One of the central characteristics of Finnish behaviour is modesty. On many occasions, it has proved to be one of our strengths. Free of preconceived attitudes, we have been able to participate in cooperation and absorb new influences. Others have been able to trust us, and when it has been our turn to speak, we have been listened to.

Sometimes, however, it is advisable to curb excess modesty for a while when there is a good reason to do so. When we examine the industrial countries in transition to a post-industrial, information society, we can justifiably argue that Finland is one of the countries spearheading this development.

There are several indications of Finland's position in the vanguard of development. Where basic technical structures are concerned, we are in the top world class. In the use of technology, we Finns have reached a level that has begun to be called "the northern miracle" by observers in other parts of the world. Advanced technology companies are creating a new pillar alongside the sectors that have traditionally supported our economy. Our administrative sector has been swift to grasp the new opportunities. Inputs of resources into training and research are further strengthening our position.

Yet developing into an information society is not just technology. It is very much more. It requires our entire society - the young and the old, the successful and the less-fortunate, individuals and communities - to be able to fashion opportunities into strengths and solve the problems that inevitably accompany a transition to a new kind of society. The transition to an information society should be an important part of the solution to unemployment.

We have every opportunity for success. Technological development is lessening the significance of distance and in some respects even eliminating it. Remoteness or central location are no longer functions of geography. In such a development, a northern country with long internal distances can be one of the biggest gainers.

We have every reason to be proud of Finland's role in spearheading the development of telecommunications. At the same time as success may give our healthy self-esteem a boost, it is also integrating us more closely into international cooperation. Cooperation transcending national borders is only in an early phase of growth.

Besides opportunities, our vanguard position also gives us rights. In the context of international cooperation, what we have to say on the subject of the information society is accorded more weight than might be expected on the basis of our population alone. On the other hand, our position also imposes obligations on us. It is our special duty to be among the leaders in solving the problems - big and small - that accompany societal transformation and transition.

Our position is by no means easy, but rather involves many difficulties and risks. We must be among the first to encounter change and many of the phenomena associated with it, without any outside example to guide us. In such a situation there is a danger of succumbing to collective stupidity: no one notices the essential features of change, and therefore cannot say what ought to be done. We must not surrender to delusions.

Even after all the technical, cultural and societal breakthroughs that we have made, we are still a country with a small population and not enough resources to do everything on our own. Yet smallness can also be a strength. It has compelled and is compelling us to internationalise, seek cooperation, and it also prompts us to concentrate on the essential.

With regard to the transformation that her society is undergoing, Finland is in an internationally significant position. We live in a country where advanced technology, a sophisticated market, discerning consumers, enlightened administration and a Nordic perception of the rule of law combine with each other. That combination is an opportune one for the creation of progressive, forward-looking policies that take the interests of both the individual and society comprehensively into account.

Naturally, we are not alone in formulating the ground rules for the future, but rather are doing so in collaboration with other countries. Our most important forum for cooperation in this respect is the European Union.

The European Union's decision-making, drafting and executive bodies are located in Central Europe, which is not yet as advanced in the development of an information society as Finland and the other Nordic countries. That is why, for example, the - as such active - work of the European Commission occasionally reflects sentiments that one hears expressed in the public discourse in Central Europe and are founded on less experience of practical application of new technology. That is why we must be more forceful in presenting our own experience and views. Many earlier fears have proven exaggerated or even groundless, but at the same time new issues have assumed greater significance.

A central question involved in decision-making in relation to the information society is how to safeguard the position of civic rights and liberties and strengthen them as technology and society are transformed. The implementation of those important values freedom of speech and protection of the individual must not be jeopardised as new technology advances.

Protection of privacy is a good example of the new challenges to which we are having to respond. In the future an ever larger proportion of the population will use information networks in their everyday lives. We shall do our shopping, handle our correspondence, work, study, engage in leisure pursuits, perhaps even consult the doctor, more and more often through the medium of electronic networks. It is a development that has many good consequences. However, it would be a pity if the information that we stored were to fall into the wrong hands. Were that to happen, it would be possible to determine our financial status, our views on politics and society, or to find out other things about us that belong in the sphere of privacy.

In matters of this kind it is the task of the public authorities to ensure that fundamental rights are implemented, also in an information society. That does not mean returning to a highly-regulated society, but rather the formulation of ground rules that serve to support creativity and enterprise.

The State must understand its central tasks in international questions connected with the information society. Given the facility with which information crosses national borders, the ground rules must also be internationally accepted if they are to be of any significance. By contrast, short-sightedly restricting freedom of trade will be just as harmful in the information society of the future as it is today. If that freedom is interfered with, there must be a particularly good reason for doing so.

Thus we should not be content to remain within our own borders when we are laying a foundation for tomorrow. Finland must be more active in putting forward initiatives in European policy with the aim of developing the information society of the future. Finland boarded a moving train when she decided to join the European Union. Now it is time to see in what matters we should move forward to the engine. The development of the information society is one such question.

This is also an opportunity for European cooperation to demonstrate what it is capable of. Citizens can justifiably ask what concrete achievements integration has led to in their own lives. The European Union must not be a producer of pointless decisions, but rather should concentrate on matters that can best be pursued by means of cooperation.

It would be a convincing example of the power of integration if Europe could now manage to rally its forces and proceed to the vanguard of development as a continent that combines technology, economics, balanced societal development and the rights of the individual. At the moment, other continents have gained a lead in technology, so there is work to be done. Europe's strength could lie, however, in promoting the kind of development that takes account of not only technology, but also the other basic components of the information society.

Finland has a good foundation from which to strive for economic success in the future. But economic success does not flow automatically from technical expertise. Recent Finnish research has shown that many of our advanced technology companies have become successful only after their acquisition by new owners abroad. Foreign investment in Finnish companies is welcome, of course, but it has to be asked why success has not been accomplished with indigenous resources. Do we have enough managerial know-how? Are we giving up the fruits of our product development, which has required a lot of investment, too easily and allowing their benefits to go abroad? Are we surrendering some of the jobs that could have been created in Finland?

A central question is how well we understand change in the international economic order and how effectively we can function within it. Our ability to learn is being put to a tough test, because Finnish companies have been internationalising in earnest only since the 1980s. In Sweden, the same development was gathering pace a hundred years earlier, and the Danes had cooperation with East Asia already three centuries ago. The Dutch and the English have been operating overseas for even longer. Obviously, competition in such company is tough.

Yet historical experience is not enough on its own. Change in the structures of the international economy involves more than just growing volumes of output and trade. The whole production system is becoming global, because direct investment is growing even faster than trade and companies are joining together in networks that transcend borders. A genuinely global economy, a global market area is coming into being.

Understanding this development is of central importance also in creating new, lasting jobs. In the OECD countries at the moment, the sectors associated with the information society are the only ones in which new jobs are being generated. Thanks to the wide and diverse range of expertise that she possesses, Finland has exceptionally good opportunities to exploit this change and build information-society-related companies into the most important pillar supporting our economy, one that also attracts international investors. For some time still we may have a lead that we can exploit. It is time to act.

Although big matters are being talked about in the context of change, individual steps are small, small enough to fit a human scale. Alongside successful large companies, a flourishing network of small, new-type enterprises employing what could be described as brainwork artisans must be created in Finland. It is in businesses like those that most of the new jobs of the future will be created.

Finland must likewise channel resources into developing managerial expertise in a completely new way to enable it to advance to the international forefront. Here, management must be understood more broadly than it currently is. Corporate executives need a solid general cultural education as a foundation for their operations. There is also room for development in corporate cultures. A regrettable indication of that is the slowness with which persons who have earned doctorates are hired by companies. Causes must be sought not only in the content of training, but also elsewhere if companies are unable to avail of that segment of our labour force that has received the most advanced education.

The Finns must also learn to develop their own charisma and personality and dare to rely on them in international contacts. It is somewhat misleading to talk of commercial skills as a foundation for trade; "the art of commerce" might be more apposite.

Not, of course, that it is merely a matter of learning new things. We must learn to avail of the experience possessed by managers and experts who have been in working life for a long time, and perhaps even those who have already retired. Getting those senior citizens involved as board members and shareholders in small companies that are just starting up would be a veritable resource. In the information society of the future there will have to be a reliance on better interaction between the generations.

It would be advisable for the State to make reciprocal gestures to private individuals who, by placing their expertise or part of their wealth at the disposal of small companies starting up, help create new jobs in this country. There is a need for open-minded deliberation of how this activity, the benefits of which accrue to all, could be encouraged.

Much has in fact already been done. When the State sells the companies it owns and invests the proceeds in research and development through the Technology Development Centre and the Academy of Finland, it is actually transferring its investment from physical to intellectual assets. That is the course that we must follow also in society as a whole. Innovation is needed in every sphere of life.

"Change" is one of the most important, but also one of the most difficult words when we ponder development towards the information society of the future. The ongoing transition to an information society is changing the world rapidly, and to some degree also unpredictably. Nor is the change limited to technical matters; on the contrary, it affects the whole of our society.

Finland has a wealth of experience of major changes. For at least the past 130 years we have been in the middle of one of the most rapid societal transformations in the Western world. First, the catastrophe of several years of major famine forced us to modernise our agriculture. Then railways revolutionised our physical communications and international trade gained vigour. Independence severed our close economic ties with Russia. A resolution of the tenant farmers issue restructured our land-ownership pattern. Viewed in retrospect, our success in coping with the second world war, resettling evacuees and front veterans, rebuilding the country and paying off the war indemnity were nearly incredible achievements. Emigration and rural depopulation have put our adaptability to the test.

Since the war, our prosperity has increased faster than in most other Western countries and we have also been able to divide the benefit created quite equitably. Not even the deep recession that afflicted us in the early years of the present decade - one of the most dramatic slumps in peacetime Europe - has destroyed the essential core of our achievements.

Thus we are professionals in coping with social transformation and upheaval. It is our strength, and a skill that we will be expected to demonstrate also in the future.

Until now the rapid pace at which Finnish society has been changing has meant our catching up on other countries. Now we may be entering a phase in which we are in the vanguard of development in some matters.

Although development brings our people as a whole economic success, it is not enough if wealth is unevenly divided. For that reason, one of the most central - and also most difficult - questions that the information society of the future will have to solve will be how to combine efficient income generation with a just distribution of income. By efficiency I do not mean adding to the burden on the environment or increased use of natural resources. On the contrary, efficiency means that economic development is sustainable, that it takes account of the natural environment's carrying capacity and ability to renew itself. Justice, in turn, means that work and enterprise are rewarded and that also the welfare of the less-fortunate in society is taken care of.

Unfortunately, there are indications that change in society may mean growing differences between wage levels. For example, in North America, which differs from Europe in that many new jobs have been created in the past couple of decades, the new jobs have been on average better-paid than existing ones. However, the average does not tell the whole truth: most of the jobs have been either very lucrative or else have paid barely enough to guarantee a minimum level of subsistence.

The explanation advanced for the huge gap between wage levels is that the accelerating shift from manual to mental work and tasks that require special expertise also increases productivity differences between people, and this is reflected in remuneration. The argument that has been presented in support of allowing wage differences to grow is that preventing the emergence of low-paid jobs will mean no new jobs at all.

We in Finland have every reason to follow this debate very carefully and to deliberate what measures we should take if change in the basic structure of the labour market were to appear to be leading to a permanent increase in differences between groups in society. In the present development, growing disparity is a real menacing picture.

According to some estimates, a Finn nowadays puts in fewer working hours in the course of a lifetime than an inhabitant of most other Western countries. We remain in training longer and retire earlier. However, in the hours that we do work we achieve one of the world's highest standards of living measured by economic indicators. Our gross domestic product is now as great as it was before the recession, although hundreds of thousands of jobs have vanished. That has been possible because our labour productivity has risen to one of the highest levels in the world. More and more is being squeezed out of those who have jobs.

Thus we have been advancing and are continuing to advance very rapidly in the transformation of our economy's structure. On the one hand, this ability to restructure has saved our economy: now that the recession is behind us, the prognoses for the current and next year again seem very promising. On the other hand, this development has also had its negative side: we have not succeeded in creating enough new jobs for those who have lost their old ones, and the hard pace of work is exhausting the working Finns clearly earlier than their counterparts in many other countries. Perhaps we have not been able to translate economic success into quality of life.

We can learn from foreign examples, but we cannot copy their solutions. Thus we cannot embrace the raw capitalist model as such, nor do we want to; instead, we must develop our own Finnish response to the challenges that the information society poses. In that response, we must rally our best expertise: our ability to change rapidly and our striving for a just society.

When I have expressed concern about the one-sided consequences of rationalisation-oriented management, I have at the same time been awaiting openings in the direction of construction-focused leadership. With citizens genuinely worried about the availability of central services throughout our country, managers determined to build should offer alternatives alongside a running down of services and rationalisation. I have noticed hardly any deeds that would have led to information-technology-based services being offered to those citizens who have been deprived of postal services. In the final analysis, the information society will acquire a content only through its citizens. In my perception, the information society and products and services that use information technology offer additional opportunities as we advance towards a genuinely interactive civil society.

Training is one of the best ways to react to change. It strengthens society in general, but in particular it improves unemployed people's prospects of re-entering working life. We shall have to continue to put resources into it.

Even if change in the structures of the economy were to increase pressures for growth in gaps between wage levels, this must not mean commensurate growth in differences between income levels and a more uneven distribution of prosperity. Here, new and fresh-minded thinking in reforming our system of social security is called for. Improving the situation of the less-fortunate, an active shouldering of responsibility and increasing the capacity of individuals to adapt are central principles in this respect.

We must grasp the new opportunities that technological development offers as soon as it is possible. Our great opportunity lies in the fact that the importance of distance is diminishing or even disappearing. The opportunity to increase handicapped persons' participation, on a basis of equity, in building our society likewise makes completely new and valuable resources available.

When we examine this totality, we observe that the employment-creating effect of the so-called third sector and the importance of voluntary organisations are not questions separate from the development of society in general. They are, in fact, components of the missing link that is being sought in the work of building the information society of the future. Alongside private capital and public capital, the community capital that springs mainly from free civic activities is a central cohesive force in society. Finland is not just the sum of her citizens, but something more.

Finland's development into an information society is influencing culture, habits and communications in many ways. It is difficult to predict how people's way of life will change in the course of, say, the next couple of decades. Thus we cannot prepare ourselves for everything. However, there are grounds for asking whether the state has particularly much reason to alter the course of development if change is based on people's own needs, desires and choices. People must have the right to make choices concerning their own lives.

Since ours is a small linguistic area, we are closely following how change is treating languages like Finnish. Fears that English will become the dominant lingua franca and gradually smother smaller languages are often expressed.

One can understand the reasons for such fears, but without completely agreeing that they are well-founded. It is realism to recognise that we need skill in foreign languages when we have dealings with the rest of the world. At the same time, however, it is just as realistic to note that the Finnish language is every bit as vital today as it has perhaps ever been. Indeed, we should turn the opportunities that technology provides to our advantage. For example, the services available to Finns working abroad could be considerably diversified. Indeed, the position of linguistic minorities in general can improve markedly. This matter is particularly important in a continent like Europe with its great linguistic diversity.

In the society of the future small groups that are geographically remote from each other will increasingly often use state-of-the-art technology to keep in touch. That may have very great significance for the whole of society. In the future, people will build their identities around factors other than their geographical setting to a greater extent than they now do. Their hobbies, personal interests, social views or religious convictions will assume a more central position, even though they presently feel they belong only to a small minority. In the information society, minorities could be the real majority.

Contact between minorities, which could even be on a global scale, will have many positive consequences. It will support linguistic and cultural diversity. It will also prevent the majority from stifling the views of minorities. On the other hand, it could also strengthen the negative power that groups with a hostile attitude to the surrounding society may possess. However, the answer to such menacing images is not censorship, control or putting a brake on positive development, but rather a society that is healthy in its foundations and in which tolerance is a central value.

In other respects, too, we have a need to revise our attitudes and ways of doing things to suit the new situation. It can be seen from many examples that the traditional way of working on the basis of orders from above and hierarchies is giving way for a more diffuse, network-like pattern of action that is more difficult to predict. It may not be easy to discern the shape of a networked world nor to manage it, but a world like that is vital and capable of self-renewal.

Operating in an environment like this, the nation state will have to meet challenges of a completely new kind. Power and responsibility are diffusing into multifaceted networks, which have no regard for national frontiers. Freedom is increasing, but many negative phenomena may gain strength at the same time. In the future states will have to weigh their own tasks carefully, be prepared for cooperation and bear in mind the question of whether, in the final analysis, citizens are there for the state or vice versa.

Universities, academic research and training are a central component in the development of a Finnish information society. What is involved is a range of activities much broader than merely the systematic acquisition and internalisation of technical expertise.

The history of human civilisation has been one of surmounting obstacles. The humanistic sciences have gone beyond the earlier boundaries of the human mind, the natural sciences have struggled against the limitations imposed by nature. Now that new technology has eliminated or is in the process of eliminating more and more physical constraints, other factors that were earlier more in the background have begun determining the course of development. As contradictory as it may sound, technology will not feature more accentuatedly in the life of people and society as it develops, but instead its relative position could even diminish.

The things that really matter to people are beginning to emerge from the background: nature around us, our living habitat and the landscape, communities, a well-functioning and safe society, a life worthy of human beings, the pursuit of happiness. We are not heading towards a society of machines, but rather towards an era of people and human communities.

Science is a central component of this evolution. It does, of course, serve the ends of technological and economic development, but in common with the arts it also seeks what is true, beautiful and right. As a transfer is made from material growth to immaterial growth, the special emphasis is on cultivating the mind, culture - and in this universities are the most important institutions.

The natural sciences are of course an essential part of the academic world. Alongside them, the sciences that study people and human communities will deserve an important place in the future. Freedom of thought, vigilant educated minds and independent and critical examination of phenomena in society will be the foundation of a healthy information society.

By no means, however, is that to imply that universities should isolate themselves from the rest of society. In the future, cooperation with, for example, companies will be a natural part of academic life. The role of companies as a source of finance for applied research at universities may be quite decisive.

In the development of new cooperation models, universities and other third-level institutions have demonstrated commendable fresh-mindedness. However, the remaining Berlin walls must still be demolished both within universities and outside them. Companies and other instances like the Academy of Finland and the Technology Development Centre must be included in academic cooperation more often than hitherto.

This does not apply only to technical and commercial disciplines. Interdisciplinary networking must be extended into every sphere. To give just one example: many Finnish companies operating far afield would surely need knowledge of foreign cultures.

Although we are at a university, we are not gathering together in an ivory tower. A university is a forum for free academic thinking, a generator of critical views and a living part of Finnish society.

The information society is a great opportunity, but it also calls for constant vigilance and when necessary bold decisions on the part of us political decision-makers. I would like to draw attention to four central problems that we have to solve.

First: The transition to an information society may lead to growing inequality, because not all people, regions and states are able to avail of its opportunities equally well. In a process of rapid change, special attention must be devoted to strengthening the ability of the least-favoured to cope in the society of the future.

Second: An era of rapid change imposes particularly great demands on the adaptability of people, communities and societies. It is to be feared that in some situations adaptability will run up against its limits. We must act beforehand in order to be prepared when we face change and so that those who have run into difficulties are not driven into an untenable situation. That is important if only for the sake of social stability.

Third: Societal development is releasing new forces, both positive and negative. We must safeguard the preservation of a free and open society in a way that guarantees people a right to privacy and control of their own lives. At the same time, however, we must prepare ourselves for negative phenomena. It may become possible to disseminate opinions hostile to fellow human beings more effectively than earlier. Tolerance and protecting the weaker against the stronger will become more and more important in the future.

And fourth: Rapid and one-sided change could increase the vulnerability of our society. Technology is intended to be humankind's servant, not its master, and machines can not replace normal human interaction. We must carefully see to it that our society develops in a balanced manner and that it has the ability to cope with crisis situations.

Finland will perhaps be the first country to develop into an information society. It is a daunting challenge and we have no example to guide us. The Finns must feel a healthy pride in their historical role in this development and recognise the obligations that flow from it. A balanced development into an information society is both a national Finnish project and our European, perhaps broader, task.