Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-jzjqj Total loading time: 0.47 Render date: 2022-08-19T19:33:23.258Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capability in Scandinavia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Abstract

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are still among the most corporatist democracies in the world. Although corporatism has declined in Scandinavia over the last decades, it still exists, albeit at a lower level. Based on comparative and longitudinal data, we argue that this is a consequence of the disruption of some of the prerequisites to corporatist exchange. Neither governments nor the relevant interest groups in Scandinavia control what their exchange partner desires to the same extent as they did during the heyday of corporatism. Despite the involvement of different factors in the three countries, the main pattern is the same. Consequently, the character of state–interest group relations in Scandinavia is not as distinctive as it used to be.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M. M. L., ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages’, British Journal of Political Science, 21: 2 (1991), pp. 235–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Siaroff, A., ‘Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement’, European Journal of Political Research, 36: 2 (1999), pp. 175205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Blom-Hansen, J., ‘Still Corporatism in Scandinavia? A Survey of Recent Empirical Findings’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 23: 2 (2000), pp. 157–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christiansen, P. M. et al., ‘Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22: 1 (2010), pp. 2240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 G. Lembruch, ‘Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks’, in J. H. Goldthorpe (ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984; Molina, O. and Rhodes, M., ‘Corporatism: The Past, Present, and Future of a Concept’, Annual Review of Political Science, 5 (2002), pp. 305–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baccaro, L. and Simoni, M., ‘Policy Concertation in Europe: Understanding Government Choice’, Comparative Political Studies, 41: 10 (2008), pp. 1323–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Schmitter, P. C., ‘Still in the Century of Corporatism’, Review of Politics, 36: 1 (1974), pp. 85131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. C. Schmitter, ‘Reflections on Where the Theory of Neo-Corporatism Has Gone and Where the Praxis of Neo-Corporatism May Be Going’, in G. Lembruch and P. C. Schmitter (eds), Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, London, Sage, 1982.

5 Cf. Molina and Rhodes, ‘Corporatism’; Baccaro, L., ‘What is Alive and What is Dead in the Theory of Corporatism’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41: 4 (2003), pp. 683706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Offe, C., ‘The Attribution of Public Interest to Interest Groups: Observations on the West German Case’, in Berger, S. (ed.), Organizing Interest in Western Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 136–7Google Scholar.

7 Cawson, A., ‘Varieties on Corporatism: The Importance of the Meso-level of Interest Intermediation’, in Cawson, A. (ed.), Organized Interest and the State, London, Sage, 1985, p. 6 Google Scholar.

8 Offe, ‘The Attribution of Public Interest to Interest Groups’, pp. 126 ff.

9 P. C. Schmitter, ‘Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe’, in P. C. Schmitter and G. Lembruch (eds), Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation, Beverly Hills and London, Sage, 1979, p. 93; P. C. Schmitter, ‘Interest Intermediation and Regime Governability in Contemporary Western Europe and North America’, in S. Berger (ed.), Organizing Interest in Western Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 295.

10 Baccaro and Simoni, ‘Policy Concertation in Europe’, p. 1340.

11 J. S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994; P. O. Öberg, Särintresse och allmänintresse: Korporatismens ansikten, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1994; Molina and Rhodes, ‘Corporatism’.

12 Wilensky, H. L., Rich Democracies, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University Press, 2002, p. 87 Google Scholar.

13 Hooghe, L. and Marks, G., ‘Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance’, American Political Science Review, 97: 2 (2003), p. 234 Google Scholar.

14 Wilensky, Rich Democracies.

15 Cf. Rokkan, S., ‘Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism’, in Dahl, R. A. (ed.), Political Opposition in Western Democracies, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1966 Google Scholar.

16 Schmitter, ‘Still in the Century of Corporatism’; Schmitter, ‘Reflections on Where’.

17 Molina and Rhodes, ‘Corporatism’, p. 325.

18 Lembruch, ‘Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks’.

19 Anthonsen, M. and Lindvall, J., ‘Party Competition and the Resilience of Corporatism’, Government and Opposition, 44: 2 (2009), p. 170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 N. Elvander, Skandinavisk arbetarrörelse, Stockholm, LiberFörlag, 1980; cf. Öberg, Särintresse och allmänintresse; A. S. Nørgaard, The Politics of Institutional Control: Corporatism in Danish Occupational Safety and Health Regulation and Unemployment Insurance, 1870–1995, Aarhus, Politica, 1997.

21 F. Just, ‘Agriculture and Corporatism in Scandinavia’, in P. Lowe, T. Marsden and S. Whatmore (eds), Regulating Agriculture, Abingdon, Davis Fulton Publishers, 1995; A. A. Farsund, ‘Stabilitet og endring i norsk landbrukspolitikk’, RF-rapport 2004/072, Stavanger, RF-Rogalandsforskning, 2004; Öberg, Särintresse och allmänintresse.

22 Rothstein, B., ‘State Structure and Variations in Corporatism: The Swedish Case’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 14: 2 (1991), pp. 149–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B. Rothstein, Den korporativa staten, Stockholm, Norstedts Juridik, 1992; T. Nordby, Korporatisme på norsk, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1994; P. M. Christiansen and A. S. Nørgaard, Faste forhold – Flygtige forbindelser, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2003.

23 Lindvall, J. and Sebring, J., ‘Policy Reform and the Decline of Corporatism in Sweden’, West European Politics, 28: 5 (2005), pp. 1057–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anthonsen and Lindvall, ‘Party Competition’.

24 Compston, H., ‘The End of National Policy Concertation? Western Europe since the Single European Act’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5: 3 (1998), pp. 507–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Regini, M., ‘Between Deregulation and Social Pacts: The Responses of European Economies to Globalization’, Politics and Society, 28: 1 (2000), pp. 533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Christiansen et al., ‘Varieties of Democracy’, p. 24.

27 Sweden: J. Hermansson, Politik som intressekamp, Stockholm, Norstedts Juridik, 1993; J. Hermansson, A. Lund, T. Svensson and P. O. Öberg, Avkorporativisering och lobbyism, Swedish government official report, SOU 1999:121; B. Rothstein and J. Bergström, Korporatismens fall och den svenska modellens kris, Stockholm, SNS förlag, 1999; P. O. Öberg and T. Svensson, ‘Power and Institutions in Industrial Relation Regimes’, Worklife in Transition, 2005:12, Stockholm, National Institute for Working Life, 2005. Denmark: Blom-Hansen, J., ‘Organized Interests and the State: A Disintegrating Relationship? Evidence from Denmark’, European Journal of Political Research, 39: 3 (2001), pp. 391416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christiansen and Nørgaard, Faste forhold. Norway: Nordby, Korporatisme på norsk; Rommetvedt, H., ‘Norway: Resources Count, But Votes Decide? From Neo-Corporatist Representation to Neo-Pluralist Parliamentarism’, West European Politics, 28: 4 (2005), pp. 740–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Selle, P. and Østerud, Ø., ‘The Eroding of Representative Democracy in Norway’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 4 (2006), pp. 551–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tranvik, T. and Selle, P., ‘The Rise and Fall of Popular Mass Movements: Organizational Change and Globalization – The Norwegian Case’, Acta Sociologica, 50: 1 (2007), pp. 5770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Norway and Denmark: Christiansen, P. M. and Rommetvedt, H., ‘From Corporatism to Lobbyism? Parliaments, Executives, and Organized Interests in Denmark and Norway’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 22: 3 (1999), pp. 195220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Scandinavia: Blom-Hansen, ‘Still Corporatism in Scandinavia?’

28 Christiansen et al., ‘Varieties of Democracy’.

29 Some would argue that the percentage of committees with representatives from interest organizations is the most relevant measure. However, each committee represents a decision-making opportunity in which interest organizations may or may not be represented. If the ‘importance’ of the committees is constant, then the absolute number of committees with representatives from interest organizations is the best measure of corporatism (i.e. the number of decision-making opportunities in which organized interests are allowed to participate). We believe that the substantial decrease in the number of committees with interest organization representation more than compensates for a possible (but not documented) increase in the ‘importance’ of each public committee with interest group representation.

30 Christiansen and Nørgaard, Faste forhold, pp. 106–8.

31 J. Blom-Hansen and C. Daugbjerg (eds), Magtens Organisering: Stat og interesseorganisationer i Danmark, Herning, Systime, 1999; P. M. Christiansen, A. S. Nørgaard and N. C. Sidenius, Hvem skriver lovene?, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2004.

32 Nordby, Korporatisme på norsk, pp. 71–2; Rommetvedt, ‘Norway’.

33 Hermansson, Politik som intressekamp, p. 450.

34 Rothstein and Bergström, Korporatismens fall, p. 152; Lewin, L., ‘The Rise and Decline of Corporatism: The Case of Sweden’, European Journal of Political Research, 26 (1994), pp. 5979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 For example, Western, B., ‘A Comparative Study of Corporatist Development’, American Sociological Review, 56: 3 (1991), pp. 283–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Compston, ‘The End of National Policy Concertation?’

36 Bergman, T. and Strøm, K., ‘Shifting Dimensions of Citizen Control’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27: 2 (2004), p. 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union, London, Frank Cass, 2000.

38 Østerud, Ø., ‘Introduction: The Peculiarities of Norway’, West European Politics, 28: 4 (2005), p. 709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Blom-Hansen, J. and Christensen, J. G., Den europæiske forbindelse, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2004, pp. 56–8Google Scholar.

40 Svensson, T., ‘Globalisation, Marketisation and Power: The Swedish Case of Institutional Change’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 25: 3 (2002), pp. 197229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crowe, C. and Meade, E. E., ‘The Evolution of Central Bank Governance around the World’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21: 4 (2007), p. 72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Tranvik, T. and Selle, P., ‘State and Citizens in Norway: Organisational Society and State–Municipal Relations’, West European Politics, 28: 4 (2005), pp. 852–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. G. Christensen, Delegation and Administrative Organization: An Overview of Danish Regulatory Administration 1950–2000, Aarhus, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, 2005; Lægreid, P., Opedal, S. and Stigen, I. M., ‘The Norwegian Hospital Reform: Balancing Political Control and Enterprise Autonomy’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 30: 6 (2005), pp. 1027–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elander, I. and Montin, S., ‘Decentralisation and Control: Central–Local Government Relations in Sweden’, Policy and Politics, 18: 3 (1990), pp. 165–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feltenius, D., ‘Relations Between Central and Local Government in Sweden During the 1990s: Mixed Patterns of Centralization and Decentralization’, Regional & Federal Studies, 17: 4 (2007), pp. 457–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Svensson, ‘Globalisation, Marketisation and Power’.

42 Quinn, D., ‘The Correlates of Change in International Financial Regulation’, American Political Science Review, 91: 3 (1997), p. 535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Christiansen, F. J. and Damgaard, E., ‘Parliamentary Democracy under Minority Parliamentarism: Scandinavia’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14: 1/2 (2008), pp. 4850 Google Scholar.

44 Christiansen and Damgaard, ‘Parliamentary Democracy’, p. 50.

45 Rokkan, ‘Norway’; Lembruch, ‘Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks’.

46 E. Damgaard (ed.), Parliamentary Change in the Nordic Countries, Oslo, Scandinavian University Press, 1992.

47 F. J. Christiansen, Politiske forlig i Folketinget, Aarhus, Politica, 2008.

48 Nørgaard, A. S. and Klemmensen, R., ‘Hvorfor stemmer oppositionen for regeringens lovforslag? Korporatisme og parlamentariske forlig i Danmark, 1958–1999’, Politica, 41: 1 (2009), pp. 6790 Google Scholar.

49 H. Rommetvedt, The Rise of the Norwegian Parliament, London, Frank Cass, 2003; Rommetvedt, ‘Norway’.

50 Strøm, K., Narud, H. M. and Valen, H., ‘A More Fragile Chain of Governance in Norway’, West European Politics, 28: 4 (2005), pp. 796 ff CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Bale, T. and Bergman, T., ‘Captives No Longer, but Servants Still? Contract Parliamentarism and the New Minority Governance in Sweden and New Zealand’, Government and Opposition, 4: 3 (2006), p. 432 Google Scholar.

52 Green-Pedersen, C. and Thomsen, L. H., ‘Bloc Politics vs. Broad Cooperation? The Functioning of Danish Minority Parliamentarism’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11: 2 (2005), pp. 153–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Strøm, K. and Müller, W., ‘The Keys to Togetherness: Coalition Agreements in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 5: 3 (1999), pp. 255–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 OECD, OECD Factbook 2009, Paris, OECD.

55 Ibid., various indicators. The OECD has no comparable data on public sector size going back to the 1970s. Data exist on tax revenues as a proportion of GDP since the 1960s and data on public social and other welfare expenditure go back to 1980. The indicators suggest that public sector growth was high in the 1970s, moderate in the 1980s and almost zero in the 1990s, with the exception of Sweden in the early 1990s, during the crisis.

56 P. Pierson, The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.

57 D. Cameron, ‘Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labour Quiescence and the Representation of Economic Interests in Advanced Capitalist Society’, in J. H. Goldthorpe (ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984, pp. 143–78; H. Heclo and H. Madsen, Policy and Politics in Sweden, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1987; Western, ‘A Comparative Study of Corporatist Development’; Rueda, D., ‘Left Government, Policy and Corporatism. Explaining the Influence of Partisanship on Inequality’, World Politics, 60 (2008), p. 385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Allern, E. H., Aylott, N. and Christiansen, F. J., ‘Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia: The Decline and Persistence of Institutional Relationships’, European Journal of Political Research, 46: 5 (2007), pp. 616, 628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Allern et al., ‘Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia’; Christiansen and Damgaard, ‘Parliamentary Democracy’.

60 Rommetvedt, ‘Norway’; Strøm et al., ‘A More Fragile Chain of Governance’.

61 The average share of left-wing parties in government – see E. Huber, C. Ragin and J. D. Stephens, ‘Comparative Welfare States Data Set’, Northwestern University and University of North Carolina, 1997; and D. Brady, J. Beckfield and J. Stephens, ‘Comparative Welfare States Data Set’, 2004 (updated from E. Huber, C. Ragin and J. Stephens, ‘Comparative Welfare States Data Set’) – equals that of the social democrats in all the Scandinavian countries because no other left-wing party has been in government, except the Norwegian government 2005–9, which included Sosialistisk Venstreparti.

62 Nordby, Korporatisme på norsk.

63 K.-O. Lindgren, Roads from Unemployment, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2006. Cf. Wallerstein, M., Golden, M. and Lange, P., ‘Unions, Employers' Associations and Wage-Setting Institutions in Northern and Central Europe, 1950–1992’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50: 3 (1997)Google Scholar.

64 Ibid.; B. Ebbinghaus and J. Visser, The Societies of Europe. Trade Unions in Western Europe since 1945, London, Macmillan, 2000.

65 Brady et al., ‘Comparative Welfare States Data Set’. The Herfindahl index is H = Σ (S i )2. S i is the share of union members in confederation i and the sum includes all confederations. The denominator in the calculation of S i also includes union members who are not affiliated with a peak organization; cf. Wallerstein et al., ‘Unions, Employers' Associations and Wage-Setting Institutions’, p. 383.

66 Ebbinghaus and Visser, The Societies of Europe. Cf. also Allern et al., ‘Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia’.

67 T. A. Stokke, ‘Organisasjonsgraden på arbeidstakersiden’, Notat 1995:13, Oslo, Fafo, 1995; K. Nergaard and T. A. Stokke, ‘Organisasjonsgrader og tariffavtaledekning i norsk arbeidsliv 2004/2005’, Rapport 518, Oslo, Fafo, 2006.

68 J. Goul Andersen, Et ganske levende demokrati, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2004, pp. 108–9; E. Amnå, ‘Associational Life, Youth, and Political Formation in Sweden: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Trends’, in L. Trädgårdh (ed.), State and Civil Society in Northern Europe, New York, Berghan, 2007; Tranvik and Selle, ‘The Rise and Fall of Popular Mass Movements’.

69 J. Visser, ‘Union Membership Statistics in 24 Countries’, Monthly Labor Review, January (2006), p. 45.

70 Goul Andersen, Et ganske levende demokrati, pp. 114–15; A. Fransson, M. Larsson, I. Goding and Å. Forsell, ‘Röster om facket och jobbet. Ungdomar och facket’, Rapport 5, Stockholm, LO, 2007.

71 J. Andersen, O. Borre, J. Goul Andersen and H. J. Nielsen, Vælgere med omtanke: En analyse af Folketingsvalget i 1998, Aarhus: Systime, 1999, p. 81.

72 H. Oscarsson and S. Holmberg, ‘Swedish Voting Behavior’, Swedish Election Studies Program, Göteborg University, February 2007.

73 O. Listhaug and M. Wiberg, ‘Confidence in Political and Private Institutions’, in H.-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds), Citizens and the State, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 304–5; J. Goul Andersen and J. Hoff, Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.

74 Goul Andersen, Et ganske levende demokrati, p. 115.

75 S. Holmberg and L. Weibull, ‘Svenska trender 1986–2006’, Gothenburg, SOM-Instituttet, 2006, p. 7.

76 Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. and Klingemann, H.-D., ‘The Theory of Human Development: A Cross-Cultural Analysis’, European Journal of Political Research, 42 (2003), pp. 368–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. E., ‘Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values’, American Sociological Review, 65: 1 (2000), pp. 1951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Goul Andersen, Et ganske levende demokrati; Tranvik and Selle, ‘The Rise and Fall of Popular Mass Movements’; Wollebæk, D., ‘The Decoupling of Organizational Society: the Case of Norwegian Voluntary Organizations’, Voluntas, 19 (2008), pp. 351–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Goul Andersen, Et ganske levende demokrati, p. 205 (our translation).

80 Nørgaard and Klemmensen, ‘Hvorfor stemmer oppositionen for regeringens lovforslag?’.

81 Rothstein and Bergström, Korporatismens fall; J. Johansson, SAF och den svenska modellen. En studie av uppbrottet från förvaltningskorporatismen 1982–91, Uppsala, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2000; Rommetvedt, ‘Norway’.

82 Baccaro and Simoni, ‘Policy Concertation in Europe’, p. 1342.

86
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capability in Scandinavia
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capability in Scandinavia
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capability in Scandinavia
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *