Consensus-Building
#6Key Findings
Norway performs well in international comparison (rank 6) in the area of consensus-building.
By law, all major decisions and reforms must be based on the best available knowledge. This knowledge is gathered by government-appointed expert committees, which may commission reports from other experts.
The largest trade union and employers’ associations have considerable policymaking influence, with frequent, informal access to the government. This tripartite system of consensus-oriented policymaking is frequently criticized by other, smaller trade unions and employer organizations for lacking transparency.
Critiques offered by social welfare organizations often impact policies. Environmental groups frequently challenge government decisions in court. Open data and data sharing are a key focus on the government, with data typically provided in standardized, readable formats.
By law, all major decisions and reforms must be based on the best available knowledge. This knowledge is gathered by government-appointed expert committees, which may commission reports from other experts.
The largest trade union and employers’ associations have considerable policymaking influence, with frequent, informal access to the government. This tripartite system of consensus-oriented policymaking is frequently criticized by other, smaller trade unions and employer organizations for lacking transparency.
Critiques offered by social welfare organizations often impact policies. Environmental groups frequently challenge government decisions in court. Open data and data sharing are a key focus on the government, with data typically provided in standardized, readable formats.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
By law, all major decisions and reforms must be based on the best available knowledge. According to the investigation instruction from 2016, all new policies must be preceded by an investigation phase in which the following six questions must be answered:
1. What is the problem, and what do we want to achieve?
2. Which measures are relevant?
3. What fundamental questions do the measures raise?
4. What are the positive and negative effects of the measures, how lasting are they, and who is affected?
5. Which measure is recommended, and why?
6. What are the prerequisites for a successful implementation?
(Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management, 2018)
Additionally, the investigation instruction requires that all those affected by the problem and the policy measures be involved early in the policy process. According to the government, involving affected individuals and coordinating different views and perspectives from various organizations is important to ensure the quality of the investigations and to safeguard democratic rights in developing public policies (Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management, 2018).
The most important and systematic mobilization of expert knowledge in policymaking is carried out by government-appointed expert committees, which produce Official Norwegian Reports (Kommunal – og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2019). These committees vary in size, typically comprising 10 to 15 members, though they can be as small as two members. The committee members act in their personal capacity as experts, but considerations of gender equality and geographical representation are taken into account when forming the committee.
These committees hold a relatively formal status, working according to a fixed procedure and usually having a secretariat of employees from the relevant ministry at their disposal. The committee may commission reports from other experts. They often arrange open hearings and seminars involving stakeholders from the relevant policy area, and they may travel to and conduct site visits at relevant institutions and locations.
The final report from the committee is, according to a standardized procedure, circulated to interested parties with an invitation to comment on the analysis and policy proposals. Normally, a comment period of three months is recommended, with six weeks being the minimum period. After the hearing, the government prepares a presentation for parliament. This sometimes takes the form of a parliamentary legislative proposal, and sometimes as a White Paper. Governments deviate from this procedure only in cases of emergency; any attempt to circumvent it would lead to public criticism.
The purpose of engaging expert committees is to establish, as far as possible, a consensus on the actual situation and the consequences of various value-based policy options. Government decisions may differ from expert advice, but more often than not, criticism from expert communities leads to modifications or postponements of reforms.
Citations:
Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management. 2018. “Guidance Notes on the Instructions for Official Studies of Central Government Measures.” https://dfo.no/sites/default/files/fagområder/Utredningsinstruksen/Guidance_Notes_on_the_Instructions_for_Official_Studies.pdf
Kommunal – og moderniseringsdepartementet. 2019. “Utvalgsarbeid i staten.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/793636d2e55a4236b82e632897f96d50/h-2440-b_utvalgsarbeid-i-staten_oppdatert-01-09-2021.pdf
1. What is the problem, and what do we want to achieve?
2. Which measures are relevant?
3. What fundamental questions do the measures raise?
4. What are the positive and negative effects of the measures, how lasting are they, and who is affected?
5. Which measure is recommended, and why?
6. What are the prerequisites for a successful implementation?
(Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management, 2018)
Additionally, the investigation instruction requires that all those affected by the problem and the policy measures be involved early in the policy process. According to the government, involving affected individuals and coordinating different views and perspectives from various organizations is important to ensure the quality of the investigations and to safeguard democratic rights in developing public policies (Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management, 2018).
The most important and systematic mobilization of expert knowledge in policymaking is carried out by government-appointed expert committees, which produce Official Norwegian Reports (Kommunal – og moderniseringsdepartementet, 2019). These committees vary in size, typically comprising 10 to 15 members, though they can be as small as two members. The committee members act in their personal capacity as experts, but considerations of gender equality and geographical representation are taken into account when forming the committee.
These committees hold a relatively formal status, working according to a fixed procedure and usually having a secretariat of employees from the relevant ministry at their disposal. The committee may commission reports from other experts. They often arrange open hearings and seminars involving stakeholders from the relevant policy area, and they may travel to and conduct site visits at relevant institutions and locations.
The final report from the committee is, according to a standardized procedure, circulated to interested parties with an invitation to comment on the analysis and policy proposals. Normally, a comment period of three months is recommended, with six weeks being the minimum period. After the hearing, the government prepares a presentation for parliament. This sometimes takes the form of a parliamentary legislative proposal, and sometimes as a White Paper. Governments deviate from this procedure only in cases of emergency; any attempt to circumvent it would lead to public criticism.
The purpose of engaging expert committees is to establish, as far as possible, a consensus on the actual situation and the consequences of various value-based policy options. Government decisions may differ from expert advice, but more often than not, criticism from expert communities leads to modifications or postponements of reforms.
Citations:
Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management. 2018. “Guidance Notes on the Instructions for Official Studies of Central Government Measures.” https://dfo.no/sites/default/files/fagområder/Utredningsinstruksen/Guidance_Notes_on_the_Instructions_for_Official_Studies.pdf
Kommunal – og moderniseringsdepartementet. 2019. “Utvalgsarbeid i staten.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/793636d2e55a4236b82e632897f96d50/h-2440-b_utvalgsarbeid-i-staten_oppdatert-01-09-2021.pdf
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
In Norway, both employees and enterprises are well-organized. On the labor side, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) is the largest, while on the capital side, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises (NHO) dominates. Due to their historical roles and significance, these two organizations enjoy a privileged position with frequent, informal access to government and national policymaking. This is in addition to their formal roles, which they share with other organizations for capital and labor. Their privileged status is particularly evident in economic and industrial policymaking and wage determination.
The cooperation between these social partners and the government produces a less transparent tripartite system of consensus-oriented policymaking, frequently criticized by other, smaller trade unions and employer organizations. It is a solid norm that the government never expresses any opinion on internal conflicts within or between the organizations.
A separate regime for cooperation between the state and organized interests exists in the agriculture sector. Norwegian farmers and food production (excluding fish) are protected from international competition and imports, and a significant proportion of farmers’ income comes from state subsidies. A consensus norm dictates that a man-year in agriculture should earn an amount equal to that in manufacturing. Each year there are negotiations between the government and farmers’ organizations to determine the level of subsidies required to fulfill this norm.
The cooperation between these social partners and the government produces a less transparent tripartite system of consensus-oriented policymaking, frequently criticized by other, smaller trade unions and employer organizations. It is a solid norm that the government never expresses any opinion on internal conflicts within or between the organizations.
A separate regime for cooperation between the state and organized interests exists in the agriculture sector. Norwegian farmers and food production (excluding fish) are protected from international competition and imports, and a significant proportion of farmers’ income comes from state subsidies. A consensus norm dictates that a man-year in agriculture should earn an amount equal to that in manufacturing. Each year there are negotiations between the government and farmers’ organizations to determine the level of subsidies required to fulfill this norm.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
In the social welfare sector, it is important to distinguish between organizations that provide services within a contractual relationship with the public sector and organizations that represent the consumer and client side of the services (“users”). Most legislation regulating (tax-financed) welfare services grants users the right to be heard and to partake in the development of new policies. In expert committees, hearings, and performance monitoring, CSOs are well represented. In public opinion, user organizations hold high “moral authority,” which provides legitimacy to social welfare services. Critiques of services, often voiced in alliance with professionals working in the services, are taken seriously and may significantly impact policy decisions. Disputes between different CSOs are rare; if they occur, governments are careful not to express any opinion.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) frequently participate in relevant public hearings. Expert and other public commissions typically consist of individuals who collectively provide both expert knowledge and representation from central interest groups. However, there are no strict formal requirements for the composition of these bodies, except on the basis of gender. The Norwegian bureaucracy and policymaking environment is generally open and accessible, and the involvement of CSOs (environmental and others) is perceived as enhancing legitimacy in policymaking. The consultation process is transparent, though it is important to note that Norway is a small country with relatively flat hierarchies and a mix of formal and informal arenas.
It is challenging to distinguish between CSOs’ discontent with “token participation” in the policymaking process and their dissatisfaction with the current outcomes of decision-making on contentious political issues. Examples of the latter include continued oil and gas exploration, wind power stations – where the state lost a case in the Norwegian supreme court in 2021 – and wolf hunting.
Environmental organizations are generally critical of government central plans, regardless of whether the government is center-left or center-right. These organizations often sue the state because they believe the environmental consequences will be more serious than previously thought and that the knowledge base about these consequences has not been sufficiently investigated. Additionally, youth organizations often encourage boycotts of products and industries that damage the ecosystem. For example, salmon farming in Norway is believed to pose significant environmental challenges.
Citations:
Supreme Court of Norway. 2021. “Licences for wind power development on Fosen ruled invalid as the construction violates Sami reindeer herders’ right to enjoy their own culture.” https://www.domstol.no/en/supremecourt/rulings/2021/supreme-court-civil-cases/hr-2021-1975-s
It is challenging to distinguish between CSOs’ discontent with “token participation” in the policymaking process and their dissatisfaction with the current outcomes of decision-making on contentious political issues. Examples of the latter include continued oil and gas exploration, wind power stations – where the state lost a case in the Norwegian supreme court in 2021 – and wolf hunting.
Environmental organizations are generally critical of government central plans, regardless of whether the government is center-left or center-right. These organizations often sue the state because they believe the environmental consequences will be more serious than previously thought and that the knowledge base about these consequences has not been sufficiently investigated. Additionally, youth organizations often encourage boycotts of products and industries that damage the ecosystem. For example, salmon farming in Norway is believed to pose significant environmental challenges.
Citations:
Supreme Court of Norway. 2021. “Licences for wind power development on Fosen ruled invalid as the construction violates Sami reindeer herders’ right to enjoy their own culture.” https://www.domstol.no/en/supremecourt/rulings/2021/supreme-court-civil-cases/hr-2021-1975-s
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
The government in Norway has developed clear plans over several years to publish data and make it user-friendly and accessible. This initiative is managed at the political level by the Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance, and at the agency level by the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency in cooperation with other public organizations that extensively use data. These include the Norwegian Tax Administration, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration and Statistics Norway, which are the main actors facilitating data sharing as they collect most of the data about citizens and businesses.
Sharing and reusing data is a core principle of digitalization in the Norwegian government. The rationale behind this principle is that by sharing public data, society can benefit from all the information managed by the public sector, leading to increased knowledge, innovation, efficiency, transparency, and value creation. The government views it as a prerequisite for optimizing and automating work processes and developing efficient public services. To a large extent, users only need to provide information to the public sector once. The general strategy in the public sector is that sharing data leads to better data quality, as more people can detect and provide feedback on potential errors. Moreover, all data is generally provided in standardized and readable formats.
The Norwegian government offers a service called eInnsyn, allowing anyone to search for any document in the public sector and receive them by email. This includes everything from meeting minutes in ministries to project documents in specific agencies.
Citations:
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/retningslinjer-ved-tilgjengeliggjoring-av-offentlige-data/id2536870/
https://www.digdir.no/digital-samhandling/prinsipp-4-del-og-gjenbruk-data/1061
Sharing and reusing data is a core principle of digitalization in the Norwegian government. The rationale behind this principle is that by sharing public data, society can benefit from all the information managed by the public sector, leading to increased knowledge, innovation, efficiency, transparency, and value creation. The government views it as a prerequisite for optimizing and automating work processes and developing efficient public services. To a large extent, users only need to provide information to the public sector once. The general strategy in the public sector is that sharing data leads to better data quality, as more people can detect and provide feedback on potential errors. Moreover, all data is generally provided in standardized and readable formats.
The Norwegian government offers a service called eInnsyn, allowing anyone to search for any document in the public sector and receive them by email. This includes everything from meeting minutes in ministries to project documents in specific agencies.
Citations:
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/retningslinjer-ved-tilgjengeliggjoring-av-offentlige-data/id2536870/
https://www.digdir.no/digital-samhandling/prinsipp-4-del-og-gjenbruk-data/1061