Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T19:19:39.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliamentary Government and Corporatism at the Crossroads: Principals and Agents in Norwegian Agricultural Policymaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2017

Hilmar Rommetvedt  and
Frode Veggeland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyses the interplay between agency problems at various stages in the parliamentary chain of delegation and external constraints related to corporatist negotiations in Norwegian agricultural policymaking. The combination of minority government and MPs tending to have more extreme preferences than the voters, and corporatist integration of specialized interests, may lead to an accumulation of agency costs. However, the study shows that we need to specify carefully the conditions under which this will occur. The article is based on official policy documents and a survey of citizens.

Keywords

parliamentgovernmentpartiesvoterscorporatismagency problemsagriculture
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 661 - 685
Copyright
© The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Hilmar Rommetvedt is Head of Research at the International Research Institute of Stavanger, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Stavanger. Contact email: [email protected].

Frode Veggeland is Professor at the University of Oslo and Adjunct Research Professor at the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research. Contact email: [email protected].

References

REFERENCES

Allern, E. (2010), Political Parties and Interest Groups in Norway (Colchester: ECPR Press).Google Scholar
Bale, T. and Bergman, T. (2006), ‘Captives No Longer, but Servants Still? Contract Parliamentarism and the New Minority Governance in Sweden and New Zealand’, Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, 41(3): 422–449.Google Scholar
Bergh, J. and Karlsen, R. (2014), ‘Norway’, European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook 2013, 53(1): 242–249.Google Scholar
Bergman, T., Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K (2000) (eds) Parliamentary Democracy and the Chain of Delegation’, European Journal of Political Research, special issue, 37(3): 255–429.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. (2007), ‘Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade’, International Organization, 61(4): 735–761.Google Scholar
Christensen, D.A. (1997), ‘Adaption of Agrarian Parties in Norway and Sweden’, Party Politics, 3(3): 391–406.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P.M., Nørgaard, A.S., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Thesen, G. and Öberg, P.O. (2010), ‘Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making’, Voluntas, 21(1): 22–40.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2008), ‘Curbing Agricultural Exceptionalism: The EU’s Response to External Challenge’, World Economy, 31(5): 631–652.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2009), Ideas, Institutions, and Trade: The WTO and the Curious Role of EU Farm Policy in Trade Liberalization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2012), ‘An Introduction to the “New” Politics of Agriculture and Food’, Policy and Society, 31(4): 259–270.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Brothers).Google Scholar
Farsund, A.A. (2014), ‘Norway, Agricultural Exceptionalism and the Quest for Free Trade’, in O. Langhelle (ed.), International Trade Negotiations and Domestic Politics (Abingdon: Routledge): 148–173.Google Scholar
Grant, W. (1995), ‘Is Agricultural Policy Still Exceptional?’, Political Quarterly, 66(3): 156–169.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D.R. and McCubbins, M.D. (1991), The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Langhelle, O. (2014) (ed.), International Trade Negotiations and Domestic Politics (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M.N.L. (1991), ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages’, British Journal of Political Science, 21(2): 235–256.Google Scholar
Lunat, G.T. (1997), ‘An Infinite Distance? Agricultural Exceptionalism and Agricultural Labor’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 1(2): 487–510.Google Scholar
May, J.D. (1973), ‘Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity’, Political Studies, 21(2): 135–151.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C., Bergman, T. and Strøm, K. (2006), ‘Parliamentary Democracy: Promise and Problems’, in K. Strøm, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 3–32.Google Scholar
Narud, H.M. and Valen, H. (2007), Demokrati og ansvar (Oslo: Damm).Google Scholar
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 94(2): 251–267.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989), ‘A Directional Theory of Issue Voting’, American Political Science Review, 83(1): 93–121.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1962), The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Rokkan, S. (1966), ‘Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism’, in R.A. Dahl (ed.), Political Opposition in Western Democracies (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Rommetvedt, H. (2003), The Rise of the Norwegian Parliament (London: Frank Cass).Google Scholar
Rommetvedt, H. (2005), ‘Norway: Resources Count, but Votes Decide? From Neo-Corporatist Representation to Neo-Pluralist Parliamentarism’, West European Politics, 28(4): 740–763.Google Scholar
Russel, M., Gover, D., Wollter, K. and Bentan, M. (2017), ‘Actors, Motivations and Outcomes in the Legislative Process: Policy Influence at Westminster’, Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, 52(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P.C. (1974), ‘Still the Century of Corporatism’, Review of Politics, 361: 85–131.Google Scholar
Siaroff, A. (1999), ‘Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measuring’, European Journal of Political Research, 36(2): 175–205.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. (1998), ‘Ideas, Paradigms and Institutions: Agricultural Exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States’, Governance, 11(4): 463–490.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (2005) (eds), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (2006), ‘Parliamentary Democracy and Delegation’, in K. Strøm, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 55–106.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. and Narud, H.M. (2006), ‘Norway: Virtual Parliamentarism’, in K. Strøm, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 523–551.Google Scholar
Strøm, K., Müller, W.C. and Bergman, T. (2006) (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (1999), ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 369–404.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2004), How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Public Documents

Innst. 234 S (2011–2012): Recommendation from the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Business and Industry.Google Scholar
Innst. 392 S (2011–2012): Recommendation from the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Business and Industry.Google Scholar
Innst. 508 S (2012–2013): Recommendation from the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Business and Industry.Google Scholar
Innst. 8 S (2013–2014): Recommendation from the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Business and Industry.Google Scholar
Innst. 285 S (2013–2014): Recommendation from the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Business and Industry.Google Scholar
Meld. St. 9 (2011–2012): White Paper on Agricultural and Food Policy, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
Prop. 164 S (2012–2013): Proposition to the Parliament on the Agricultural Settlement, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
Prop. 106 S (2013–2014): Proposition to the Parliament on the Agricultural Settlement, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
Prop. 127 S (2014–2015): Proposition to the Parliament on the Agricultural Settlement, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material 1

Download Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material(File)
File 15.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material 2

Download Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 76.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material

Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material 3

Download Rommetvedt and Veggeland supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 185.5 KB