These words resonated strongly with the unbounded confidence and undeniable resilience of the American psyche – the unconquerable spirit of a people who believe that anything is possible in the US of A.

President Obama inherited an unparalleled political, fiscal and social quagmire. He went into this with his eyes open and in the first hundred and fifty days has shown no signs of abandoning his all-out attack on the wide range of problems confronting the nation. It is yet natural that his brave approach has evoked not only considerable admiration, but also a wave of sympathy from observers worldwide.

The current recession, though global, is attributable largely to the profligacy and shabby governance of the previous US administration and the outrageous greed of the banking community that it failed to regulate. The negative current account balance of $800 billion – the benchmark of such profligacy – is unprecedented in American fiscal history or that of any other country. The road to recovery will be long and hard, as shown in depressing economic indicators such as rising unemployment, the spate of mortgage foreclosures, bankruptcies, partial disintegration of the automobile industry and semi-paralysis of the banking system. The Economist rates the USA in 10th place among favourable business environments.

Another major headache for Obama is the poorly functioning healthcare system, in spite of spending more than any other country. Education standards are of great concern. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa), instigated by the OECD, the United States languishes in 24th place. Bush left Obama a foreign policy in tatters. If two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) were not enough, the US faces ongoing embroilment in disputes between Arabs and Israelis, Taliban-infested Pakistani border areas, al-Qaeda attacks, the threat of nuclear escalations in Iran and North Korea, bitter arguments with Russia over missile defence shields, arms reductions, involvement in “orange” revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and vociferous accusations from 500 million Muslims of being anti-Islamic (“the great Satan”). In terms of international relations and co-operation, America under Bush experienced friction with her allies over the conduct of the Iraq war, Guantánamo and prison torture, disappointed most major countries with her negative record on climate change and the Kyoto accords and finished up a lamentable 39th in the 2008 Environmental Performance Index.

Obama has asserted that he does not intend to shirk or ignore any of these sorrowful issues, but to tackle all of them simultaneously and advance along a broad front. Yes we can, but can he? Most of the world wishes him success, but where to begin? He might do worse than start in Helsinki, the capital of Finland.

This small pro-Western country of 5 million people is at or near the top of most league tables and offers a blueprint which scores convincingly in areas which plague Obama most. First in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) list of most competitive countries, it is second (to Singapore) in the business environment index, leads most of the world in R & D expenditure (3.5% of GDP compared with US 2.67%) and is weathering the recession comfortably, running proportionately the biggest fiscal surplus in the euro zone. Instead of bailing out ailing companies, Finland spends her money on retraining workers for technology jobs. Though spending only 7.5% of GDP on healthcare (cf. US 15.9%), Finland has, in tandem with Sweden, the most complete healthcare service in the world (twice as many hospital beds per 1000 as the US). Finland’s infant mortality rate is half that of America.

The Finns are the best educated people in the world, topping the WEF survey (41 countries) year by year in all three key subjects: mathematics, reading and science. Finnish tertiary enrolment in universities is the highest per capita in the world, their gleaming colleges of higher education being visible expressions of the link between knowledge and modernity.

Foreign policy? Finland gained her independence in 1918. In 1939-44, she earned the description “Europe’s Hero Nation”, holding off the Red Army for five years in face of huge numerical superiority, finally securing her independence. Helsinki, London and Moscow were the only belligerent European capitals not occupied during World War II. In spite of the bitter protracted struggle, Finland has maintained good relations with Russia since 1945, trades energetically with her huge neighbour and actually issued 505,000 tourist visas to Russians in 2008. Finland is regarded by the UN as the world’s super Peace-keeper. President Ahtisaari was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 for settlements he achieved in Namibia and Bosnia.      

President Obama would find a number of other comforting facts in the Finnish blueprint for future welfare. Finland leads the world in environmental sustainability; she is also world leader in the management of water resources. 

In the international sphere, Finland has an enviable reputation. In fact she has no enemies. Regarded as an ideal EU member – meeting her fiscal commitments and properly observing the union’s regulations – she is respected universally for her ready impartiality, and perhaps most of all her democratic model where flexible, medium-sized parties produce members of parliament who actually strive to carry out the policies they promised to the constituents who elected them. Finland is also admired for her absence of corruption, abhorrence of debt, minimal bureaucracy, nuclear efficiency, prowess in architecture and music, press freedom, talent for innovation, excellent macroeconomic management, observance of legality and generous aid. Obama may well marvel at how an understated society like the Finnish can achieve miraculous progress in so many fields – quickly and modestly. He would get on well with the inhabitants of this Nordic land – a country that could, and did.

by Richard D. Lewis

A German, a Frenchman, a Russian, and a Finn took part in a writing competition about elephants. The German came up with A Short Introduction to the Physiology of the Elephant (1,500 pages, plus appendices). The French entry was The Love Life of the Elephant. The Russian wrote Elephants in Russia, and the Finn wrote What do Elephants Think of Me?

The Finns really do care about what you think of them.

Last summer I moved from London to Helsinki for a ‘cooler’ change of scenery. This change has given me a different perspective on the country I left behind and an insider’s view of Finland. One of the notable adjustments I have had to make in my new home country is that of living in a nation that spends considerable time pondering what the rest of the world thinks of it. Speaking to my Finnish partner this week she considered the topic and summarised thus, ‘Maybe we (the Finns) do worry what they (the rest of the world) think of us. And maybe we are clumsy communicators, lack confidence and are pre-programmed with a degree of national self doubt.’

Street View

I was talking to a waiter in a Helsinki café this week. He was amazed that I lived in Finland. Partly in disbelief, and partly out of interest, he asked me, ‘How did you hear about us?’ – An amusing turn of phrase which made me feel as if he was interviewing me for a job in the café. In truth he was amazed that someone from London would move to Helsinki. He waxed lyrical about London’s rich history, its reputation as one of the world’s leading financial hubs (until recently) and, even more importantly, the 13 professional football teams based in London. He mentioned The Beatles as well, but I didn’t want to correct him because I’m English and we generally don’t do that unless we absolutely have to.

In truth, Helsinki offers everything you would expect from a great city apart from a 150 year old metro system and a highly respected royal family.  Still, the Finns remain surprisingly reticent about the merits of their capital and country.

Google Street View

For a more modern perspective, consider Google’s recent innovation Street View. The controversial mapping service provides a 360-degree view of streets and buildings including residential addresses, people and cars. Since it was launched two years ago people have complained in their thousands that their privacy and civil rights have been breached.

Take the two men who got caught out just after the UK launch. In one incriminating shot a man was seen exiting a Soho sex shop and another shot included a man vomiting outside a pub. Both images had to be removed from the application soon after the launch following strong complaints from the gentlemen in question.

The Finn’s view

It was interesting to note Finland’s reaction to Street View. As the western world raged against breaches of civil rights and privacy, the Finns were more concerned with Google’s timing to drop by with their cameras in early spring. There were widespread concerns that during this period of transition Finland would not create the right impression (trees without leaves, melting and muddied snow and the sun would be somewhere else, of course). ‘What will the world think of us!’ the Finns cried. Finland’s number one broadsheet Helsingin Sanomat highlighted the view of many Finns stating that the primary concern was to create the right impression, and hoped that the pictures ‘came out alright’.

The Brits on the other hand are more concerned with what they can edit so they don’t get caught out doing things they shouldn’t. There is an interesting juxtaposition as Britain’s leading politicians currently face their own challenges around declaring and editing the truth.

Transparency and Openness

So there we are, the Finns are committed to openness and honesty, whilst lacking self assurance about their country. I wonder if this is a consequence of being ‘up front’?

The Brits, in contrast, appear to be able to cover things up and still remain proud of their nation.

Keeping to the rules is hard and places a lot of emphasis on order. Finland enjoys a surprisingly transparent political process which most European countries would not believe.

Secretary General of The Finnish Parliament, Seppo Tiitinen, delivered a short speech two weeks ago. He spoke of parliament’s open policy towards the media and the public in Finland and asserted, ‘the best safeguard against corruption is openness’.

Is everyone else just hiding behind their national pride? 

by Nick Vertigans

In India recently for a workshop tour to Bangalore, Mumbai and Delhi, I was about to start for the day when the organiser said there was a problem with the projection screen. It was a metre too low, so those at the back would not have been able to see the bottom of my slides. He called over the lone technician at the 5 star hotel conference centre and told him he had 10 minutes to resolve the situation. It was a huge and heavy screen with a large wooden surround with the management school’s logo on it. Impossible to lift alone. Within seconds the room was bustling with people, ranging from the conference centre manager to kitchen staff. Trestle tables, starched white cloths, various random pieces of wood, ropes, hammers and nails appeared. The screen teetered into the air precariously, just missing the rather large chandeliers. A collective effort raised it onto the now neatly-covered tables and a disorderly banging and shuffling began behind it. When the course participants began filing in, the set-up was perfect: screen one metre higher; looking as if it had always been like that. Not a workman in sight. I glanced behind it and observed that it was held up by a Heath-Robinson-style rickety wooden framework secured by long guy-ropes. It served its purpose all day. Next morning the screen was held in place invisibly and professionally.

Asking my Indian friends about this later, they said it was a perfect example of Jugaad – best described as a sort of hurried collective resourcefulness; a finding of an alternative, laterally-thought out solution - which somehow works against the odds – gaining time by acting before the proper means to carry out the job arrive, maybe using your connections, and possibly bending some rules along the way.

In concrete terms, a Jugaad is also a locally made motor vehicle used mostly in small villages as a means of low cost transportation and made by carpenters, who fit a diesel engine to their contraption. The brakes often fail – but, no worries, as a passenger will jump off and apply a manual wooden block as a brake. More Jugaad, in other words.

Jugaad can also be used in the context of management. In the West we may sometimes be hidebound by our solid structures and processes, too tied to facts and rules. Jugaad could be seen as a sort of out-of-the-box and network-style thinking that could serve us well in times of change, crisis and in extreme circumstances. It requires people to use skills outside the ones they may have been employed for, and which usually go unexploited. It requires strong collaborative skills. It means an open mind and boundless flexibility.

A recent comparative report by McKinsey on the relative strengths of India and China identified Indian flexibility as a key ‘soft competitive edge’ that India has.

Another Indian characteristic – the belief in Karma or fate – can sometimes be used as way of excusing things which go wrong. Even the most sophisticated and western-influenced Indian manager is likely to retain, at a deep level, a belief in Karma.

On the other hand, it can be a great stimulus to take the risks that may be needed to effect real change. If things turn out badly, then that was meant to happen – so you may as well take the leap of faith and be bold.

In our current global recession it is likely to be the bold, flexible and resourceful who survive.

We can learn a lot from India.

by Michael Gates

The fact that this initiative emanates from Birmingham (“Good old Brum”) rather than from established literary centres such as Oxford or Cambridge, may at first strike one as strange. Is it on the cards that such dignified and august bodies as The Apostrophe Protection Society, The Plain English Society and the Plain Language Commission (all of whom have leapt to defend the apostrophe) can actually be defeated by a certain Martin Mulaney, whose title is Chairman of Birmingham City Council’s Transportation Scrutiny Committee?

While the apostrophe is frequently misused, also omitted by a substantial proportion of the British public, is it not true that, to some extent, we are fond of it? For one thing, other major languages hardly have one. It might have been introduced into English from French in the 16th century (according to Crystal) but in later ceturies we have enjoyed almost exclusive use of this charming squiggle.

The phrase: “The teacher’s son’s classroom” may lack elegance, but is surely better than the roundabout “La salle de classe du fils du professeur.” Similarly “John’s sister’s programme” is more succinct than “El programa de la hermana de Juan”. Pragmatic German and Nordic languages simply add ‘s’ to denote the genitive: Deutschlands Wetter; Danmarks kong; Sveriges huvudstad; while Romance languages have to resort to a variety of forms:

French: de, de la, du, des

Spanish: de, de la, del, de las, de los

Italian: di, della, del, dello, delle, dei, degli

Portuguese: de, da, do, das, dos

The apostrophe originated from a confused past and that confusion has yet to subside. For many English people punctuation as a whole is a minefield of error and inconsistency. The “dog’s tail” seems OK, but “the table’s edge” and “the room’s corner” are forbidden. Even commas cause trouble, as we know from Lynn Truss’ lovely book “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” where inside we find that a panda eats shoots and leaves.

As a linguist, I have to take sides. Instinctively I must defend the apostrophe and avoid what John Richards describes as the “dumbing down” of our reading public. However, the characteristics of modern journalism (using writing as a medium for fleeting speech) and the pervasive influence of texting would suggest that our little squiggle has a bleak future in the 21st century and may not survive it.

by Richard D. Lewis