From classic to modern corporatism. Interest group representation in Danish public committees in 1975 and 2010

Abstract

Involving interest groups in public committees is a crucial feature of policy making in many democratic systems. This article investigates how the composition of committees in Denmark has developed from 1975 to 2010 with specific focus on interest group seats. We argue that the committee system has been adapted in response to societal changes. We expect relatively better representation of citizen groups over time and a decline in the level of concentration in access. These expectations are tested in an analysis of the composition of all public committees in the two years. We find remarkable stability in the 35 year period, but also an adaptation of the committee system largely in the expected direction. This traditional corporatist institution appears less weakened than often assumed.

The Rise of Citizen Groups? The Mobilization and Representation of Danish Interest Groups, 1975–2010

“…The Danish results are most immediately comparable to other Scandinavian countries traditionally characterized by corporatist integration of groups in decision making. Here, it is highly likely that similar developments may be identified, with citizen groups gaining more ground in outsider arenas than in traditional corporative fora (Lundberg ; Binderkrantz & Christiansen ). However, while the extent of the dynamics may vary, the theoretical argument about arena‐specific exchange dynamics is not specific to the Danish or Scandinavian setting.…”

“…While the measures of access are comparable across the two years, the significance of having a seat in a public committee or appearing in the news media may differ. With regard to the administrative arena, participation in boards and committees may be less important today than in the heyday of corporatism (Binderkrantz & Christiansen ), while media appearances – especially on the front page – may be more valued due to the increased mediatization of politics (Strömbäck & Esser ).…”

“…The ability of changes in interest group populations to translate into patterns of access is thus perhaps weaker in corporatist systems than in more pluralist systems. However, corporatism plays a less prominent role in modern politics than in the 1970s (Binderkrantz & Christiansen ), so we still expect citizen groups to be able to push their way into the administration to some degree.…”

“…Yet over the last several decades, there is evidence of large‐scale changes in the composition of civil society as well as in the role of interest groups in the political system (Amnå ; Lundberg ; Öberg & Svensson ). New client groups, representing groups such as patients, have proliferated (Amnå , 15; Fisker ), corporatist institutions have ruptured and the mediatization of politics has contributed to changed patterns of interaction between interest groups and policy makers (Binderkrantz & Christiansen ).…”

A Stronghold of Routine Corporatism? The Involvement of Interest Groups in Policy Making in Finland

“…Committees with interest groups are less frequently used to prepare policies (e.g., Christiansen et al ; Öberg et al ), and parliaments have become more important as sites of lobbying (Christiansen & Rommetvedt ; Binderkrantz ; Rommetvedt et al ). At the same time, there are signs that some key traits of the traditional Nordic model persist (Binderkrantz & Christiansen , 1023). In particular, committees are still commonly used in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and – although citizen groups have increased their representation – economic interest groups seem to have retained particularly privileged access to policy making (e.g., Binderkrantz & Christiansen ; Christiansen ).…”