Norway: Resources count, but votes decide? from neo-corporatist representation to neo-pluralist parliamentarism

Rommetvedt, Hilmar

doi:10.1080/01402380500216674

Cited by 42 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this perspective, corporatism is a variety of democracy more than a variety of capitalism. The opposite of corporatism is pluralism (Schmitter 1974;Rommetvedt 2003Rommetvedt , 2005, the numerical channel of democratic representation (Rokkan 1966), or parliamentary democracy and legalism (Hermansson et al 1999). In Lijhart's (1999) famous conceptualization, corporatism is seen as a part of consensual, and before that of consociational democracy or as an inseparable attribute of negotiation democracy (Armingeon 2002b).…”

Section: Corporatism and ''Varieties Of Democracy''mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voluntas (2010) 21:22-40 35 Following this line of reasoning, one empirical proposition derived from the descriptive analysis presented here would be that post-1980 Scandinavian consensual democracy is also declining (cf. Rommetvedt 2003Rommetvedt , 2005. Another proposition following John Gerring and associates would be that the increasing mismatch between centralized and inclusive political institutions and the interest group system is a source of strain that may foster an increase in distrust in government and a decrease in the quality of governance.…”

Section: From Description Of Scandinavian Corporatism To Causal Propomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Is pluralism supplanting corporatism (cf. Rommetvedt 2005;Christiansen and Nørgaard 2003)? And what are the consequences of the decline in preparation corporatism for the equality of interest group representation and the legitimacy of interest group representation in the democratic process?…”

Section: From Description Of Scandinavian Corporatism To Causal Propomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporatism may be seen as variety of capitalism in which specific structural prerequisites such as unionization, centralization, and strong states combined with bargaining and concertation produce certain economic outputs. Corporatism may also be seen as a variety of democracy in which interest groups are integrated in the preparation and/or implementation of public policies. Departing in the last position, we measure the strength of Scandinavian corporatism by the involvement of interest groups in public committees, councils, and commissions. Corporatism in relation to the preparation of policy has gone down in all three Scandinavian countries whereas corporatism in implementation processes are more varied among the three countries.Résumé Le corporatisme peut être envisagé comme une forme de capitalisme, dans lequel des conditions préalables structurelles spécifiques, comme le syndicalisme, la centralisation, et des Etats forts, associés à la négociation et à la concertation produisent certains résultats économiques. Le corporatisme peut également être vu comme une forme de de´mocratie, dans laquelle des groupes d'intérêts forment un ensemble cohérent pour la préparation et la mise en oeuvre des politiques publiques. Partant de cette dernière considération, nous mesurons la force du corporatisme existant en Scandinavie, par l'engagement des groupes d'intérêt dans les comités publiques, les conseils et les commissions. Le corporatisme dans le cadre de la pré-paration des politiques a été retenu dans les trois pays scandinaves, tandis que les procédés de mise du corporatisme recouvrent une variété plus étendue dans ces trois pays.Zusammenfassung Korporatismus könnte als eine Form des Kapitalismus angesehen werden, in der bestimmte strukturelle Vorraussetzungen wie gewerkschaftliche Organisierung, Zentralisierung und ein starker Staat kombiniert mit Tarifverhandlungen and Konzertierung bestimmte ökonomische Ergebnisse bewirken. Korporatismus könnte auch als eine Form von Demokratie angesehen werden, in der Interessengruppen in die Vorbereitung und/oder Implementierung von politischen Maßnahmen integriert sind. Ausgehend von der letzteren Position haben wir die Stärke des skandinavischen Korporatismus anhand der Involvierung von Interessengruppen in öffentlichen Ausschüssen, Gremien und Kommissionen bewertet. Korporatismus in Verbindung mit der Vorbereitung von Maßnahmen hat in allen drei skandinavischen Ländern abgenommen, während Korporatismus in Implementierungsprozessen in den drei Ländern vielfältiger geworden ist.Resumen El corporativismo puede verse como una variedad del capitalismo en la que determinados requisitos previos estructurales, como la unionización, la centralización y los estados fuertes combinados con la negociación y la concertación, producen determinados resultados económicos. El corporativismo también puede verse como una variedad de democracia, en la cual se integran grupos de interés para la preparación o la aplicación de políticas públicas. Partiendo de la última postura, evaluamos la fuer...

show abstract

Section: Corporatism and ''Varieties Of Democracy''mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: From Description Of Scandinavian Corporatism To Causal Propomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Demokrati-og maktutredningen går så langt som til å hevde at det representative demokratiet brytes ned (Selle & Østerud, 2006), noe som også er funnet i den organiserte idretten (Enjolras & Waldahl, 2009). Rommetvedt (2005) knytter demokratiproblemet til en overgang fra korporatisme til pluralisme. Den politiske deltakelsen endres fra korporatistisk representasjon til parlamentarisk og administrativ lobbyisme.…”

Section: Formell Og Uformell Politikkunclassified

Den norske idrettsmodellen – i utakt med tiden?

Rafoss

Tangen²

2017

NOST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ProfessorInstitutt for friluftsliv, idrett og kroppsøving, Høgskolen i Sørøst-Norge jan.o.tangen@usn.no SAMMENDRAG I artikkelen drøftes spørsmålet om den norske idrettsmodellen er i utakt med tiden. Vi svarer ja på spørsmålet. Dette skyldes en utdatert måte å tenke idrett og politikk på. Det foreligger en kulturell fortelling -den norske idrettsmodellen -som hindrer innsikt i og forståelse for nye trender og endringer i befolkningens fysiske og idrettslige utfoldelse.Idrettsmodellen tar utgangspunkt i at idrett er for alle. Jo mer anlegg desto mer aktivitet, idrett er sunt, og toppidrett skaper breddeidrett. Modellen vektlegger også bestemte samarbeids-og finansieringsformer som både stimulerer og begrenser aktørenes handlingsrom. Forskning viser et annet bilde: et misforhold mellom idealer og realiteter -en modell i utakt med tiden.Vi stiller derfor spørsmålet om i hvilken grad den norske idrettsmodellen er egnet for dagens og morgendagens forhold. Om det offentliges mål og visjoner skal realiseres tilfredsstillende, bør andre samarbeidsformer og støtteordninger vurderes. Og en ny kulturell fortelling må utvikles på grunnlag av ny kunnskap om hvordan politikere tenker.Nøkkelord:

show abstract

“…In contrary, a deliberative form of interaction is based on communicative cooperation. In this form of cooperation preferences of actors involved are developed during the interaction, with the aim of developing good arguments and solutions about how best to comply with the common interests of the society (Rommetvedt, 2005). Crucial in communicative cooperation is the ability of actors to reach agreements through communication and reasoning (Dryzek, 2002;Habermas, 1981).…”

Section: Cooperation In Marine Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Marine Governance in a European context: Regionalization, integration and cooperation for ecosystem-based management

Soma

Tatenhove

Leeuwen

2015

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norway: Resources count, but votes decide? from neo-corporatist representation to neo-pluralist parliamentarism

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making

Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making

Den norske idrettsmodellen – i utakt med tiden?

Marine Governance in a European context: Regionalization, integration and cooperation for ecosystem-based management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About