Europeanization of Central Government Administration in the Nordic States

Abstract

This article examines the Europeanization of public administration in the Nordic countries, and explores the changes in central administration due to EU and European Economic Area (EEA)membership. The focus is on Sweden and Finland, which have recently joined the European Union, and Norway and Iceland, whose participation in European integration is based on the EEA agreement. The database is a survey conducted in all ministerial departments and directorates in the Nordic countries. There are significant differences in the adaptation patterns between EU members and EEA members, but also important differences between countries with the same form of affiliation to the EU. The adaptation pattern of the EEA member ship of Norway and Iceland seems to follow a somewhat different path. To understand this, we have to add structural factors such as the size of the public administration. The institutional context of the domestic administrative tradition and strategy also has to be taken into account. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

The Nordic States and Agenda-Setting in the European Union: How Do Small States Score?

“…The Nordic states are all considered as having well-functioning and efficient administrations capable of managing their domestic affairs (Nordic ministerial officials, Nordic and non-Nordic permanent representatives and Commission officials 2005-09, see also Hanf and Soetendorp 1998;Thorhallsson 2000;Laegreid et al 2004). Consequently, the internal capacity of the Nordic administrations is high, with considerable action competence and relatively low vulnerability.…”

The Europeanisation of national political systems: Parliaments and executives

“…The oft-noted executive dominance in EU affairs is, thus, tantamount to administrative dominance. Laegreid, Steinthorsson, and Thorhallsson (2004) note that the political leadership is more involved in policy-making in EU states than in non-EU states such as Norway and Iceland, but that officials usually do not have enough time to clear policy issues with the political leadership and that volume of EU business and time pressures prevent them from involving the political leadership. This latter point is further supported by their finding that, overall, the political leadership is more involved in non-EU related policies than in EU-related policies.…”

“…Studies of Southern European executives, for instance, have tended to emphasise the resilience of informal rules, norms and cultures as opposed to more adaptable formal structures (e.g., Aguilar-Fernández 2003;Spanou 1998). Conversely, Laegreid, Steinthorsson, and Thorhallsson (2004), who examine the Europeanisation of central administrations in the Nordic states, and Adshead (2005) in her study of governance in Ireland, emphasise stable formal executive structures, but observe adaptation of "informal norms and cultures" as well as "external networks" (Laegreid, Steinthorsson, and Thorhallsson 2004); and of "rules and procedures" as well as broad "cultures" of officials and the interaction of society and public administration (Adshead 2005). More generally, studies that concentrate on formal institutional structures tend to highlight resilience (Bulmer and Burch 1998), whereas analyses of the 'software' of the executive -cultural norms, values, assumptions, roles and identities of officials -underline the transformative power of Europe (Jordan 2002(Jordan , 2003 provides a paradigmatic case).…”

Do Membership Benefits Buy Regulatory Compliance?

“…We believe that reputational dynamics may similarly assume a regulatory role in the European context (e.g. see Laegreid et al, 2004;Steunenberg, 2006).…”