Will Orpo’s Government Repeat Milei’s Miracle and Restore Finland’s Values?

In Argentina, President Javier Milei has been fixing the country’s economy with a firm hand. As a result, his party suffered a defeat in the provincial elections of the Buenos Aires region in September.

This morning, however, we learned that the president’s party is nevertheless set to win the parliamentary midterm elections—and by a considerable margin over the opposition. It therefore appears that, in Argentina as well, the political “climate” of the capital region differs from that of the rest of the country—just as in Finland.

For Argentinians, the outcome of the midterm election is undoubtedly a good thing, since abandoning the economic reform halfway would most likely have led their homeland into another downward spiral, from which Milei has only just managed to lift it. Now, he has the people’s mandate to complete his economic recovery program.

Although Argentina is far from Finland, its economic situation is by no means irrelevant to us. After all, we too have a government that has sought—albeit with extreme caution—to reduce state spending.

And that’s not all, because the task will also fall to the next government, if its members have even a shred of responsibility. Finland’s public finances have been chronically in debt since 2008, and nowadays the payment of interest alone consumes roughly three and a half billion euros of the state budget every year.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish people will act like the Argentinians in the parliamentary elections to be held in 2027. In this regard, the development of Finland’s economy over the next year and a half will be a crucial question.

What matters most is that if the country’s economy and employment rate begin to grow as a result of the government’s actions, and the accumulation of debt can thereby be halted, then the current Orpo cabinet coalition will have a good chance—like Milei—to renew its mandate to lead the country. That, in turn, could put Finland’s economy back on a healthy footing.

At the same time, we could continue to repair the value base of our society toward realism. In this respect, immigration policy is a significant part of the whole.

* * *

In that light, it was interesting to read in this morning’s Helsingin Sanomat article that among the humanitarian immigrants who arrived in Finland in 2015, those who came as unaccompanied minors have fared the best. By contrast, those who arrived here as adults have unambiguously become a heavy burden on society.

The HS article suggested that the young people who came alone might have been unusually resourceful individuals, which could explain why they have succeeded in Finland better than other humanitarian refugees. That may partly explain their success, but I strongly suspect that culture also plays a role here.

More specifically, the transmission of culture from parents to children. It is clear that young people who live with their families and share the values of developing countries preserve their own cultural background more strongly than those who live alone. Therefore, they adopt Western attitudes and habits that lead to social success much less readily than those who arrived unaccompanied.

Against this background, it might make sense to make a complete U-turn in our current refugee policy and redefine Finnish humanitarian immigration—at least with regard to quota refugees—so that priority would be given to unaccompanied young people. At the same time, we could abolish family reunifications altogether, since they undoubtedly have harmful cultural consequences as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Toistaako Orpon hallitus Milein ihmeen ja korjaa suomalaisen arvopohjan?