During the 2010s and 2020s, Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture launched two national ‘roadmaps’ to boost education exports. These plans encouraged universities and companies to market Finnish expertise abroad – from early childhood curricula to teacher-training programs and educational technology. The aim was not just cultural diplomacy but income generation. Education, once seen as an investment in citizens, was now treated as a rentable ‘knowledge asset’ capable of earning profit for both the state and private firms.

Kovalainen and Poutanen describe this process as assetisation – the transformation of knowledge into something tradable and revenue-producing. Through government-run initiatives such as the Education Finland programme, the state acted as a co-creator of these assets. Companies and universities were invited to join the export platform, gaining access to official branding, networking opportunities, and even loans. This stamp of state approval became part of their market value.

Yet, as the researchers emphasise, when the state itself becomes an active player in assetisation, the process is inherently politicised – exposed to sudden policy shifts that can reshape or even dismantle entire initiatives.

That vulnerability was made clear in the case of Oppiva Invest Ltd., a state-owned company founded in 2019 to finance education-export ventures. Backed by €80 million in public capital, it offered loans to firms developing digital learning tools and training products. But in 2024, a new government abruptly shut it down, redirecting its funds to a broader industrial investment agency. Political priorities, not educational goals, determined the fate of the venture – illustrating how fragile state-led assetisation can be when governments change course.

The researchers argue that Finland’s case highlights a wider global shift. As governments seek new revenue streams in a digital economy, even public knowledge is being repackaged for markets. Kovalainen and Poutanen caution that while such initiatives can promote innovation and international collaboration, they also risk narrowing education’s purpose to economic returns alone. When knowledge is valued mainly for its earning potential, other goals – like truth, equality, and the public good – may fade into the background.