The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of power dynamics in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) politics in Finnish and European contexts. Since Copenhagen process and during the 2000s, the main European guideline is to make VET systems converge and to enhance the single labor market in Europe (Bainbridge 2024). While there is no uniform European VET system or rules for VET policies in member states, since Copenhagen process, seemingly neutral and widely accepted concepts like learning outcomes and competences have dominated VET discussions and objectives. From the perspective of power politics, both concepts are seen as ways of expanding the hegemonic economical practices to the world of (vocational) education. With this move the power in defining the meaning, goals and the aims of education have shifted from educational expertise towards economic power (Antunes 2012; Kontio et. al. 2019).

While most actors within VET field agree upon some forms of competence-based education and emphasis on learning outcomes, both concepts have been criticized for too narrow view on learning and education (Rosenblad & Wheelalan 2025).  Of course, in Europe, member states have different kinds of VET systems with different historical practices, which means that the way of implementing these European objectives defined in CP and other instances varies greatly (Ante 2016).
In this paper, we ask how the aforementioned concepts and European guidelines have shaped and are shaping Finnish VET politics and how does this show on power dynamics. The empirical focus of this paper is on our ongoing research project in which we have interviewed 17 key stakeholders in the Finnish VET field. Besides the interviews, we have analyzed key policy documents since latest VET reform, which was implemented by Juha Sipilä’s centre-right government between the years 2015 and 2018. In the reform, the Finnish VET system was transformed more deeply towards outcome-oriented and competence-based education. Objectives for new VET were personalized study paths for all, clearer connection with work-life, reduction of bureaucracy, efficiency, dismantling norms, and so on (Kontio 2019 et. al.).  Since the big reform, VET politics have still been in turmoil, with almost pendulum-like swings. The centre-left government led by Antti Rinne (and later Sanna Marin) reversed some of the decisions made in the reform (as well as the budget cuts) and steered VET back towards a “welfare-state ethos” from the more “neoliberal” stances of Sipilä government. However, after the centre-left government the right-wing government of Petteri Orpo took power, which targeted heavy budget cuts to upper secondary VET, and reversed some of the decisions made by the Rinne/Marin governments.

Using Gramscian analysis of hegemony and power (cf. Mayo 2009) and how this is visible in the dynamics of key actors in the field of VET (cf. Kauko 2011) helps us form a comprehensive picture of contemporary challenges and flashpoints of VET politics. This presentation focuses on Finland but speaks to the wider European audience through analysing Finnish politics in conjunction with European concepts and trends.

Our interview data are based on semi-structured thematic interviews, which provide us with comprehensive insight into Finnish VET politics. We use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze the interview data along with the analysis of documents. Documents used are official documents of Finnish education politics such as working papers from ministries, government bills, and statements from key stakeholders. For the European context, we use key documents such as the Copenhagen declaration and Cedefop documents. CDA offers a methodology that can help to define and identify ongoing political discourses shaping contemporary VET dynamics (Fairclough 1995; Fairclough & Fairclough 2012). CDA offers tools to situate VET and its politics within broader historical and societal frameworks. We analyze how VET discourses are part of the societal whole and how they are formed within societal conjunction. In addition to CDA, we use Comparative Analytics of Dynamics in Education Politics (CADEP) to explain how transnational ideas are disseminated to the field and influence conditions of VET politics (Simola et. al. 2017).

In our historical analysis, it seems that learning outcomes and competence-based education is widely accepted and hegemonic concepts within VET field. However, they are politically contested and contradictory. In the Finnish context, the contestation implies the age-old debate between “welfare state ethos” with the emphasis on universal and general education versus the “neoliberal market ethos” (Niemi & Janhukainen 2020). This has been visible in the political swings between governments described earlier. Politization and dividing lines have also been identified in our interview data. Nonetheless, the division into these two poles is crude, and there are clear contradictions and challenges for VET politics. The main challenge identified by interviewees and by actors in general is the diminishing resources for education. Another key issue is the lack of a larger vision in education politics. Contemporary challenges, both nationally and internationally, need a large reevaluation of the aims and objectives of education. Both in Finland and in Europe, VET has been subject to major political expectations and changes. To keep up with the rapid pace of reforms and politics, a profound and comprehensive study of those politics is needed. Our research aims to deepen the understanding of how actors in VET politics operate through policy reforms, governance mechanisms, and discursive framings to produce specific outcomes of those politics.

Ante, C. (2016). The Europeanisation of Vocational Education and Training. Springer. Antunes, F. (2012). ‘Tuning’ Education for the Market in ‘Europe’? Qualifications, Competences and Learning Outcomes: Reform and Action on the Shop Floor. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 446–470. Bainbridge, S. (2024). A reflective overview: European vocational education and training reform: The Copenhagen process 2002 to 2024. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training, 7(2), 21–21. ´ Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Longman. Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Studies. Routledge. Kauko, J. 2011. Korkeakoulupolitiikan dynamiikat Suomessa. Helsingin yliopisto. Kontio, K., Pikkarainen, E., & Mathlin, V.-M. 2019. Sivistys, talous ja ammattikasvatuksen uudistus. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, 21:3. 9–24. Niemi, A-M. & Janhukainen M. 2020. Educating self-governing learners and employees: studying, learning and pedagogical practices in the context of vocational education and its reform. Journal of Youth Studies, 23:9, 1143-1160. Mayo, P. (2020). Gramsci: Power, culture & education. Actio Nova, (4), 23–45. Rosenblad, N., & Wheelahan, L. 2025. The ontology of personhood and a realist critique of the policy discourse based on skills. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 46(3), 375–390. Simola, H., Kalalahti, M., Kauko, J., Sahlström, F. & Varjo, J. 2017. Dynamics in education politics: understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Routledge