General government spending as share of GDP, excluding transfers already captured under fiscal.transfer_expansion to avoid double-counting.
Size of cash and near-cash transfer programmes (unemployment benefits, means-tested assistance, universal child benefits). Architecturally distinct from forced-saving schemes — see condition welfare_architecture.
Multi-year fiscal consolidation programme announced in the June 2023 government programme and legislated through the autumn 2023 budget bill and spring 2024 mid-term review. Headline target: close Finland's structural general-government deficit by EUR 9 billion over the 2023-2027 term, roughly half via direct spending cuts (EUR ~4.5bn) and half via tax and other revenue measures (EUR ~4bn including bracket-creep via partial indexation and consumption-tax measures). Key spending-side components: tapering of earnings-related unemployment benefits (step-downs at 40 and 170 days), abolition of the adult-education allowance (2024), tightening of housing allowance, freezes and partial abolition of several index-linked benefits, headcount reductions in central- government personnel. Revenue: standard VAT rate raised from 24 to 25.5 percent (effective September 2024), reduced-rate VAT items moved to higher bracket, excise and dividend-taxation adjustments. Corporate tax rate left at 20 percent. Motivated by debt-to-GDP trajectory that had risen from ~59 percent (2019) to ~77 percent (2023) and European Commission excessive-deficit-procedure pressure.
Per invariant 3, reforms are scored by what they did on each channel-separated axis, not by the party that enacted them. This fingerprint is how the policy-match engine finds historical analogues.
Explicit links are curated by the author. Inferred links are hypotheses in the library that test the same axes this policy moved — the framework's answer to "what does the data say about a policy like this?".
Ranked by axis-fingerprint overlap with this policy. Direction match bolded — those are the closest historical analogues. Shape of the match is what drives policy-outcome comparison, not the country or party label.