2006Scandinavian Political StudiesRequires access

Scandinavian Corporatism in a Trans‐Atlantic Comparative Perspective

Thomas Pallesen

Open publisher page 14 citations

Abstract

Although the concept of ‘neo‐corporatism’ has been around for 30 years, it has many different meanings. Nonetheless, evaluations of the level of corporatism in different countries turn out to be remarkably similar despite differences in the theoretical meaning of ‘corporatism’. That the Scandinavian countries are among the most corporatist countries and the United States the least is thus shared conventional wisdom among different corporatist schools. The conventional wisdom and its underlying conceptual pragmatism are challenged in this research. Empirically, it is demonstrated that the level of corporatism in the United States comes close to the level in Denmark if the Scandinavian ‘boards and commissions’ variant of the concept of ‘corporatism’ is applied. It can even be argued that the pattern of interest groups’ participation in boards and commissions in the United States is more in line with the corporatist idea that interest group involvement varies with the saliency of issues of the boards and commissions to interest group than it is the case in Denmark. The empirical findings of the study conflict with deeply rooted perceptions of the presence of corporatism in the United States and Scandinavia. How to make sense of similar levels of ‘Scandinavian’ corporatism in the United States and Denmark is discussed in the conclusion of the article.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Although the concept of ‘neo‐corporatism’ has been around for 30 years, it has many different meanings. Nonetheless, evaluations of the level of corporatism in different countries turn out to be remarkably similar despite differences in the theoretical meaning of ‘corporatism’. That the Scandinavian countries are among the most corporatist countries and the United States the least is thus shared conventional wisdom among different corporatist schools. The conventional wisdom and its underlying conceptual pragmatism are challenged in this research. Empirically, it is demonstrated that the level of corporatism in the United States comes close to the level in Denmark if the Scandinavian ‘boards and commissions’ variant of the concept of ‘corporatism’ is applied. It can even be argued that the pattern of interest groups’ participation in boards and commissions in the United States is more in line with the corporatist idea that interest group involvement varies with the saliency of issues of the boards and commissions to interest group than it is the case in Denmark. The empirical findings of the study conflict with deeply rooted perceptions of the presence of corporatism in the United States and Scandinavia. How to make sense of similar levels of ‘Scandinavian’ corporatism in the United States and Denmark is discussed in the conclusion of the article.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Although the concept of ‘neo‐corporatism’ has been around for 30 years, it has many different meanings. Nonetheless, evaluations of the level of corporatism in different countries turn out to be remarkably similar despite differences in the theoretical meaning of ‘corporatism’. That the Scandinavian countries are among the most corporatist countries and the United States the least is thus shared conventional wisdom among different corporatist schools. The conventional wisdom and its underlying conceptual pragmatism are challenged in this research. Empirically, it is demonstrated that the level of corporatism in the United States comes close to the level in Denmark if the Scandinavian ‘boards and commissions’ variant of the concept of ‘corporatism’ is applied. It can even be argued that the pattern of interest groups’ participation in boards and commissions in the United States is more in line with the corporatist idea that interest group involvement varies with the saliency of issues of the boards and commissions to interest group than it is the case in Denmark. The empirical findings of the study conflict with deeply rooted perceptions of the presence of corporatism in the United States and Scandinavia. How to make sense of similar levels of ‘Scandinavian’ corporatism in the United States and Denmark is discussed in the conclusion of the article.

Key concepts: Corporatism, Political science, Pragmatism, Political economy, Meaning (existential), Perspective (graphical), Sociology, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Scandinavian Corporatism in a Trans‐Atlantic Comparative Perspective — Research Paper | ScholarLens