: Pergamon Press. Westerholm,
J. (2002). Populating Finland. Fennia
180:1-2, 123-140. 1. Introduction
2. Urban development in Finland
3. Recent development of growing and declining towns
4. Recent urban policies
5. Reflections
References