State and citizens in Norway: Organisational society and state – municipal relations

Abstract

In this article we argue that two of the most crucial parts of the Norwegian democratic infrastructure – the civil society, consisting of voluntary associations, and local governments – are experiencing problems. From being institutions for popular influence and participation, they may now be enjoying less autonomy and power. First, we see a turning away from the ideological mass movements and a greater interest in smaller and single-purpose associations that are better at catering for individual needs and wishes, but poorer at giving members a voice in central decision-making processes. Second, we examine changes regarding the relationship between central and local governments. The current public sector reforms, which are influenced by ‘New Public Management’ ideology, seem to weaken municipal autonomy by emphasising the need for greater central government supervision and control.

Notes

1. Level of urbanisation is an indication of the traditionally strong cultural and economic position of the Norwegian periphery. In 1960, 16 per cent of the Norwegian population lived in municipalities of 100,000 inhabitants or more, while Germany, for instance, reached this level of urbanisation in 1900, Denmark in 1901, and Sweden around 1930 (Flora et al. 1987).

2. The data in this section is taken from Sivesind et al. (2002), which is the main publication from the Norwegian part of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP) which included more than 40 countries.

3. In the following that means Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and UK. The figures are from 1995, and were collected in connection with the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP).

4. The historical trends presented in the next section stem from a project entitled ‘Organizations in Hordaland’ (POH), which consists of a survey of all organisational life in rural municipalities in the county of Hordaland in western Norway in 1980, 1990 and 2000, and a systematisation of the 1940 – 41 Nazi registration of all voluntary organisations. Even though the data has only been collected from one of Norway's 19 counties, we believe the developments we discern here are valid for the remainder of the country (for details, see Wollebæk and Selle 2002; Selle and Øymyr 1995).

5. We see clear limitations to the democratic value of purely local benefit associations. The issues they raise usually concern specific interests on the part of the associations (like getting a hole in the road fixed), and their efforts are almost always restricted to the local level. By contrast, the wide geographical reach of the traditional mass movements enabled local branches to address broader issues with much greater political impact on a larger scale.

6. In 1975 the county councils were, for the first time, elected by popular vote and gained the right to levy taxes. Since then, the regional level has been systematically weakened. For instance, in 2002 the state took over the responsibility for the county hospitals – the single most important regional government task. The developments here seem therefore to confirm our message: the political system is gradually becoming more centralised.

7. These qualities are: (1) closeness between citizens and representatives, (2) greater lay participation in public decision-making processes, and (3) effectiveness in setting priorities, i.e. national schemes are fitted to local needs and conditions.

8. This arrangement worked well for about 40 years, but in 1884 parliamentarism was introduced: a coalition of peasants and urban liberals deleted the constitutionally protected power base of the state-building elites, and the cabinet had to depend on majority support in parliament in order to stay in power.

9. Representatives coming from the voluntary sector have always played an important role in local government. The same mechanism has been observed in the United States (Skocpol 2003 1992).

10. Case studies indicate that clearer separation of political and administrative functions have two main effects: less coordination between different service producing entities (as they are expected to run themselves according to business management practices), and fewer opportunities for the local representatives to influence the decisions made by these entities (as they are removed from the politicians sphere of influence).

11. However, many of the strictly local associations can survive with very little financial support (even from their own members), and are not dependent on governmental support to survive.