Skip to content
NCBNational Capability Benchmark
Navigate with โ†‘ โ†“Enter to openEsc to close

Challenge the benchmark

Choose a score and give the benchmark a specific reason to reconsider it.

When you submit, the form attaches the current score and confidence for the country and capability you chose.

Submissions are public and start as awaiting review. A maintainer can add a response and signature after review.

Documented examples

Each record describes something a country built that the indicators do not capture. The source provides the published number; the mechanism is our interpretation.

Scores describe outcomes. These records describe how a country acted, what it needed and what happened. 742 of 742 records include a mechanism. They do not affect scores.

Narrow the list

8 of 742 deliveries

Anticipation

1 delivery linked to Government foresight capacity.

Finlandsince 1993still operatingbears on Government foresight capacity

Government Report on the Future and the parliamentary Committee for the Future

Every Finnish government since 1993 has submitted a Report on the Future to Parliament, answered by a standing Committee for the Future; Part I of the Orpo government's report, a 20-year scenario process prepared jointly by all ministries and informed by 40 dialogues on Finland's future, was submitted on 18 September 2025.

20 years ahead, scenario horizon of part i of the government report on the future, 2025-09-18. 40 dialogues, dialogues on finland's future organised for the report, 2025. Finnish Government, Prime Minister's Office, Foresight and work on the future, retrieved 2026-10-01.

The move, and what it needed

The Prime Minister's Office coordinates an interministerial foresight working group that drafts a scenario report once per electoral term, and Parliament's Committee for the Future answers it, so foresight is a recurring duty of both branches rather than a project.

Preconditions

  • Cross-party agreement in Parliament that long-range questions deserve a standing committee
  • A Prime Minister's Office strategy department with a secretariat to run the interministerial process
  • A consensus political culture in which coalition changes do not discard the previous government's institutions

Where else it has been used: Several parliaments have set up committees for the future modelled on Finland's; the retelling usually keeps the committee and drops the government's matching duty to report, which is the half that makes the dialogue run.

Limits: Both numbers describe the process, not its effect: a 20-year horizon and 40 dialogues show the report was made, not that any decision changed because of it. The construct asks for existence, mandate and continuity, and the strongest evidence of continuity, one report every electoral term since 1993, is stated by the Prime Minister's Office as a practice; the source does not list each report, so the count of reports since 1993 is not given here. The figures are the government describing its own work. The parliament page states that the Committee for the Future is standing and was established in 1993, and it renders by script, so a reader without JavaScript sees an empty page although the text is in the delivered data. Finnish foresight is widely cited abroad, but praise is not evidence and is not used here.

Coordination

2 deliveries linked to University-industry collaboration, Public-private collaboration.

Finlandsince 2008dismantledbears on University-industry collaboration

Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation (SHOKs), terminated in 2015

Finland ran six Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation from 2008, company-form consortia of firms, universities and research institutes funded about 60 percent by Tekes, with funding of EUR 88 million in 2014; the Sipilรค government's austerity programme ended the earmarked funding at the end of 2015 and the programme was closed, with the last Tekes-funded projects wound down between 2016 and 2018.

88,000,000 euros, shok funding for industry-academia knowledge transfer, 2014. 6 centres, shok companies operating before termination, 2014. OECD STIP Compass, Knowledge Transfer and Policies project: Case study on the policy mix for science-industry knowledge transfer in Finland (Halme et al., 4Front and Gaia Consulting with Business Finland), Box 1, retrieved 2026-10-02.

The move, and what it needed

The state made long-term, multi-year research programmes conditional on firms, universities and institutes owning a joint company and co-writing its research strategy, with the innovation agency paying the majority share. The structure held collaboration together only while the earmarked public share kept flowing.

Preconditions

  • An innovation agency with a large applied-research budget to earmark for a decade
  • Lead firms in each cluster willing to co-own a company with universities and pay roughly 40 percent
  • A political consensus on the earmark, since the model had no independent revenue when it was withdrawn

Where else it has been used: The SHOKs borrowed from the competence-centre model used in Sweden and Austria. The Finnish lesson is that a dedicated earmark is quick to cut in an austerity round, while centres that had built their own membership base, like DIMECC, survived the cut.

Limits: The figure is inside a PDF (page 12, Box 1). The case study is hosted by the OECD as a country contribution to its knowledge-transfer project, but it was written by Finnish consultants with a Business Finland co-author, so it is the funder's side of the story rather than an OECD assessment. The EUR 88 million is one year's funding and the source does not say whether it is Tekes money alone or the full public and private budget; the same box says Tekes covered on average 60 percent. Funding is an input: the source carries no count of joint projects, firms or outcomes. The end was a budget decision, not a judgement that the centres failed: the same document says two of the six SHOKs (DIMECC and CLIC) continued as open innovation companies owned by firms, universities and institutes, and that ecosystem funding moved to Business Finland's Growth Engine instrument, so collaboration capacity was partly redeployed rather than wholly lost. The 2013 external evaluation the case study cites (Licence to SHOK?) was openly critical of the programme's governance and its limited commercial and scientific impact. The same PDF dates the programme's start to 2006-2007 in Box 4 and to 2008 in Box 1; started follows Box 1.

Finlandsince 2017still operatingbears on Public-private collaboration

Finnish Trust Network for strong electronic identification

From May 2017 Finland's Trust Network obliged banks and mobile operators issuing strong electronic identification to let brokers resell their authentications at a regulated maximum price, cut to 3 cents in 2019, and mediated authentication events rose from an estimated 20 million in the second half of 2019 to about 60 million in the first half of 2020.

60,000,000 authentication events in the half-year, authentication events mediated through trust network brokers (estimate), 2020-H1. 3 euro cents, maximum regulated wholesale price per mediated authentication (from 2019), 2020. Traficom (Finnish Transport and Communications Agency) and Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, Sรคhkรถisen tunnistamisen markkinat, Traficomin tutkimuksia ja selvityksiรค 2/2021, retrieved 2026-10-02.

The move, and what it needed

Parliament and the communications regulator turned bank and mobile-operator credentials into shared national infrastructure by law: providers must sell authentications to licensed brokers at a capped wholesale price, so any public or private e-service can accept every strong credential through one contract, and the state's own Suomi.fi service buys them the same way.

Preconditions

  • Near-universal online banking credentials already held by the population.
  • A regulator with the power to set and lower a wholesale price cap and enforce interconnection terms.
  • A state authentication service large enough to be the anchor customer for brokered identification.

Limits: The volume figures are the regulators' own estimates ('arviolta') built from provider returns that some providers could not separate, and the report says it could not trace a multi-year series; for 2019 it gives only a range of 40 to 80 million. The figures are from 2020 and published in March 2021, so they are dated, and the first half of 2020 overlaps the first months of the pandemic, which also pushed public and private services online. The collaboration was regulatory compulsion as much as partnership: the report says identification providers held at least a weak monopoly over their own credentials before price caps, and the network only worked from 2019 after repeated legislative fixes, with 2020 the first full year of comprehensive brokerage. Bank credentials made up an estimated 85 to 90 percent of mediated events in late 2019, so the system depends on a few banks. The government is building a state digital identity alongside it. Figures are on PDF pages 79 and 80 (printed pages 78 and 79), section 6.5.

Learning

2 deliveries linked to Adult learning participation.

Finlandsince 1928still operatingbears on Adult learning participation

The public library system

Finland runs the world's most used public library system under a statutory duty dating to 1928, and in 2024 Finns borrowed 85.4 million items, 15.3 per inhabitant, and visited libraries 50.7 million times.

15.3 loans per person, library loans per inhabitant, 2024. 50,700,000 visits, library visits in the year, 2024. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, public library statistics via Libraries.fi, retrieved 2026-08-27.

The move, and what it needed

The state made libraries a statutory municipal duty with national subsidy, kept them free by law including reservations and inter-library loans, and municipalities compete on quality, with the flagship in Helsinki placed opposite parliament as a statement.

Preconditions

  • Near-universal literacy and a reading culture that predates the statute
  • Municipal finance strong enough to fund a non-mandatory-feeling service
  • A language community small enough that the state subsidises publishing too

Where else it has been used: The Nordic neighbours run the same model at slightly lower intensity. Elsewhere the statutory free-of-charge rule is the part that erodes first, and with it the usage.

Limits: Borrowing is reading, not structured adult learning, so the record sits one step from the indicator's construct, which asks about participation in education and training; it is filed because the library statute explicitly assigns libraries a lifelong-learning duty and no better-measured Finnish delivery covers the gap. Loans per head are also falling slowly here as everywhere, and the world-leading claim depends on which countries publish comparable statistics.

Finlandsince 2001dismantledbears on Adult learning participation

Adult education allowance (aikuiskoulutustuki), and its abolition

Finland paid an earnings-related adult education allowance from 2001 so that working adults could take leave to study, reaching 30,124 recipients in 2022 and 32,518 in 2023, until Parliament abolished it in May 2024 with a transition under which the allowance could be granted until 31 December 2025.

30,124 persons, adult education allowance recipients in 2022, the year before the abolition decision, 2022. 32,518 persons, adult education allowance recipients in 2023, the last full year before the abolition took effect, 2023. Finnish Ministry of Finance, Budget Department, memorandum on abolishing the adult education allowance (26 February 2024), retrieved 2026-10-01.

The move, and what it needed

Finland's tripartite system funded study leave for experienced workers out of unemployment-insurance contributions, administered by the Employment Fund; the Orpo government then abolished it to cut contributions and public spending, and Parliament passed the repeal in May 2024.

Preconditions

  • An earnings-related social insurance fund able to carry an education benefit alongside unemployment cover
  • Employer acceptance of statutory study leave, through tripartite bargaining
  • A political majority willing to keep paying for it when fiscal consolidation became the priority

Where else it has been used: Other Nordic states have study-leave income support. Finland's abolition shows how a contribution-funded benefit with no constituency outside its users can be dropped in one budget round.

Limits: The allowance financed study leave; it did not measure participation. About 30,000 recipients a year is a small slice of Finland's working-age population, so its abolition moves the indicator's construct (the share of adults in education or training) by at most a little over one percentage point of the workforce, and no survey figure here shows that participation actually fell. The ministry's own memo, written to cost the abolition, notes that about half of recipients already held a higher-education degree and that the benefit reduced labour supply by an estimated 9,400 to 10,500 person-years, so the case for the allowance as a learning-equity tool is contested in the source itself. The 2022 figure is from a Ministry of Finance memorandum, the 2023 figure from the Employment Fund (Tyรถllisyysrahasto), a statutory fund run by the labour-market parties under Financial Supervisory Authority oversight, reporting on its own benefit; the 2023 number was read from an infographic in a PDF. The source does not print the full 2001-2025 recipient series: only 2020-2024 values are printed, in which 2023 is the highest. Applications surged in early 2024 ahead of the cut-off, so the last years overstate steady-state demand. The abolition was a fiscal decision announced in the 2023 government programme, so the record documents a capability ended by choice, not by collapse.

Adaptability

2 deliveries linked to Disaster preparedness and recovery, Institutional responsiveness.

Finlandsince 1991still operatingbears on Disaster preparedness and recovery

Civil defence shelters

Finland requires a shelter in every building above a size threshold, nationwide since 1991, and by 2023 had about 50,500 shelters with places for about 4.8 million people, in a country of about 5.6 million.

4,800,000 places, civil defence shelter places, 2023. 50,500 shelters, civil defence shelters, 2023. Finnish Government, Ministry of the Interior, retrieved 2026-10-01.

The move, and what it needed

The state put the cost of protection on construction itself: the Rescue Act obliges owners of large residential and workplace buildings to build a shelter, which peacetime uses as storage, car parks or sports halls on condition it can be cleared within 72 hours.

Preconditions

  • A threat perception shared across parties since the Second World War
  • A building code and permit inspection that enforce the duty before construction
  • Housing built mostly as concrete multi-storey blocks

Where else it has been used: Switzerland runs the same building duty. Germany and Sweden let theirs lapse after 1990 and are now rebuilding from a smaller stock.

Limits: Both numbers are rounded by the ministry, which says the decades-long history makes precise register data hard to compile. Places are unevenly spread: the same release puts Helsinki at 34 percent more places than residents and South Ostrobothnia at places for 48 percent of its population, so the national figure overstates rural protection. A place is a built room, not a tested capability; the ministry's later condition review found most shelters in good order but some equipment needing maintenance. Shelters protect against attack and hazardous releases and say little about recovery from floods or pandemics, which the indicator also asks about. 1991 is when the duty became nationwide; designated municipalities built shelters for decades before.

Finlandsince 2020delivered and closedbears on Institutional responsiveness

Business Finland disruption funding, 2020

Finland redirected Business Finland, its innovation funding agency, to pay emergency development grants to firms hit by the epidemic, starting from a 700 million euro allocation in the supplementary budget adopted on 26 March 2020, and by 2 September 2020 it had allocated about 912 million euros to 18,770 projects out of 28,715 that applied.

912 million euros (approximately), business finland disruption funding allocated, 2020-09-02. 18,770 projects, projects funded, 2020-09-02. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, press release of 2 September 2020, retrieved 2026-10-02.

The move, and what it needed

Rather than build a new aid channel, the government gave its innovation agency new grant instruments and money by supplementary budget, so applications could open within days through an existing online system.

Preconditions

  • An agency already running an online grant system that reached most SMEs
  • Parliament able to pass a supplementary budget within days
  • Tolerance for weaker screening than normal R&D funding

Where else it has been used: Several countries used existing enterprise agencies for 2020 grants; the Finnish case shows the trade between speed and targeting when the agency's purpose is innovation, not relief.

Limits: The ministry is reporting its own agency's grants, and an allocation is a decision, not a payment. The 26 March 2020 supplementary budget and the 700 million euro allocation come from a separate government release (https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-//1410877/valtion-rahoitusta-yrityksille-koronavirustilanteessa-vahvistetaan-yritystukiin-miljardi-euroa), not from the source page, and neither page explains how allocations reached 912 million euros against the initial 700 million. Using an R&D agency for emergency aid was fast but loosely targeted: the grants were for 'development' (79 million euros for preliminary analyses and 832 million for development funding), and later reports of recoveries and suspected misuse are not on either page. Neither page shows whether the firms survived or what share of the grants was later recovered.

Building

1 delivery linked to Large project delivery.

Finlandsince 2009delivered and closedbears on Large project delivery

Kehรคrata airport rail loop, and its cost overrun

The Finnish state, with the City of Vantaa paying part of the cost, began building the Kehรคrata (Ring Rail Line) through Helsinki Airport in Vantaa in 2009; construction costs came in above estimate, a glycol leak found at the airport took a year to resolve and reset the schedule, passenger service began on 1 July 2015, and the construction cost finally came to 770 million euros.

770 million euros, final construction cost of kehรคrata, 2020-07. 1 year, delay attributed to resolving the glycol leak at the airport, 2020-07. Vรคylรคvirasto (Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency), news article 'Kehรคrata on ollut ilonamme jo viisi vuotta', 1 July 2020, retrieved 2026-10-02.

The move, and what it needed

The state rail administration and the City of Vantaa cofunded an airport loop tied to new housing zoned along the line; when the cost forecast rose before construction, the ministry renegotiated the cost split and kept the start date, then absorbed a further overrun from ground contamination at the airport.

Preconditions

  • A municipality willing to share capital cost in exchange for land-use value along the line
  • A state budget able to absorb an overrun on a single project without stopping it
  • Airport ground conditions that were not fully surveyed before tunnelling

Limits: The 770 million euro figure is stated by the delivery agency in an anniversary news article ('Hankkeen rakennuskustannukset olivat lopulta 770 miljoonaa euroa'), not taken from an audited final account, and the page flags itself as an old article. The page says only that costs were higher than estimated; the size of the overrun comes from a different source: the Ministry of Transport and Communications release of 10 March 2008 (https://lvm.fi/-/keharadan-kustannukset-ylittyvat-770641) put the forecast at 590 million euros, 75 million more than the estimate before it, so the final cost is about 30 percent above the 2008 forecast and about 50 percent above the earlier one. Those percentages are computed here, and neither source states the price basis, so part of the gap is inflation over 2008 to 2015. The originally planned opening date is not on either page, so the schedule slip is given only as the one year the agency attributes to the glycol problem. The state and the City of Vantaa shared the cost (73 and 27 percent under the original agreement, per the 2008 release). The same article says population growth along the line has been slower than forecast, especially in Kivistรถ, and that not all of the line's targets had been met by 2020. One line is not a national delivery record.