Gender and Generation Differences in Finnish Defence Policy Opinions 2000–2020

YEAR	2000	2005	2009	2012	2015	2018	2020
N for sample	1015	990	981	1017	1005	1034	1169
Percent male (responses)	48.9% (496)	46.8% (463)	47.0% (461)	49.8% (506)	49.2% (492)	46.9% (485)	53.9% (630)
Percent female (responses)	51.1% (519)	53.2% (527)	53.0% (520)	50.2% (511)	50.8% (511)	53.1% (549)	46.1% (539)
Age mean	42.19	45.04	45.80	47.06	46.95	47.38	50.09
Age Standard deviation	17.21	18.034	18.464	18.342	18.484	18.695	16.92
Age range	15–94	15–79	15–79	15–79	15–79	15–79	15–79

Table 2

Corresponding variables in annual surveys.

VARIABLES PER YEAR OF ANALYSIS	2000	2005	2009	2012	2015	2018	2020
Willingness to fight	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Support for conscription		X	X	X	X	X	X
Defense spending	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Military alignment	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
NATO		X	X	X	X	X	X
N per year	1015	990	981	1017	1005	1034	1169

Table 3

Regression model for the willingness to fight.

		OR	P	VALID N	N (0)	N(1)	MISSING
2000				972 (95.8%)	155 (15.3%)	817 (80.5%)	43 (4.2%)
	Gender	2.089	<0.001
	Age	1.019	0.001
2005				938 (94.7%)	185 (18.7%)	753 (76.1%)	52 (5.3%)
	Gender	2.738	<0.001
	Age	1.016	0.001
2009				940 (95.8%)	217(22.1%)	723 (73.7%)	41 (4.2%)
	Gender	2.219	<0.001
	Age	1.018	<0.001
2012				964 (94.8%)	187 (18.4%)	777 (76.4%)	53 (5.2%)
	Gender	2.094	<0.001
	Age	1.004	0.043
2015				949 (94.4%)	174 (17.3%)	775 (77.1%)	56 (5.6%)
	Gender	1.749	0.001
	Age	1.020	<0.001
2018				908 (87.8%)	217 (21.0%)	691 (66.8%)	126 (12.2%)
	Gender	1.169	0.322
	Age	1.017	<0.001
2020				977 (83.6%)	204 (17.5%)	773 (66.1%)	192 (16.4%)
	Gender	2.373	<0.001
	Age	1.033	<0.001

[i] If Finland were attacked, do you think Finns should in all circumstances take up arms in defence of their country, even if the outcome seemed uncertain?

0 = No, 1 = Yes.

Reference category: Woman.

Table 4

Regression model for the support for mandatory male conscription.

		OR	P	VALID N	N (0)	N(1)	MISSING
2005				976 (98.4%)	208 (21.0%)	768 (77.6%)	14 (1.4%)
	Gender	0.856	0.323
	Age	1.018	<0.001
2009				968 (98.7%)	262 (26.7%)	706 (72.0%)	13 (1.3%)
	Gender	0.878	0.375
	Age	1.018	<0.001
2012				1001 (98.4%)	269 (26.5%)	732 (72.0%)	16 (1.6%)
	Gender	1.006	0.965
	Age	1.017	<0.001
2015				980 (97.5%)	224 (22.3%)	756 (75.2%)	25 (2.5%)
	Gender	0.852	0.303
	Age	1.028	<0.001
2018				986 (95.4%)	229 (22.1%)	757 (73.2%)	48 (4.6%)
	Gender	0.815	0.190
	Age	1.034	<0.001
2020				1113 (95.2%)	255 (21.8%)	858 (73.4%)	56 (4.8%)
	Gender	1.003	0.986
	Age	1.029	<0.001

[i] Should Finland keep its present defence System which is based on universal conscription?

0 = The System should be changed, 1 = The System should remain as is Reference category: Woman.

Table 5

Regression model for the support for defence spending.

		OR	P	VALID N	N(0)	N(1)	MISSING
2000				992 (97.7%)	530 (52.2%)	462 (45.5%)	23 (2.3%)
	Gender	1.302	0.039
	Age	0.995	0.170
2005				954 (96.4%)	670 (67.7%)	284 (28.7%)	36 (3.6%)
	Gender	1.728	<0.001
	Age	1.001	0.695
2009				954 (97.2%)	687 (70.0%)	267 (27.2%)	27 (2.8%)
	Gender	1.920	<0.001
	Age	1.003	0.383
2012				990 (97.3%)	646 (63.5%)	344 (33.8%)	27 (2.7%)
	Gender	1.832	<0.001
	Age	1.004	0.236
2015				962 (95.7%)	511 (50.8%)	451 (44.9%)	43 (4.3%)
	Gender	1.476	0.003
	Age	1.013	<0.001
2018				955 (92.4%)	544 (52.6%)	411 (39.7%)	79 (7.6%)
	Gender	1.835	<0.001
	Age	1.013	<0.001
2020				1087 (93.0%)	710 (60.7%)	377 (32.2%)	82 (7.0%)
	Gender	1.763	<0.001
	Age	1.010	0.008

[i] What is your opinion on the Defence Forces¹ funding?

0 = Funding should be maintained or decreased, 1 = Funding should be increased Reference category: Woman.

Table 6

Regression model for military alignment.

		OR	P	VALID N	N(0)	N(1)	MISSING
2000				926 (91.2%)	258 (25.4%)	668 (65.8%)	89 (8.8%)
	Gender	0.659	0.007
	Age	1.011	0.010
2005				434 (43.8%)	151 (15.3%)	283 (28.6%)	555 (56.2%)
	Gender	0.700	0.079
	Age	0.998	0.765
2009				907 (92.5%)	315 (32.1%)	592 (60.3%)	74 (7.5%)
	Gender	0.953	0.753
	Age	0.990	0.01
2012				939 (92.3%)	240 (23.6%)	699 (68.7%)	78 (7.7%)
	Gender	0.702	0.020
	Age	1.002	0.658
2015				886 (88.2%)	325 (32.3%)	561 (55.8%)	119 (11.8%)
	Gender	1.016	0.908
	Age	1.006	0.093
2018				858 (83.0%)	266 (25.7%)	592 (57.3%)	176 (17.0%)
	Gender	0.83	0.210
	Age	1.013	0.002
2020				962 (82.3%)	284 (24.3%)	678 (58.0%)	207 (17.7%)
	Gender	0.421	<0.001
	Age	1.014	0.001

[i] In your opinion, should Finland continue its policy of military non-alignment or enter a military alliance?

0 = Finland should enter a military alliance, 1 = Finland should remain unaligned Reference category: Woman.

Table 7

Regression model for the NATO membership.

		OR	P	VALID N	N (0)	N(1)	MISSING
2005				480 (48.5%)	136 (13.7%)	323 (32.6%)	531 (53.6%)
	Gender	0.366	0.002
	Age	0.691	0.351
2009				887 (90.4%)	274 (27.9%)	613 (62.5%)	94 (9.6%)
	Gender	0.632	0.518
	Age	0.688	0.014
2012				914 (89.9%)	186 (18.3%)	728 (71.6%)	103 (10.1%)
	Gender	0.733	0.061
	Age	0.996	0.337
2015				860 (85.6%)	260 (25.9%)	600 (59.7%)	145 (14.4%)
	Gender	0.894	0.453
	Age	1.000	0.985
2018				812 (78.5%)	206 (19.9%)	606 (58.6%)	222 (21.5%)
	Gender	0.705	0.032
	Age	1.003	0.431
2020				891 (76.2%)	241 (20.6%)	650 (55.6%)	278 (23.8%)
	Gender	0.446	<0.001
	Age	1.000	0.998

[i] In your opinion, should Finland seek to become a member of NATO?

0 = Yes, 1 = No.

Reference category: Woman.

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.197 | Journal eISSN: 2596-3856

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 182 - 197

Submitted on: Jan 12, 2023

Accepted on: Aug 11, 2023

Published on: Sep 15, 2023

Published by: Scandinavian Military Studies

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

public opinion,

gender,

willingness to fight,

conscription,

defence spending,

military alignment

© 2023 Linda Hart, Erasmus Häggblom, Antti-Tuomas Pulkka, published by Scandinavian Military Studies
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 1