Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2013
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.
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. 175–205 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. 22–40 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. 85–131 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.
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’.
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.
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. 391–416 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. 57–70 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. 195–220 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.
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.
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. 197–229 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’.
43 Christiansen, F. J. and Damgaard, E., ‘Parliamentary Democracy under Minority Parliamentarism: Scandinavia’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14: 1/2 (2008), pp. 48–50 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. 67–90 Google Scholar.
49 H. Rommetvedt, The Rise of the Norwegian Parliament, London, Frank Cass, 2003; Rommetvedt, ‘Norway’.
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.
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.
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.
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.