Going Nordic in European Administrative Networks?

Abstract

The integration and policymaking of the European Union (EU) are claimed to challenge Nordic cooperation as a separate ‘common order.’ Increasing interdependencies in the EU have forced all EU member states to collaborate and share sovereignty in an increasing number of policy areas. This article studies the coexistence of Nordic cooperation and European integration by taking a network approach. It analyses the extent to which Nordic members of European Administrative Networks ‘go Nordic’ to solve problems or exchange advice, information and best practices. Based on unique survey data on interactions related to the implementation of EU policies in Social Policy, Health and the Internal Market by national governmental organisations across the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), we use social network analysis to test for distinguishable patterns of Nordic cooperation. We find evidence to suggest that Nordic cooperation in the EU and EEA is best characterised by differentiated integration. The Nordic states tend to form a separate community for problem-solving and exchanging best practices, advice and information in Health and Social policy networks, but less so in SOLVIT, a network related to the Internal Market.

Differentiation in the European Union in Post‐Brexit and ‐Pandemic Times: Macro‐Level Developments with Meso‐Level Consequences

“…Health agencies in Norway and Sweden, for example, activated different strategies first to combat the virus nationally and second in their adoption of advice and services from the ECDC. Contrary to the general observation of tight agency networks among the Nordic countries (Schrama et al, 2020; Stie and Trondal, 2020), the Norwegian and the Swedish health agencies adopted opposite strategies in both regards, for example regarding the implementation of lockdowns and with regards to their referral to the ECDC. Reflecting different domestic institutional designs and past choices, the Norwegian and Swedish governments differed in how they framed and managed the crisis – as a healthcare crisis (in Norway) and a public health crisis (in Sweden; Askim and Bergström, 2021).…”

Learning in European Administrative Networks: a process to all or only to a few?

“…In a network with a high level of transitivity, actors (A) are able to learn not only from their direct contacts' (B) knowledge and experiences but also from those of other actors (C) who are directly connected to actor B but not to actor A. The presence of a common partner (B) is key not only to reducing the uncertainty concerning the quality of the information being exchanged but also contributes to a wider circulation of knowledge and expertise across the network (Berardo and Scholtz 2010;Schrama et al 2020). This does not mean that learning processes cannot take place in networks with lower levels of transitivity as there is still significant exchange of knowledge and expertise taking place on a bilateral level between participants.…”

“…First, to test whether the network interactions are transitive, a geometrically edgewise shared partner statistic is included in the model (Schrama et al 2020;Snijders et al 2006). This measure expresses the tendency of interactions to take place between actors who are indirectly relatedi.e.…”

“…This measure expresses the tendency of interactions to take place between actors who are indirectly relatedi.e. they are both directly tied to another network participant but not to each otherrather than between two actors who do not share a common tie (Goodreau et al 2009;Schrama et al 2020).…”

“…These questions relate to the micro-foundations of learning, which have yet to be more empirically researched (Dunlop and Radaelli 2017). Here, there are significant advantages in bringing insights from the literature on EANs, which has recently turned its attention to a closer analysis of the network's structure, interaction patterns and factors that condition interactions (Martinsen et al 2020b;Schrama et al 2020;Vantaggiato et al 2021).…”