1 Parties and the Challenge of Multi-Level Politics

Home , Coastal Party, Gallagher index, June List, June Movement, Liberal Centre, Progressive Alliance

Notes

1. In this study, we use the customary abbreviations MP and MEP to mean member of (a national) parliament and member of the European Parliament, respectively. The term ‘parliamentarian’ we use as a synonym for both MP and MEP. 2. This reflection may well be far from exact, not least because the leaders of most governments in parliamentary systems are not elected by the parliament, but rather tolerated by it. Müller, Bergman and Strøm’s (2003: 13) definition of parliamentarism, which we accept, is ‘a system of government in which the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are accountable to any majority of the members of parliament and can be voted out of office by the latter’ (emphasis removed). 3. Since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force at the end of 2009, a legal mechanism has existed by which a state can, in principle, leave the Union. Greenland, an autonomous part of the Danish state, became the only territory to leave the EU, in 1985, after a referendum three years previously. 4. Hurrelman and DeBardeleben (2009: 231–2) discuss a third, ‘supplementary’ and ‘transnational’ channel of EU democracy, in which civil-society organisations communicate with, primarily, the European Commission. This is an interesting perspective, but we will leave it there, due to the weak presence of political parties in this channel. 5. The arguments in this paragraph are associated with the ‘standard version’ of the democratic deficit as summarised by Follesdal and Hix (2006: 534–7). 6. See Auel (2005) for more work in this area, especially the Nordic survey by Damgaard and Jensen (2005). 7. On the other hand, Raunio and Hix (2000) have argued that national MPs have learned to ‘fight back’, tackling their information deficit through inter alia setting up European affairs committees, even if these institutions are of varying strength, depending on the customary position of the national parliaments vis-à-vis governments (Raunio 2005). 8. Bovens (2007: 5–7) points out that the English term ‘accountability’ does not have a direct equivalent in many other languages. In Swedish, the best effort is ansvarsutkrävande – literally, a demand for responsibility. We like Bovens’s definition of a ‘narrow’ form of accountability as ‘a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences’ (emphasis removed). For us, this definition is strongly redolent of a delegation relationship. 9. Koelbe (1996: 256) similarly argues that party activists prefer strict control mechanisms over party representatives’ actions, while leaders prefer a greater part of the decision-making to be unconstrained.

218 Notes 219

10. Hanley (2008) uses a similar approach in his analysis of ‘transnational parties’. 11. The position of some of the more devout rational-choice scholars is that accuracy of predictions trumps realism of assumptions (see Elster 2007: 25–6). But this is a weak defence in party studies. The application of some of the more reductionist rational-choice-based models of party life has often generated hypotheses that have wilted easily in the face of empirical testing (Montero and Gunther 2002: 10–3). 12. Haverland (2006: 135–6) puts the point in a slightly different way. 13. Haverland (2006: 139–40, 144) has his reservations about the most- similar-countries strategy. But we are less certain about his ‘theoretical concerns’ in using it, and we agree with the ‘methodological reasons’ in its favour. 14. We concur with the definition of a case, offered by Seawright and Collier (2004: 275), as ‘[t]he [unit] of analysis in a given study. Cases are the political, social, institutional, or individual entities or phenomena about which information is collected and inferences made. Examples of cases are nation-states, social movements, political parties, trade union members, and episodes of policy implementation.’ We further agree with Gerring (2004: 342) that ‘[a] case is comprised of several relevant dimensions (“variables”), each of which is built upon an “observation” or observations’. 15. There are a few exceptions to these criteria. The Danish Christian Democrats and the Norwegian Coastal Party, both of which lost their seats in the national elections of 2005, were excluded from our survey. So too were the parties whose representatives are elected by voters in the Faroes and Greenland to the Danish parliament; and from Åland to the Finnish parliament; and the Danish Liberal Alliance, which arrived in the Danish parliament only in 2007. Also excluded is Feminist Initiative to which a Swedish MEP, elected on the Liberals’ list in 2004, defected in 2006; it won no seats in the 2009 European election. Nor did two Danish parties, the Social Liberals and the June Movement, and a Finnish one, the Left Alliance. However, because these three had seats in the 2004–9 EP, they are included in the set. Finally, the Finnish Christian Democrats and the Finns Party won, in a technical alliance with each other, a seat each in the 2009 European election. However, while they are included in our national-level observations, their activity at EU level is not explored. 16. Here we depart somewhat from the practice in Katz and Mair (1992, 1994). We prefer party board to ‘national executive’, because we are not convinced that the board’s role is executive in the same way as that of the party leadership; the executive committee clearly is. 17. It also means that the Norwegian Kristelig Folkeparti is referred to as the Christian Democratic Party, the English-language name on the parliament’s website, despite the fact that ‘Christian People’s Party’ would be a much more faithful translation, and despite the fact that the party congress has discussed and rejected changing the party name to (in Norwegian) the Christian Democrats. Thanks to Nick Sitter for pointing out this interesting linguistic discrepancy. 220 Notes

2 Principals, Agents, Parties and the EU

1. See also the discussion in Lupia and McCubbins (2000: 294). 2. Swedish has a nice word, förtroendevald, to describe any person in whom confidence is invested via election. In English, we have to make do with using the label ‘representative’. 3. Note that credibility in this context does not necessarily imply a realistic prospect of manifesto pledges being implemented as public policy. That might be an essential part of manifesto credibility in some parties. In others, however, influence over public policy may not be a likely prospect. In such cases, manifesto credibility might be dependent on other criteria, such as the support of party members or core supporters. 4. If a party is not in government, however, and therefore does not have its parliamentary leader in a ministerial position, contacts with the party’s MEPs would be of little use to MPs in the intra-party channel of delegation and accountability. Recalling their role in the constitutional channel, however, it is clearly in the interests of MPs to get information about Brussels policy issues as early as possible so that they can hold their government to account, irrespective of whether an MP’s party is in government or opposition.

3 Denmark: Party Agents on Tight Leashes

1. Note that the following description applies to one type of legislation, bes- lutningsforslag. Another type, lovforslag, gets a single reading. 2. In the electoral reform of 2007, these were reduced from 17 constituencies and 103 nomination districts. 3. Before the 2007 reform, a modified St Laguë was used in the allocation process (Elklit 2002). 4. The exception is the small Baltic island of Bornholm, which is guaran- teed at least two seats, more than the size of its population alone would justify. 5. The following smaller parties had representation in the Folketing prior to 1973: Liberal Centre (Liberalt Centrum) in 1966–8 and the Independents (De Uafhængige) in 1960–8. 6. In order for a government to be formed it just need to be tolerated by a majority in parliament, it does not have to be supported by a majority (Bergman 1993). 7. Originally, the committee was known as the Market Relations Committee (Markedsudvalget). 8. The Party of European Socialists changed its name during the seventh parliamentary period to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. 9. The split in the European People’s Party at the beginning of the seventh parliamentary period and some Eurosceptical parties (particularly the British Tories) formed the European Conservatives and Reformists. The Danish Conservatives never considered moving to this group. 10. The following description is based on Dansk Folkeparti (2010); Enhedslisten (2010); Konservative Folkeparti (2010); Radikale Venstre; Socialdemokreterne (2009); the partially implemented new statutes contained in Socialistisk Folkeparti (2010); and Venstre (2010). Notes 221

11. In the Socialist People’s Party, this applied after the annual meeting in 2010, before which the party board was larger and included representatives from the regions. 12. However, in the Social Democrats’ statutes, the board is made responsible for maintaining contact with the labour movement in general and, specifically, the trade unions. 13. In the Conservatives, this might be handled at the chairs meeting and, in the Social Democrats, at the congresses that are arranged between the ordinary congresses. 14. According to one informant, the party ended these special congresses because of their cost. 15. In the Red–Green Alliance, only 20 per cent of board members may be full- time politicians. 16. The decision of the board was taken by a single-vote majority. The leadership was in favour of joining the Green group. 17. The Social Democrats previously had rules that explicitly stated that an MP had to inform the party group if he or she was about to dissent from the party line (Bille 2000: 135). This was, however, removed from the 2009 version of the party statutes. The Socialist People’s Party and the Red–Green Alliance still have explicit rules that MPs should follow the party line.

4 Finland: From Permissive Consensus to Angry Birds?

1. The annual budget and certain other types of parliamentary decisions are handled in one reading. 2. Åland constitutes the 15th electoral district and elects one MP irrespective of the number of its inhabitants. 3. The other standing committees consist of 17 members and nine reserves. 4. There are certain limitations for people with very specific positions in Finnish society. A person holding military office cannot be elected to the national parliament. The government’s chancellor of justice, the parliamentary ombudsman, a judge on the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court, and the prosecutor-general cannot serve as representatives without resigning from their office. The same rule applies in the European Parliament elections, with the addition that government members are also ruled out. 5. According to statements from party representatives, the more local the level the less strict the informal requirement of being a member of the party. 6. Another exception is that if a party has fewer aspiring party candidates than there are mandates to be elected in a particular constituency (Oikeusministeriö 2008b). 7. This measures cohesion differently to the Rice index. A majority position in every group on every vote is defined (using the Rice index). Then every individual voting record is compared with this index, resulting in a percentage of how many times MEPs vote with the majority of their respective groups.

5 Norway: Strong yet Marginalised Parties

1. Voters can cross out a name on a party list. But unless more than half the party’s voters do so, that candidate is not demoted down its order. Not sur- prisingly, demotion has never happened (Matthews and Valen 1999: 61). 222 Notes

2. A further constitutional peculiarity was the division of the parliament into two sections, the Odelsting and the Lagting, during the legislative process (Matthews and Valen 1999: 52–3). But this only rarely had any political implications, and in 2007 it was decided to end the division after the 2009 election. 3. As in many EU member states (Larue 2006), the Prime Minister’s Office has taken on an increasingly central role in the co-ordination of Norwegian policy across government, partly at the cost of the Foreign Ministry (Narud and Strøm 2000: 142). But that may depend on the engagement of a particular prime minister. Other studies suggest that the Norwegian co-ordination apparatus has been undermined by the ministries’ relatively close involvement with the European Commission’s committees, which militate towards autonomy within policy sectors, without being offset by participation in the Council of Ministers, which promotes national policy alignment (Egeberg and Trondal 1999; Lægreid, Steinthorsson and Thorhallsson 2004; Larsson and Trondal 2005). 4. In 2009 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was merged with that on Defence. 5. The opacity surrounding the degree of such expert involvement, the mandates that these experts were given and their subsequent reporting back were criticised in a report by a public management-consultant unit (Hagedorn 2001). 6. Thanks to Dag Seierstad for helping with access to the documents mentioned in this paragraph. 7. According to Ray’s (1999) expert survey, the Centre was the most united party on Europe in the whole Nordic region. 8. In summer 2009 Europabloggen.no, ‘a news- and analysis-orientated blog on Europe and the EU, written by Norwegian journalists based in Berlin, Brussels and Oslo’, published reviews of the parties’ ‘knowledge and competence on the EU’. 9. Labour, at least, might be able to form a minority government. But its mis- erable recent experience of such administrations was a major reason why it committed itself to the red–green coalition (Allern and Aylott 2009). 10. Indeed, this sub-section owes a lot to Heidar, Pettersen and Svåsand (1997). 11. SAMAK has a working group on the EU, which seeks to visit and maintain contacts with social democrats in the country that holds the Council of Ministers’ rotating presidency (Europabloggen.no 23 June 2009). 12. There are exceptions. The Conservatives, confusingly, call their executive committee arbeidsutvalget; Labour calls its presidum its ‘leadership’ (ledelse). 13. Strøm (1999: 203–4) cites two previous holders of that role who did so ‘without in any way being the effective Conservative leader. Certainly, neither was ever considered for the prime ministership of the 1963 and 1965–71 coalitions in which the Conservatives participated.’ 14. Heidar and Saglie (2003: 228) note that several parties had provided in their statutes for more ballots of the membership, and not only in candidate selection, but that practice had not yet changed. 15. This was a decision made in the party’s board in October 2000, on the basis of a resolution proposed by eight party regions (but opposed by some others, including Oslo). Notes 223

16. The Socialist Left’s statutes state that its elected politicians are ‘bound to the party’s programme, unless they have registered their dissenting opinion and it has been accepted by the party board. The board can take decisions that are binding for the parliamentary group’ (Sosialistisk Venstreparti 2007: section 25). 17. Indeed, the Nordic left parties’ collaboration was only institutionalised to allow its constituent parties to take advantage of the economic support that the EU pledged in the Treaty of Amsterdam to offer Europarties.

6 Sweden: Power to the Parliamentarians?

1. In 2006–9 another party, Feminist Initiative, held a seat in the European Parliament. However, that was attained through defection rather than election, as we will see later in the chapter, so it too is disregarded. 2. Four separate laws have constitutional status, one of which – the Instrument of Government – stipulates the relationships between political institutions. 3. Between 1970 and 1994, the parliamentary term was just three years. 4. A good example of this occurred during the negotiations of the EU’s abor- tive Constitutional Treaty. A majority of MPs, including those from the Social Democratic government’s support parties, the Left and Greens, were against the treaty’s provision for an individual president of the European Council. However, the government did not feel obliged to follow the European affairs committee’s preference – nor did the committee appear terribly inclined to press the matter (Aylott 2007: fn. 11; Johansson and Tallberg 2010: 219–20). 5. Some fairly senior Social Democrats even urged their government to block the Lisbon Treaty until the EU withdrew this perceived attack ( Johansson and Bernhardsson 2008). 6. Of the two parties not considered in greater detail here, the Pirate Party was against the Lisbon Treaty but not against EU membership, and the Sweden Democrats were against both. 7. There is limited scope in the Swedish constitution for decisive referendums. Constitutional changes must be ratified by consecutive parliaments, either side of an election. If, prior to that election, at least a tenth of MPs propose it and a third support it, a referendum can be held concurrently with the election. If the No voters comprise a majority in the referendum, and if they number at least half of those voting in the election, the change is blocked (Ruin 1996: 172). 8. The presence in the group of the Italian Northern League and the League of Polish Families, some of whose members’ views were rather extreme, caused the List to reconsider its membership more than once. 9. In the Centre (Centerpartiet 2009: section 24) and the Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna 2009: section 7:2), the executive committee is a subset of the party board. The Liberals’ executive committee is chosen not by the congress but by the board (Folkpartiet Liberalerna 2007: section 8). In the Left Party, both these characteristics apply (Vänsterpartiet 2008: section 111). 10. The party councils’ powers vary. The Greens and Social Democrats describe theirs as advisory bodies; the Centre, Liberals and Moderates’ councils address issues that the congress and board have delegated to it. The June List 224 Notes

had a purely advisory council when it was first formed, although its original candidates wanted some body to which they could be in some way accountable. But it later became a more traditional board. 11. The Christian Democrats and the Greens are the only parties to require their leader or spokespersons to be re-elected by the party congress every year. 12. As it happened, this particular Social Democratic leadership appointment turned out badly. The appointee, Håkan Juholt, was forced to resign in January 2012 after just ten chaotic months as party leader. His replacement, Stefan Löfven, was appointed in an even more closed and exclusive process. Löfven was simply proposed as acting leader by the executive committee and confirmed by a unanimous party board. The expectation was that he would be confirmed in the position at the next ordinary party congress in 2013. 13. It was also criticised by some Social Democrats, in 2010 and 2012 especially. During the party’s previous leader-selection process in 2006–7, the chair of the selection committee had defended what she called an open process: ‘[W]e received about 1000 written suggestions …We had two months’ discussion out in the party.’ She also questioned the advantages of an alterna- tive approach, ‘with candidates [who] had travelled round and presented themselves and competed with each other’. She argued: ‘These people need to work closely together after the election is over. What happens if you have a damaging [uppslitande] debate between them? Our party does not have different factions like other parties do’ (Dagens Nyheter 20 January 2007). 14. As for the June List, its main founder, Lundgren, stood down after the failure of its run in the 2006 national election. He was replaced, according to a proposal by the party’s selection committee, by a recent defector from the Social Democrats. The selection committee also nominated a little-known Liberal as co-leader, but she resigned before the 2009 European election. 15. The Social Democrats’ opposition to the EU Galileo navigation satellite was, according to informants, decided in its EU reference group. 16. Indeed, the Social Democrats’ statutes (Socialdemokraterna 2009: section 9:7–8) state that the party’s nomination committees ‘ought’ to include a ‘representative’ of the trade-union committees that are present in each municipal branch and regional unit. 17. A members’ meeting usually fulfils the same function at the municipal level. 18. In fact, regarding the use of primaries for national and sub-national elections, the tide may have turned. In the wake of a scandal about Moderate politicians who, often through intermediaries, had actively recruited new members in return for their support in intra-party primaries, a newspaper reported growing disillusion with the membership ballots. One regional party chair called it ‘conservative’, adding that ‘those who already have representative positions … get votes [in membership ballots]’. He added: ‘With such small memberships [these days], the votes are easy to manipulate. It was almost a question of time before someone would go too far, which now seems to have happened in Stockholm.’ Another argued that ‘[p]articipation is pretty low, often under 50 per cent, and new, unknown candidates have a hard time making an impact’ (Dagens Nyheter 20 February 2010). A year later, the Moderates in Stockholm looked likely to abolish their primaries (Dagens Nyheter 21 February 2011). 19. Some parties allow for the possibility of their congress to take the decision. Notes 225

20. The nominee who came second in the party’s primary, the Italian wife of the Moderates’ current foreign minister and former party leader, was relegated to eighth on the list. In the event, she was subsequently elected through personal-preference votes. 21. Because Sweden holds its municipal and regional elections on the same day as national elections, no separate municipal- or regional-election manifestos are presented at the national level. 22. The Moderates’ candidate insurance assures that the candidate under- stands that his or her mission depends on ‘the [party] members’ and voters’ confidence, as well as the party’s strength and size’, and demands pledges that range from having ‘good judgement and morals’ to frequent attendance at party meetings and being ‘open to views and suggestions from members, sympathisers and voters’. It also elicits a promise to ‘resign immediately from the position that the [parliamentary or council] group has nominated me [the elected person] to, if the group expresses that it no longer has confidence in me as a representative, or if I leave the party’ (Moderaterna 2007: 93–4). 23. The Greens, Liberals and Centre also offered multiple lists in 1995, as did the Greens in 1999 (Aylott 2007: 172). 24. This is despite some parties’ statutory obligation for its public-office holders to follow the parties’ programmes and/or congress decisions, and the Left and Social Democratic parties’ stipulation that the statutes for their parliamentary groups are agreed in ‘consultation’ with, and are formally approved by, the parties’ respective party boards (Socialdemokraterna 2009: section 12:1; Vänsterpartiet 2008: section 128). 25. The Swedish constitution nods to a separation-of-powers principle, in that a minister must give up his or her parliamentary seat, though it can be reclaimed at any time from a substitute. 26. Moreover, the leadership’s influence was arguably observable again when the party’s candidates for the 2009 European election were decided. The split among Social Democratic MPs had been about personalities rather than ideological divisions, and the last thing the leadership wanted was any repeat. Thus, the sitting delegation leader was rather brutally left off the entire list. 27. A partial exception was the Social Democrats, whose MEPs formed special associations to employ assistants; the June List did the same. The Centre’s European functionaries are classified as a ‘team’ within its national parliamentary office. However, staff in the Christian Democrats’ national parliamentary office is formally employed by the party organisation. 28. It was expected that party regions would club together to share the cost of a part-time functionary. 29. It is also worth noting that the Greens’ statutes co-opt their spokespeople as adjunct members of the parliamentary group if they are not also MPs, though this facility has been unnecessary since 2002. 30. If seven sub-national public-office holders are added to that number, it becomes apparent that more than four-fifths of the members of the Social Democrats’ party board had been drawn from the parliament, a county council or a municipal council. Party websites were the sources for these figures. 226 Notes

7 Conclusions: Nordic Political Parties, European Union and the Challenge of Delegation

1. This did not apply to the technocratic governments that took charge in Greece and Italy in 2011 amid acute sovereign-debt crises in those countries. Such governments’ continuation in office beyond the short term would obviously raise big questions for democracy in these countries. 2. Of course, the issue of participating in government can return to the intra-party agenda later. 3. The Social Democrats’ acting leader, appointed in early 2012 from outside the party’s parliamentary group, also gave the important role of economic spokesperson to another non-MP. 4. An initial exception, which actually proves the rule, was the Danish Liberal Alliance, which was formed (as New Alliance) by an MP and two MEPs in 2007. As soon as the two MEPs were elected to the Danish parliament three months later, they resigned their seats in the European Parliament. Two Swedish MEPs, one from the Liberals and one from the Centre Party, vacated their European parliamentary seats when they were made ministers in their national government in 2006 and 2011, respectively. 5. The Italian Democratic Party allowed any elector prepared to pay a small, symbolic fee to take part in the vote on its next party leader. In 2011 the French Socialist Party did the same in deciding its presidential candidate. 6. For a slightly different definition, see Sundström Rosén (2009: 39). 7. Election manifestos are indeed much longer in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden (Green-Pedersen 2007: 612–13), presumably because the Norwegian ones are versions of the full party programme. 8. Interestingly, our conclusions about Danish parties reflect the upbeat reflec- tions about Danish democracy, also from a principal–agent perspective, in Bergman and Strøm (2011b: 384–5). References

Ahlbäck Öberg, S. and Jungar, A.-C. (2009) ‘The Influence of National Parliaments over Domestic European Union Policies’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4): 359–81. Aldrich, J. H. (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Algotsson, K.-G. (2001) ‘From Majoritarian Democracy to Vertical Separation of Powers: Sweden and the European Union’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(1): 51–65. Allen, H. (1979) Norway and Europe in the 1970s (Oslo: Universitets forlaget). Allern, E. H. (2010a) ‘Parties as Vehicles of Democracy in Norway: Still Working after All These Years?’ in K. Lawson (ed.), Political Parties and Democracy: Volume 2, Europe (Westport, CT: Praeger). —— (2010b) Political Parties and Interest Groups in Norway (Colchester: ECPR Press). Allern, E. H. and Aylott, N. (2009) ‘Overcoming the Fear of Commitment: Pre- Electoral Coalitions in Norway and Sweden’, Acta Politica, 44(3): 259–85. Allern, E. H., Aylott, N. and Christiansen, F. J. (2007) ‘Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia: The Decline and Persistence of Institutional Relationships’, European Journal of Political Research, 46(5): 607–35. —— (2008) ‘Scener fra et æktenskab: socialdemokratiske partier og fagforeninger i Skandinavien’, in Kosiara-Pedersen, K. and Kurrild-Klitgaard, P. (eds), Partier og partisystemer i forandring: Festskrift til Lars Bille (Odense: Syddansk universitetsforlag). —— (2009) Scenes from a Marriage: Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Scandinavia, CVAP Working Paper Series 2 (Copenhagen: Centre for Voting and Parties, University of Copenhagen). Allern, E. H. and Pedersen, K. (2007) ‘The Impact of Party Organisational Changes on Democracy’, West European Politics, 30(1): 68–92. Allern, E. H. and Saglie, J. (2009) Informal Web of Links in the Shadow of Hierarchy? Day-to-Day Politics within Norwegian Political Parties (ECPR general conference, Potsdam), 10–12 September. Anckar, C. (2002) Effekter av valsystem (Stockholm: SNS Förlag). Anckar, D. (1990) ‘Finland: dualism och konsensus’, in Damgaard, E. (ed.), Parlamentarisk forandring i Norden (Tøyen: Universitetsforlaget). Andersen, J. G. and Bjørklund, T. (1990) ‘Structural Changes and New Cleavages: The Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway’, Acta Sociologica, 33(3): 195–217. Anderson, J. J. (2002) ‘Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic Polity, 1945–2000’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5): 793–822. Arbeiderpartiet, Socialistisk Venstreparti and Senterpartiet (2009) ‘Politisk plattform for flertallsregjeringen’, retrieved 28 November 2010 from www. regjeringen.no Arter, D. (1987) Politics and Policy-Making in Finland (Brighton: Wheatsheaf).

227 228 References

—— (1999) Scandinavian Politics Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Auel, K. (ed.) (2005) ‘The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy’, Journal of Legislative Studies, special issue, 11(3–4). Aylott, N. (1997) ‘Between Europe and Unity: The Case of the Swedish Social Democrats’, West European Politics, 20(2): 119–36. —— (1999) Swedish Social Democracy and European Integration: The People’s Home on the Market (Aldershot: Ashgate). —— (2002) ‘Let’s Discuss This Later: Party Responses to Euro-Division in Scandinavia’, Party Politics, 8(4): 441–61. —— (2003) ‘After the Divorce: Social Democrats and Trade Unions in Sweden’, Party Politics, 9(3): 369–90. —— (2005a) ‘Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: The Swedish Referendum on EMU of September 2003’, Government and Opposition, 40(4): 540–64. —— (2005b) ‘Politiska partier’, in Blomgren, M. and Bergman, T. (eds), EU och Sverige – Ett sammanlänkat statsskick (Malmö: Liber). —— (2005c) ‘“President Persson” – How Did Sweden Get Him’, in T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds), The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2007) ‘A Long, Slow March to Europe: The Europeanization of Swedish Political Parties’, in T. Poguntke, N. Aylott, E. Carter, R. Ladrech and K. R. Luther (eds), The Europeanization of National Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation (London: Routledge). —— (2008) ‘Softer but Strong: Euroscepticism and Party Politics in Sweden’, in P. Taggart and A. Szczerbiak (eds), Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism, Volume 1: Case Studies and Country Surveys (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2010) ‘Europe and the Swedish Election of September 19th 2010’, Election Briefing No. 59 (Sussex: European Parties Elections and Referendums Network). —— (2011) ‘Parties and Party Systems in the North’, in T. Bergman and K. Strøm (eds), The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Aylott, N. and Blomgren, M. (2004) ‘The European Parliament Election in Sweden, June 13 2004’, European Parliament Election Briefing Paper 7 (Sussex: European Parties Elections and Referendums Network). Aylott, N. and Bolin, N. (2007) ‘Towards a Two-Party System? The Swedish Parliamentary Election of September 2006’, West European Politics, 30(3): 621–33. Aylott, N., Morales, L. and Ramiro, L. (2007) ‘Some Things Change, a Lot Stays the Same: Comparing the Country Studies’, in T. Poguntke, N. Aylott, E. Carter, R. Ladrech and K. R. Luther (eds), The Europeanization of National Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation (London: Routledge). Aylott, N. and Rosén Sundström, M. (2009) ‘The European Parliament Election in Sweden, June 2009’, European Parliament Election Briefing 37 (Sussex: European Parties Elections and Referendums Network). Bardi, L. (2002) ‘Parties and Party Systems in the European Union: National and Supranational Dimensions’, in K. R. Luther and F. Müller-Rommel (eds), Political Parties and a Changing Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). References 229

Barnea, S. and Rahat, G. (2007) ‘Reforming Candidate Selection Methods’, Party Politics, 13(3): 375–94. Bartolini, S. (2005) Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building and Political Structuring between the Nation-State and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bennulf, M. (1992) ‘En grön dimension bland svenska väljare?’ Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 95(4): 329–58. Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies (London: Routledge). Berglund, S. and Lindstrom, U. (1978) The Scandinavian Party System(s): A Comparative Study (Lund: Studentlitteratur). Bergman, T. (1993) ‘Formation Rules and Minority Governments’, European Journal of Political Research, 23(1): 55–66. —— (1995) Constitutional Rules and Party Goals in Coalition Formation (Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå University). —— (1997) ‘National Parliaments and EU Affairs Committees: Notes on Empirical Variation and Competing Explanations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3): 373–87. —— (2003) ‘Sweden: From Separation of Power to Parliamentary Supremacy – and Back Again?’ in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2004) ‘Sweden: Democratic Reforms and Partisan Decline in an Emerging Separation-of-Powers System1’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(2): 203–25. Bergman, T. and Blomgren, M. (2005) ‘Ett sammanlänkat statsskick!’ in M. Blomgren and T. Bergman (eds), EU och Sverige – ett sammanlänkat statsskick (Malmö: Liber). Bergman, T. and Damgaard, E. (2000) ‘Delegation and Accountability in European Integration’, in T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union (London: Frank Cass). Bergman, T. and Strøm, K. (2004) ‘Shifting Dimensions of Citizen Control’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(2): 89–113. —— (2011a) ‘The Nordics: Demanding Citizens, Complex Polities’, in T. Bergman and K. Strøm (eds), The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). —— (2011b) ‘Parliamentary Democracies under Siege?’ in T. Bergman and K. Strøm (eds), The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). —— (eds) (2011c) The Madisonian Turn data archive, retrieved 17 February 2011 from www.erdda.se Bergman, T., Müller, W. C., Strøm, K. and Blomgren, M. (2003) ‘Democratic Delegation and Accountability: Cross-National Patterns’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Biezen, I. v. (2003) Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). —— (2005) ‘On the Theory and Practice of Party Formation and Adaptation in New Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 44(1): 147–74. 230 References

Biezen, I. v., Mair, P. and Poguntke, T. (2012) ‘Going, Going,… Gone? The Decline of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, 51(1): 24–56. Bille, L. (1989) ‘Denmark: The Oscillating Party System’, West European Politics, 12(4): 44–58. —— (1994) ‘Denmark: The Decline of the Membership Party?’ in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), How Parties Organize: Change and Adaption in Party Organizations in Western Democracies (London: Sage). —— (2000) ‘A Power Centre in Danish Politics’, in K. Heidar and R. Koole (eds), Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies: Political Parties Behind Closed Doors (London: Routledge). Björklund, T. (1982) ‘The Demand for Referendum: When Does It Arise and When Does It Succeed?’ Scandinavian Political Studies, 5(3): 237–60. Blomgren, M. (2003) Cross-Pressure and Political Representation in Europe: A Comparative Study of MEPs and the Intra-Party Arena (Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå University). Bolleyer, N. (2012) ‘New Party Organization in Western Europe: Of Party Hierarchies, Stratarchies and Federations’, Party Politics, 18(3): 315–36. Borre, O. (1995) ‘Old and New Politics in Denmark’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 18(3): 187–205. Bovens, M. (2007) ‘New Forms of Accountability and EU Governance’, Comparative European Politics, 5(1): 104–20. Brennan, G. and Hamlin, A. (2000) Democratic Devices and Desires (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Carter, E., Luther, K. R. and Poguntke, T. (2007) ‘European Integration and Internal Party Dymanics’, in T. Poguntke, N. Aylott, E. Carter, R. Ladrech and K. R. Luther (eds), The Europeanization of National Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation (London: Routledge). Carty, K. R. (2004) ‘Parties as Franchise Systems: The Stratarchical Organizational Imperative’, Party Politics, 10(1): 5–24. Caul, M. L. and Gray, M. M. (2002) ‘From Platform Declarations to Policy Outcomes: Changing Party Profiles and Partisan Influence over Policy’, in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Centerpartiet (2009) ‘Stadgar’, retrieved 19 August 2010 from www.centerpartiet.se Christensen, D. A. (1996) ‘The Left-Wing Opposition in Denmark, Norway and Sweden: Cases of Euro-Phobia?’ West European Politics, 19(3): 525–46. —— (1997) ‘Europautvala i Danmark, Sverige of Noreg: sandpåstrøningsorgan eller politiske muldvarpar?’, Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 78: 143–62. Cox, G. W. and McCubbins, M. D. (1993) Legislative Leviathan (Berkeley: University of California Press). Crum, B. and Fossum, J. E. (2009) ‘The Multilevel Parliamentary Field: A Framework for Theorizing Representative Democracy in the EU’, European Political Science Review, 1(2): 249–71. Daalder, H. (1992) ‘A Crisis of Party?’ Scandinavian Political Studies, 15(4): 269–88. Dahlquist, L.-O. (2009) ‘En modern folkrörelse för jobb och rättvisa. Riktlinjer för partiets organisatoriska verksamhet’, retrieved 28 November 2010 from www. socialdemokratern.se References 231

Damgaard, E. (2000a) ‘Conclusion: The Impact of European Integration on Nordic Parliamentary Democracies’, in T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union (London: Frank Cass). —— (2000b) ‘Denmark: The Life and Death of Government Coalitions’, in W. C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Coalition Governments in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2003) ‘Denmark: Delegation and Accountability in Minority Situations’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Damgaard, E. and Jensen, H. (2005) ‘Europeanisation of Executive–Legislative Relations: Nordic Perspectives’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4): 394–411. Damgaard, E. and Sonne Nørgaard, A. (2000) ‘The European Union and Danish Parliamentary Democracy’, in T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union (London: Frank Cass). Damgaard, E. and Svensson, P. (1989) ‘Who Governs? Parties and Policies in Denmark’, European Journal of Political Research, 17(6): 731–45. Danmarks Radio (2009a) ‘Løkke afviser afstemning om EU-forbehold’, http://www. dr.dk/P3/P3Nyheder/2009/11/25/104841.htm, retrieved 25 November 2009. —— (2009b) ‘Løkke: Euro-forbeholdet det vigtigste’, http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/ Politik/2009/06/10/193213.htm, retrieved 10 June 2009. Dansk Folkeparti (2010) ‘Arbejdsprogram – Den Europæiske Union’, retrieved 5 December 2010 from http://www.danskfolkeparti.dk/Den_Europæiske_Union.asp Demker, M. and Svåsand, L. (2005) Partiernas århundrade. Fempartimodellens upp- gång och fall i Norge och Sverige (Stockholm: Santerus förlag). Dion, D. (1998) ‘Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study’, Comparative Politics, 30(2): 127–45. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row). Duverger, M. (1964) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the Modern State (London: Methuen). Eduskunta (2008a) ‘Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Union Matters in Finland’ (Helsinki: Parliament of Finland). —— (2008b) ‘Statistik och rapporter’, retrieved 21 November 2008 from Finnish parliamentary website, http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/tixhaku. sh?lyh=vex_r1_07?kieli=ru Egeberg, M. (2005) ‘The EU and the Nordic Countries: Organizing Domestic Diversity?’ in S. Bulmer and C. Lequesne (eds), The Member States of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (1999) ‘Differentiated Integration in Europe: The Case of EEA Country, Norway’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(1): 133–42. Ekström, T., Myrdal, G. and Pålsson, R. (1962) Vi och Västeuropa: Uppfordran till eftertanke och debatt (Stockholm: Rabén and Sjögren). Elder, N., Thomas, A. H. and Arter, D. (1982) The Consensual Democracies? The Government and Politics of the Scandinavian States (Oxford: Martin Robertson). Eliassen, K. A. and Sitter, N. (2003) ‘Ever Closer Cooperation? The Limits of the “Norwegian Method” of European Integration’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(2): 125–44. 232 References

Eliasson, J. (2004) ‘Traditions, Identity and Security: The Legacy of Neutrality in Finnish and Swedish Security Policies in the Light of European Integration’, European Integration Online Papers, 8(6), retrieved 4 August 2008 from http:// eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-006a.htm Elklit, J. (2002) ‘The Politics of Electoral System Development and Change: The Danish Case’, in B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (eds), The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries (New York: Agathon Press). —— (2005) ‘Denmark: Simplicity Embedded in Complexity (or Is It the Other Way Round)?’ in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Elster, J. (2007) Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Enhedslisten (2010) ‘EU’, retrieved on 5 December 2010 from http:// enhedslisten. dk/content/eu EU-opplysningen (2007) ‘Regeringen og EU’, retrieved on 2 December 2010 from http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/dkeu/reg/ Europaudvalget (2004) ‘Beretning om reform af Folketingets behandling av EU-sager’ (Copenhagen: Folketinget). European Parliament (2009) ‘Rules of Procedure: 7th Parliamentary Term, July 2009’, Official Journal of the European Union, L173–98. Farrell, D. M. (2001) Electoral Systems – A Comparative Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Folketinget (2005) Sådan lovgiver EU – efter udvidelsen med 10 nye lande (Copenhagen: Parliament of Denmark). —— (2008) Tal og fakta – valg og tendenser (Copenhagen: Parliament of Denmark). —— (2009a) Parliamentary Election Act of Denmark (Copenhagen: Parliament of Denmark). —— (2009b) Regnskaber for Folketingsgruppestøtte for 2008 (Copenhagen: Parliament of Denmark). —— (2009c) Tal og fakta – folkeafstemninger (Copenhagen: Parliament of Denmark). Folkpartiet Liberalerna (2007) ‘Partistadgar för Folkpartiet Liberalerna’, retrieved on 19 August 2010 from www.folkpartiet.se Follesdal, A. and Hix, S. (2006) ‘Why there is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3): 533–62. Fremskrittspartiet (2007) ‘Vedtok endringer i vedtektene’, retrieved on 28 November 2010 from www.frp.no. Gabel, M. J. and Hix, S. (2004) ‘Defining the EU Political Space: An Empirical Study of the European Election Manifestos, 1979–99’, in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gaffney, J. (ed.) (1996) Political Parties and the European Union (London: Routledge). Gallagher, M. (1991) ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’, Electoral Studies, 10(1): 33–51. Gallagher, M. and Marsh, M. (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics (London: Sage). George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press). References 233

Gerring, J. (2004) ‘What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?’ American Political Science Review, 98(2): 341–54. —— (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Geyer, R. (1997) The Uncertain Union: British and Norwegian Social Democrats in an Integrating Europe (Aldershot: Avebury). Geyer, R. and Swank, D. (1997) ‘Rejecting the European Union: Norwegian Social Democratic Opposition to the EU in the 1990s’, Party Politics, 3(4): 549–62. Gidlund, G. and Möller, T. (1999) SOU 1999:130: Demokratins trotjänare (Stockholm: Fakta Info Direkt). Green-Pedersen, C. (2007) ‘The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe’, Political Studies, 55(3): 607–28. Gustavsson, J. (1998) The Politics of Foreign Policy Change: Explaining the Swedish Reorientation on EC Membership (Lund: Lund University Press). Haahr, J. H. (1993) Looking to Europe: The EC Policies of the British Labour Party and the Danish SDP (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press). Hagedorn, S. (2001) ‘Norsk innflytelse gjennom EU-komiteer’, Statskonsult report 2001: 15 (Oslo: Statskonsult). Hanley, D. L. (2008) Beyond the Nation State: Parties in the Era of European Integration (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Haverland, M. (2006) ‘Does the EU Cause Domestic Developments? Improving Case Selection in Europeanisation Research’, West European Politics, 29(1): 134–46. Hazan, R. Y. and Rahat, G. (2010) Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hegeland, H. (2002) ‘Nationella parlament i Europeiska Unionen’, in EU2004- kommittén (ed.), SOU 2002:81: Riksdagens roll i EU (Stockholm: Fritzes). Hegeland, H. and Mattson, I. (2000) ‘Another Link in the Chain: The Effects of EU Membership on Delegation and Accountability in Sweden’, in T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union (London: Frank Cass). Heidar, K. (1984) ‘Party Power: Approaches in a Field of Unfilled Classics*’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 7(1): 1–16. —— (1997a) ‘A “New” Party Leadership?’ in K. Strøm and L. Svåsand (eds), Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway (University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor). —— (1997b) ‘Roles, Structures and Behaviour: Norwegian Parliamentarians in the Nineties’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1): 91–109. —— (2000) ‘Parliamentary Party Groups’, in P. Esaiasson and K. Heidar (eds), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience (Columbus: Ohio State University Press). —— (2005) ‘Norwegian Parties and the Party System: Steadfast and Changing’, West European Politics, 28(4): 807–33. Heidar, K., Pettersen, H. C. and Svåsand, L. (1997) ‘Norske partiers internasjonale forbindelser’, in K. Heidar and L. Svåsand (eds), Partier utan grenser? (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug). 234 References

Heidar, K. and Saglie, J. (2002) Hva skjer med partiene? (Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk). —— (2003) ‘Predestined Parties? Organizational Change in Norwegian Political Parties’, Party Politics, 9(2): 219–39. Heidar, K. and Svåsand, L. (1997a) ‘Internasjonale partisammenslutninger: partier eller organisasjoner?’ in K. Heidar and L. Svåsand (eds), Partier utan grenser? (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug). —— (eds) (1997b) Partier uten grenser? (Oslo: Tano Ashehoug). —— (1997c) ‘Politiske partier og den internasjonale arena’, in K. Heidar and L. Svåsand (eds), Partier utan grenser? (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug). Hellström, J. (2008) ‘Who Leads, Who Follows? Re-Examining the Party– Electorate Linkages on European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8): 1127–44. Hix, S. (1994) ‘The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics’, West European Politics, 17(1): 1–30. Hix, S. and Høyland, B. (2013, forthcoming) ‘Empowerment of the European Parliament’, Annual Review of Political Science, 16: 1. Hix, S. and Lord, C. (1997) Political Parties in the European Union (London: Macmillan). Holzhacker, R. (2005) ‘The Power of Opposition Parliamentary Party Groups in European Scrutiny’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3): 428–45. Holzhacker, R. and Albæk, E. (2007) ‘Introduction: Democratic Governance and European Integration’, in R. Holzhacker and E. Albæk (eds), Democratic Governance and European Integration: Linking Societal and State Processes of Democracy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield). Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Wilson, C. J. (2004) ‘Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration?’ in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hopkin, J. (2001) ‘Bringing the Members Back In? Democratizing Candidate Selection in Britain and Spain’, Party Politics, 7(3): 343–61. Hurrelmann, A. and DeBardeleben, J. (2009) ‘Democratic Dilemmas in EU Multilevel Governance: Untangling the Gordian Knot’, European Political Science Review, 1(2): 229–47. Idergard, T. (2005) ‘Partidemokrati är en falsk idealbild’, Svenska Dagbladet, 5 December 2005. Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (2005) Kommunalreformen – Kort Fortalt (Copenhagen: Mininstry of Health and the Interior). Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (2009) ‘The Paliamentary Electoral System in Denmark’ (Copenhagen: Mininstry of Health and the Interior). Inter-Parliamentary Union (2011) ‘PARLINE Database on National Parliaments’, retrieved 5 April 2012 http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp Jahn, D. (1999) ‘Der Einfluss Von Cleavage-Strukturen Auf Die Standpunkte Der Skandinavischen Parteien Über Den Beitritt Zur Europäischen Union’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 40(4): 565–90. Jahn, D. and Storsved, A.-S. (1995) ‘Legitimacy through Referendum? The Nearly Successful Domino-Strategy of the EU-Referendums in Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway’, West European Politics, 18(4): 18–37. References 235

Jay, A. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Jensen, T. K. (2000) ‘Party Cohesion’, in P. Esaiasson and K. Heidar (eds), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience (Columbus: Ohio State University Press). Jerneck, M. (1997) ‘De svenska partiernas utlandsförbindelser – från interna- tionalisering till europeisering’ in K. Heidar and L. Svåsand (eds), Partier utan grenser? (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug). Johansson, K. M. (2008) ‘Chief Executive Organization and Advisory Arrange- ments for Foreign Affairs’, Cooperation and Conflict, 43(3): 267–87. —— (2009) ‘The Emergence of Political Parties at European Level: Integration Unaccomplished’, in S. Gustavsson, L. Oxelheim and L. Pehrson (eds), How Unified is the European Union? European Integration between Visions and Popular Legitimacy (Berlin: Springer). Johansson, K. M. and Raunio, T. (2001) ‘Partisan Response to Europe: Comparing Finnish and Swedish Political Parties’, European Journal of Political Research, 39(2): 225–49. —— (2010) ‘Organizing the Core Executive for European Union Affairs: Comparing Finland and Sweden’, Public Administration, 88(3): 649–64. Johansson, K. M. and Tallberg, J. (2010) ‘Explaining Chief Executive Empower- ment: EU Summitry and Domestic Institutional Change’, West European Politics, 33(2): 208–36. Johansson, K. M. and Zervakis, P. A. (eds) (2002) European Political Parties between Cooperation and Integration (Baden-Baden: Nomos). Johansson, M. and Bernhardsson, B. (2008) ‘S måste säga nej till EU-fördraget’, Dagens Nyheter, 3 March 2008. Jokela, J. and Korhonen, K. (2011) ‘No Longer a Model Pupil? Finland’s EU Policy after the General Elections’, EPIN commentary, No. 6 (Brussels: European Policy Institutes Networks). Jones, P. and Hudson, J. (1998) ‘The Role of Political Parties: An Analysis Based on Transaction Costs’, Public Choice, 94(1–2): 175–89. Jungar, A.-C. (2002) ‘A Case of a Surplus Majority Government: The Finnish Rainbow Coalition’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 25(1): 57–83. Jungar, A.-C. and Ahlbäck Öberg, S. (2002) ‘Parlament i bakvatten’, in EU 2004-kommittén (ed.), SOU 2002:81: Riksdagens roll i EU (Stockholm: Fritzes). Juul Christiansen, F. and Damgaard, E. (2008) ‘Parliamentary Opposition under Minority Parliamentarism: Scandinavia’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1): 46–76. Kaiser, A., Biela, J. and Hennl, A. (2012) Policy Making in Multilevel Systems (Colchester: ECPR Press). Kalsnes, B. and Øvrebø, O. A. (2009) ‘Strutsepolitikk siden 1994’, Mandag Morgen, 15 June 2009. Karlsson, M. and Lundberg, E. (2011) Mot medlemslösa partier. Partiföreträdare om orsa- ker, konsekvenser och strategier kring en svikande medlemskår (Stockholm: Sektor3). Katz, R. S. (1990) ‘Party as Linkage: A Vestigial Function?’ European Journal of Political Research, 18(1): 143–61. —— (2002) ‘Whose Agent? Principles, Principals, and Party Politics’, paper presented at a conference on the Cartel Party and Beyond, Pisa, March. 236 References

Katz, R. S. and Mair, P. (1992) ‘Introduction: The Cross-National Study of Party Organizations’, in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), Party Organizations: A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960–1990 (London: Sage). —— (eds) (1994) How Parties Organize (London: Sage). —— (1995) ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party’, Party Politics, 1(1): 5–28. —— (2002) ‘The Ascendancy of the Party in Public Office: Party Organizational Change in 20th-Century Democracies’, in R. Gunther, J. R. Montero and J. L. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2009) ‘The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement’, Perspectives on Politics, 7(4): 753–66. Kiewiet, R. D. and McCubbins, M. D. (1991) The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). King, G., Keohane, R. O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). Kirchheimer, O. (1966) ‘The Transformation of the Western European Party System’, in J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner (eds), Political Parties and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Kite, C. (1996) Scandinavia Faces EU: Debates and Decisions on Membership 1961–94 (Umeå: Department of Political Science). Koelble, T. A. (1996) ‘Economic Theories of Organization and the Politics of Institutional Desigh in Political Parties’, Party Politics, 2(2): 251–63. Konservative Folkeparti (2010) “Konservatives EU-politik”, retrieved 5 December 2010 from www.konservative.dk/politik/politiskeemner/eupolitik/sider/ konservativeseupolitik.aspx Kreppel, A. (2002) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kristjánsson, S. (2002) ‘Iceland: From Party Rule to Pluralist Political Society’, in H. M. Narud, M. N. Pedersen and H. Valen (eds), Party Sovereignty and Citizen Control: Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark). —— (2004) ‘Iceland: Searching for Democracy along Three Dimensions of Citizen Control’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(2): 153–74. Kuitunen, S. (2002) ‘Finland: Formalized Procedures with Member Predomi- nance’, in H. M. Narud, M. N. Pedersen and H. Valen (eds), Party Sovereignty and Citizens Control: Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark). Külahci, E. (ed.) Europeanisation and Party Politics (Colchester: ECPR Press). Ladrech, R. (2007) ‘National Political Parties and European Governance: The Consequences of “Missing in Action”’, West European Politics, 30(5): 945–60. Lægreid, P., Steinthorsson, R. S. and Thorhallsson, B. (2004) ‘Europeanization of Central Government Administration in the Nordic States’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(2): 347–69. Larsson, T. (1999) ‘Konflikten som försvann. Hur har det svenska EU-medlemskapet påverkat maktutdelningen mellan regering och riksdag?’ in E. Amnå (ed.), SOU 1999:76: Maktdelning (Stockholm: Fakta Info Direkt). References 237

Larsson, T. and Trondal, J. (2005) After Hierarchy? Domestic Executive Gover- nance and the Differentiated Impact of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, European Integration online Papers, 9(14), retrieved 3 January 2008 from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2005-014a.htm Larue, T. (2006) Agents in Brussels: Delegation and Democracy within the European Union (Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå University). Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Lindberg, B. (2008) Fit for European Democracy? Party Discipline in the European Parliament (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis). Lindberg, B., Rasmussen, A. and Warntjen, A. (2008a) ‘Party Politics as Usual? The Role of Political Parties in EU Legislative Decision-Making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8): 1107–26. —— (2008b) ‘Special Issue: The Role of Political Parties in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8). Lord, C. (2004) A Democratic Audit of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Lundgren, Å. (1991) ‘Miljöpartiet – en alternativ partiorganisation?’ Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 94(1): 55–76. Lundgren, N. and Wohlin, L. (2004) ‘Nu startar vi nytt parti inför EU-valet’, Dagens Nyheter, 2 February 2004. Lupia, A. (2003) ‘Delegation and its Perils’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M. D. (2000) ‘Representation or Abdication? How Citizens Use Institutions to Help Delegation Succeed’, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3): 291–307. Madeley, J. and Sitter, N. (2003) ‘Differential Euroscepticism among the Nordic Christian Parties: Protestantism or Protest?’ PSA annual conference, Leicester, 15–17 April. Mair, P. (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2000) ‘The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems’, West European Politics, 23(4): 27–51. —— (2001) ‘The Green Challenge and Political Competition: How Typical is the German Experience?’ German Politics, 10(2): 99–116. —— (2006) ‘Political Parties and Party Systems’, in P. Graziano and M. P. Vink (eds), Europeanization: New Research Agendas (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Majone, G. (2010) ‘Transaction-Cost Efficiency and the Democratic Deficit’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2): 150–75. Manin, B. (1997) The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Matthews, D. R. and Valen, H. 1999. Parliamentary Representation: The Case of the Norwegian Storting. Ohio State University Press. Mattila, M. (1997) ‘From Qualified Majority to Simple Majority: The Effects of the 1992 Change in the Finnish Constitution’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 20(4): 331–45. 238 References

McCubbins, M. D. and Schwartz, T. (1984) ‘Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28(1): 165–79. Melsæter, J. K. and Sverdrup, U. (2004) ‘The Parliamentary Challenge in the EU and the EEA: An Increasing Gap’, Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. Michels, R. (1962 [1915]) Political Parties (New York, NY: Free Press). Mickelsson, R. and Nurmi, H. (2009) ‘Finland’, in European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (ed.), The Selection of Candidates for the European Parliament by National Parties and the Impact of European Political Parties (Brussels: European Parliament). Miljan, T. (1977) The Reluctant Europeans: The Attitudes of the Nordic Countries Towards European Integration (London: C. Hurst and Co.). Miller, G. J. (2005) ‘The Political Evolution of Principal–Agent Models’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8: 203–25. Ministry of Health and Interior (2009) The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark. Moderaterna (2007) ‘Stadgar för Moderata Samlingspartiet’, retrieved on 19 August 2010 from www.moderaterna.se Montero, J. R. and Gunther, R. (2002) ‘Introduction: Reviewing and Reassessing Parties’, in R. Gunther, J. R. Montero and J. L. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Moravcsik, A. (2002) ‘In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4): 603–24. Müller, W. C. (2000) ‘Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work’, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3): 309–33. Müller, W. C., Bergman, T. and Strøm, K. (2003) ‘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). Narud, H. M., Pedersen, M. N. and Valen, H. (2002) Party Sovereignty and Citizens Control: Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark). Narud, H. M. and Strøm, K. (2000) ‘Adaptation without EU Membership: Norway and the European Economic Area’, in T. Bergman and E. Damgaard (eds), Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union (London: Frank Cass). Naurin, E. (2011) Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perceptions (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Nilsson, T. (2011) ‘Att undvika schack-matt’, Fokus, 21 January 2011. Norwegian Social Science Data Services (2011) ‘European Election Database’, retrieved 5 February 2012 from http://www.nsd.uib.no/european_election_ database/election_types/ep_ elections/. NOU 2004:25 (2004) Penger teller, men stemmer avgjør. Om partifinansiering, åpenhet og politisk tv-reklame (Oslo: Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs). Nousiainen, J. (2000) ‘Finland: the Consolidation of Parliamentary Governance’, in W. C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Coalition Governments in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press). References 239

—— (2007) ‘The Finnish System of Government: From a Mixed Constitution to Parliamentarism’ (Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Justice). O’Brennan, J. and Raunio, T. (2007) ‘Introduction: Deparliamentarization and European Integration’, in J. O’Brennan and T. Raunio (eds), National Parliaments within the Enlarged European Union: From ‘Victims’ of Integration to Competitive Actors? (London: Routledge). Oikeusministeriö (2008a) ‘Rösträkningen vid riksdagsvalet’, retrieved on 7 August 2008 from http://www.vaalit.fi/16805.htm —— (2008b) ‘Valkretsarna’, retrieved on 7 August 2008 from http://www.vaalit. fi/16803.htm Olsen, J. P. (2002) ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5): 921–52. Ortega Villodres, C. (2003) ‘Intra-Party Competition under Preferential List Systems: The Case of Finland’, Representation, 40(1): 55–66. Panebianco, A. (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pedersen, K. (2003) Party Membership Linkage: The Danish Case (Copenhagen: Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen). Pedersen, K., Bille, L., Buch, R., Elklit, J., Hansen, B. and Nielsen, H. J. (2004) ‘Sleeping or Active Partners? Danish Party Members at the Turn of the Millennium’, Party Politics, 10(4): 367–83. Pedersen, M. N. (1996) ‘Euro-Parties and European Parties: New Arenas, New Challenges and New Strategies’, in S. S. Andersen and K. A. Eliassen (eds), The European Union: How Democratic is It? (London: Sage). Pennings, P. (2002) ‘The Dimensionality of the EU Policy Space’, European Union Politics, 3(1): 59–80. —— (2006) ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Europeanization of National Party Manifestos, 1960–2003’, European Union Politics, 7(2): 257–70. Pennings, P. and Hazan, R. Y. (2001) ‘Democratizing Candidate Selection: Causes and Consequences’, Party Politics, 7(3): 267–75. Perussuomalaiset (2008) ‘Perussuomalaiset – True Finns’, retrieved on 19 September 2008 from http://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/true_finns.html Pesonen, P. and Riihinen, O. (2002) Dynamic Finland: The Political System and the Welfare State (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society). Pettersen, P. A., Jenssen, A. T. and Listhaug, O. (1996) ‘The 1994 EU Referendum in Norway: Continuity and Change’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 19(3): 257–81. Pierre, J. (1986) Partikongresser och regeringspolitik (Lund: Kommunfakta). Pierre, J. and Widfeldt, A. (1994) ‘Party Organizations in Sweden: Colussuses with Feet of Clay or Flexible Pillars of Government?’, in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies (London: Sage). Pitkin, H. F. (1972) The Concept of Representation (Berkeley: University of California Press). Poguntke, T. (1998) ‘Party Organisations’, in J. W. v. Deth (ed.), Comparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence (New York: Routledge). Poguntke, T., Aylott, N., Carter, E., Ladrech, R. and Luther, K. R. (eds) (2007) The Europeanization of National Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation (London: Routledge). 240 References

Poguntke, T. and Webb, P. (2005) ‘The Presidentialization of Politics in Democratic Societies: A Framework for Analysis’, in T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds), The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pollack, M. A. (2005) ‘Theorizing the European Union: International Organization, Domestic Polity, or Experiment in New Governance?’ Annual Review of Political Science, 8: 357–98. Pridham, G. and Pridham, P. (1981) Transnational Party Co-Operation and European Integration: The Process Towards Direct Elections (New York: HarperCollins). Ragin, C. C. (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science (London: The University of Chicago Press). —— (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Rahat, G. and Hazan, R. Y. (2001) ‘Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework’, Party Politics, 7(3): 297–322. Rasmussen, A. (2008) ‘Party Soldiers in a Non-Partisan Community? Party Linkage in the European Parliament’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(8): 1164–83. Raunio, T. (1999a) ‘Always One Step Behind? National Legislatures and the European Union’, Government and Opposition, 34(2): 180–202. —— (1999b) ‘Facing the European Challenge: Finnish Parties Adjust to the Integration Process’, West European Politics, 22(1): 138–59. —— (2000) ‘Losing Independence or Finally Gaining Recognition?’, Party Politics, 6(2): 211–23. —— (2002) ‘Why European Integration Increases Leadership Autonomy within Political Parties’, Party Politics, 8(4): 405–22. —— (2004) ‘The Changing Finnish Democracy: Stronger Parliamentary Accountability, Coalescing Political Parties and Weaker External Constraints’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(2): 133–52. —— (2005) ‘Holding Governments Accountable in European Affairs: Explain- ing Cross-National Variation’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4): 319–42. —— (2007) ‘Open List, Open Mandate? Links between MEPs and Parties in Finland’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 8(2): 131–46. —— (2010) ‘The EU and the Welfare State are Compatible: Finnish Social Democrats and the European Integration’, Government and Opposition, 45(2): 187–207. —— (2011a) Europe and the Finnish Parliamentary Elections of April 17, 2011, EPERN election briefing, No. 63 (Sussex: European Parties Elections and Referendums Network). —— (2011b) ‘Finland: Moving in the Opposite Direction’, in T. Bergman and K. Strøm (eds), The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Countries (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press). —— (2011c) ‘Semi-Presidentialism and European Integration: Lessons from Finland for Constitutional Design’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19(4): 567–84. Raunio, T. and Hix, S. (2000) ‘Backbenchers Learn to Fight Back: European Integration and Parliamentary Government’, West European Politics, 23(4): 142–68. References 241

Raunio, T. and Tiilikainen, T. (2003) Finland in the European Union (London: Frank Cass). Raunio, T. and Wiberg, M. (2003) ‘Finland: Polarized Pluralism in the Shadow of a Strong President’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2010) ‘How to Measure the Europeanisation of a National Legislature?’ Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(1): 74–92. Ray, L. (1999) ‘Measuring Party Orientations Towards European Integration: Results from an Expert Survey’, European Journal of Political Research, 36(2): 283–306. Regeringskansliet (2009) ‘Samordningskansliet’, Retrieved on 28 November 2010 from www.regeringen.se. Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980) ‘Nine Second Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework For the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, 8(1): 3–44. Ruin, O. (1996) ‘Sweden: The Referendum as an Instrument for Defusing Political Issues’, in M. Gallagher and P. V. Uleri (eds), The Referendum Experience in Europe (London: Macmillan). Saalfeld, T. (2000) ‘Members of Parliament and Governments in Western Europe: Agency Relations and Problems of Oversight’, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3): 353–76. Saglie, J. (1999) Standpunkter og strategi: EU-saken i norsk partipolitikk 1989–1994 (Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo). —— (2000) ‘Between Opinion Leadership and “Contract of Disagreement”: The Norwegian Labour Party and the European Issue (1994)’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 23(2): 93–113. Sartori, G. (1970) ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, The American Political Science Review, 64(4): 1033–53. Sbragia, A. M. (1992) ‘Thinking about the European Future: The Uses of Comparison’, in A. M. Sbragia (ed.), Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution). Scarrow, S. E., Webb, P. and Farrell, D. M. (2002) ‘From Social Integration to Electoral Contestation: The Changing Distribution of Power within Political Parties’, in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Schumpeter, J. A. (1992 [1943]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (London: Routledge). Scully, R. (2001) ‘National Parties and European Parliamentarians: Developing and Testing and Institutionalist Theory’, European Parliament Research Group Working Paper 6 (London: LSE). Seawright, J. and Collier, D. (2004) ‘Glossary’, in H. E. Brady and D. Collier (eds), Rethinking Social Inquiry (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield). Seierstad, D. (2006) ‘The Recent Development of the Norwegian Left: Challenges and Prospects’ paper presented at Rosa Luxemborg Foundation European Programmatic Workshop, Stockholm, 9–10 June. Seyd, P. (1999) ‘New Parties/New Politics? A Case Study of the British Labour Party’, Party Politics, 5(3): 383–405. Shaffer, W. R. (1998) Politics, Parties, and Parliaments: Political Change in Norway. Ohio State University Press. 242 References

Sitter, N. (2001) ‘The Politics of Opposition and European Integration in Scandinavia: Is Euro-scepticism a Government-Opposition Dynamic?’, West European Politics, 24(4): 22–39. Siune, K., Svensson, P. and Tonsgaard, O. (1992) Det blev et nej (Aarhus: Politica). —— (1994) Fra et nej til et ja (Aarhus: Politica). Skjeie, H., Langengen, L. and Riebe-Mohn, L. (1995) ‘“Aldri mer 1972.” Behandlingen Av EU-saken i Arbeiderpartiet’, Tidskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 36(1): 31–53. Socialdemokraterna (2009) ‘Stadgar för Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti’, retrieved 1 August 2010 from www.socialdemokraterna.se Socialdemokraterne (2010) “EU”, retrieved 5 December 2010 from http:// websikon.socdem.dk/book.asp?ord= Socialistisk Folkeparti (2010) ‘EU’, retrieved on 5 December 2010 from http:// www.sf.dk/politik/politikomraader/eu Sogner, I. and Archer, C. (1995) ‘Norway and Europe: 1972 and Now’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(3): 389–410. Sosialistisk Venstreparti (2007) ‘Vedtekter for Sosialistisk Venstreparti’, retrieved on 28 November 2010 from www.sv.no SOU 2004:22 (2004) Allmänhetens insyn i partiers och valkandidaters intäkter (Stockholm: Fritzes). SOU 2008:125 (2008) En reformerad grundlag, Grundlagsutredningen (Stockholm: Fritzes). Sousa, M. M. (2008) ‘Learning in Denmark? The Case of Danish Parliamentary Control over European Union Policy’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(4): 428–47. SCB (Statistics Sweden) (1995) Election database, retrieved 10 March 2010 from www.scb.se Stråth, B. (1992) Folkhemmet mot Europa. Ett historisk perspektiv på 90-talet (Stockholm: Tiden). Strøm, K. (1986) ‘Deferred Gratification and Minority Governments in Scandinavia’, Legislative Studies Quartarly, 11(4): 583–605. —— (1999) ‘Leadership Accountability and Bargaining Failure in Norway: The Presthus Debacle’, in W. C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Democracies Make Hard Choices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (2000) ‘Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3): 261–89. —— (2003) ‘Parliamentary Democracy and Delegation’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Strøm, K. and Müller, W. C. (1999) ‘Political Parties and Hard Choices’, in W. C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Strøm, K., Müller, W. C. and Bergman, T. (2003) ‘Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). References 243

—— (2006) ‘The (Moral) Hazards of Parliamentary Democracy’, in F. Gilardi and D. Braun (eds), Delegation in Contemporary Democracies (London: Routledge). —— (2008) ‘The Comparative Parliamentary Data Archive’, www.pol.umu.se/ ccpd, 25 August 2008. Strøm, K. and Narud, H. M. (2003) ‘Norway: Virtual Parliamentarism’, in K. Strøm, W. C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sundberg, J. (1996) Partier och partisystem i Finland (Esbo: Shildts Förlag). —— (ed.) (2001) Partier och intresseorganisationer i Norden (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). —— (2002) ‘The Scandinavian Party Model at the Crossroads’, in P. Webb, D. M. Farrell and I. Holliday (eds), Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2003) Parties as Organised Actors: The Transformation of the Scandinavian Three-Front Parties (Helsinki: Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters). Sundström Rosén, M. (2009) Förankring av socialdemokratisk EU-politik. Med rum för demokratisk debatt? (Lund: Department of Political Science, Lund University). Svensson, P. (1982) ‘Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament During the 1970s’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 5(1): 17–42. Sverdrup, U. (1998) ‘Norway: An Adaptive Non-Member’, in K. Hanf and B. Soetendorp (eds), Adapting to European Integration: Small States and the European Union (London: Longman). Svåsand, L. (1994) ‘Change and Adaptation in Norwegian Party Organizations’, in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies (London: Sage). Svåsand, L., Strøm, K. and Rasch, B. E. (1997) ‘Change and Adaptation in Party Organization’, in K. Strøm and L. Svåsand (eds), Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Sørensen, H. (2004) Parliamentary Organization and Decision-Making: The EEA Agreement in the Norwegian Parliament, Master thesis in Public Administration (Kristiansand: Agder University College). Tallberg, J., Aylott, N., Bergström, C. F., Casula Vifell, Å. and Palme, J. (2010) Demokratirådets rapport 2010. Europeiseringen av Sverige (Stockholm: SNS Förlag). Teorell, J. (1999) ‘A Deliberative Defence of Intra-Party Democracy’, Party Politics, 5(3): 363–82. Thies, M. F. (2000) ‘On the Primacy of Party in Government: Why Legislative Parties Can Survive Party Decline in the Electorate’, in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Thorlakson, L. (2001) ‘Federalism and Party Organisational Adaptation: A Cross- National Comparison’ paper presented at ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Grenoble, April 6th–11th. —— (2009) ‘Patterns of Party Integration, Influence and Autonomy in Seven Federations’, Party Politics, 15(2): 157–77. Tiilikainen, T. (2006) ‘Finland – an EU Member with a Small State Identity’, Journal of European Integration, 28(1): 73–87. Urwin, D. (1997) ‘The Norwegian Party System from the 1880s to the 1990s’, in K. Strøm and L. Svåsand (ed.), Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). 244 References

Utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen (2006) ‘Innstilling fra Utenriskkomiteen om gjen- nomføring av Europapolitikken’, Inst.S.Nr.115 (2006–2007) (Oslo: Norwegian Parliament). Utenriksdepartement (2006) Om gjennomføring av Europapolitikken, St.Meld. Nr.23 (Oslo: Affairs, M. o. F.). Valen, H., Narud, H. M. and Skare, A. (2002) ‘Norway: Party Dominance and Decentralized Decision-Making’, in H. M. Narud, M. N. Pedersen and H. Valen (eds), Party Sovereignty and Citizen Control: Selecting Candidates for Parliamentary Elections in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark). Valmyndigheten (various dates) Election database, retrieved 10 March 2010 from www.val.se. Valtioneuvosto (2008) ‘Handling of EU Affairs in Finland’, retrieved on 1 September 2008 from http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/eu/suomi-ja-eu/asioiden- kasittely/en.jsp Van, Houten, P. (2009) ‘Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties’, Party Politics, 15(2): 137–56. Venstre (2010) ‘Europæiske samarbejde’, retrieved 5 December 2010 from www. venstre.dk/partiet/politik/principprogram/europaeisk-samarbejde/ Vänsterpartiet (2008) ‘Stadgar För Vänsterpartiet’, Retrieved on 19 August 2008 from www.vänsterpartiet.se VoteWatch.eu (2010) ‘Activities of the Members of the European Parliament, 2004–2009 Mandate’, retrieved 3 May 2010 from http://votewatch.eu/cx_ meps_statistics.php Wiberg, M. (2000) ‘The Partyness of the Finnish Eduskunta’, in K. Heidar and R. Koole (eds), Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies: Political Parties Behind Closed Doors (London: Routledge). Index

agency loss, 2, 27–8, 35, 37, 39, 42, Christian Democrats (Finland), 87, 90, 45, 145, 188, 191, 193–5, 204–6, 93, 100, 101, 110 211, 217 Christian Democrats (Sweden), 151, agency problems, 11 153, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168, See also agency loss; policy 173–4, 177, 182 divergence; selection, adverse Christian People’s Party (Denmark), Åland islands, 94, 96, 219, 221 54, 56 Alliance for Sweden, 154–5, 161, 175 civil servants, 3, 5, 9, 42 Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for in Denmark, 60 Europe, 66, 101 in Finland, 95 anchorage (förankring), 179, 211 in Sweden, 157 audience democracy, 203 class voting in Denmark, 55 Auken, Margrete, 66, 76 cleavage structure, 13 in Denmark, 50, 54, 57–8 bicameralism, 29, 51 in Finland, 90, 98 Blair, Tony, 7 in Norway, 120, 123, 131 Bondevik, Kjell Magne, 131 in Sweden, 153 Bornholm, 220 coalition Britain, 50, 57, 123, 155–6 centre-right (Norway), 122, 131, Building Workers Union (Sweden), 160 139 centre-right (Sweden), 154, 156 candidate insurance in Sweden, 176, informal (Denmark), 57 225 majority (Norway), 149 candidate selection, see selection, minority (Denmark), 53, 56–7 candidate minority (Norway), 120 candidates, independent, 71, 91, 189 pre-electoral (Sweden), 154 cartel thesis, 18 rainbow (Finland), 91, 93 see also parties, cartel red-green (Norway), 121–2, 129 Centre Democrats (Denmark), 54, 56–7 red-green (Sweden), 154 Centre Party (Finland), 87, 90–3, 100, semi-(Sweden), 184 101, 103, 107, 109, 114, 117–18 surplus-majority (Finland), 93 Centre Party (Norway), 119, 120–2, see also government 124, 126, 129, 133–4, 135, 136, Coastal Party (Norway), 219 137, 138–9, 141, 142, 144, 147–8 code of conduct, 75 Centre Party (Sweden), 151, 154, 161, see also candidate insurance 162, 168–9, 173, 177, 184 collusion, inter-party, 18 centre-periphery cleavage in Finland, Committee on Europe (Norway), 124 see cleavage structure Committee of Permanent chains of delegation and Representatives (Coreper), 9, 61 accountability, 9, 12, 39, 185 Committee on European Union Christian Democratic Party (Norway), Affairs (Sweden), see European 119, 120–2, 130–1, 132–4, 135, affairs committee 136, 138, 141, 143, 144, 219 compartmentalisation, 159–60, 162

245 246 Index

Confederation of Trade Unions earthquake election of 1973 (Norway), 136 (Denmark), 55 Conference of Parliamentary Edinburgh agreement, 59, 64 Committees for Union Affairs Eduskunta (Finland), see parliament of Parliaments of the European EEA Committee (Norway), see Union (COSAC), 126, 146 European affairs committee Conservatives (Denmark), 51, 54–5, E-issues (Finland), 96 57, 64, 66, 67–8, 70, 75–6, 193, election manifesto, 29, 36, 43, 194–5, 220, 221 201, 216–17, 220 Conservatives (Norway), 119, 120–2, in Denmark, 69, 73–5, 85, 214 129, 132–3, 136, 138, 141, 142, in Finland, 104–5, 109–10 143, 144, 146–7, 222 in Norway, 137, 141, 213, 226 Conservatives (UK), 46, 220 in Sweden, 169, 175–6, 207, 225 constitution electoral system, 44–5 of 1814 (Norway), 119, 124 ballot design, 53 of 1919 (Finland), 88 candidate-orientated, 54, 90, 106, of 1953 (Denmark), 51, 58 108, 116–17, 191 of 1975 (Sweden), 152, 183, 223, closed lists (Norway), 120, 201, 214 225 compensatory seats, 52, 120, 152 of 2000 (Finland), 88–9, 96, 111 district magnitude, 52, 89 constitutional court, 3, 17–18 disproportionality, 52–3 see also constitutional monarchy Gallagher index in Denmark, 51 d’Hondt formula, 52, 89 in Norway, 119 Hare quota, 52 contract design, 28–9, 33, 143, 193–5 Gallagher index, see see also control mechanisms disproportionality control mechanisms, 28–30, 41, 43 in Denmark, 52–5, 73, 201 in Denmark, 85 in Finland, 89–90, 113, 116–17, in Finland, 111 189, 191 in Norway, 144 in Norway, 120, 214 corporatism, 18 in Sweden, 152–3 corruption, 27 method of largest remainders, 52, Council of Ministers, 30, 40, 42, 45, 89 48, 61, 82, 95, 97, 132, 150, 157, modified Sainte-Laguë, 120, 220 180, 183, 204, 207, 222 multi-member constituencies, 44, 52–3, 67, 72–3, 89, 152 Danish Communist Party (Denmark), multi-round, mixed system of 54 appointment and election, 191 Danish People’s Party (Denmark), 51, preference-voting, 45, 201 55–7, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71, 74, 75, proportional, 17–18, 52, 73, 89, 76, 101, 134, 197 120, 152 democratic centralism, 193 single-member plurality, 17 democratic deficit, 1–2, 8–12, 14, 45, thresholds, 52 188, 213, 218 Europe of Freedom and Democracy, direct democracy, 206, 207–9 66, 101 in Denmark, 50 European affairs committee, 11, 39, 218 in Norway, 122 in Denmark, 60–2, 82–4, 86 in Sweden, 156, 159 in Finland, 89, 96–8, 114, 116, 118, see also referendums 200, 215 Index 247

in Norway, 125–6 Grand Committee (Finland), see in Sweden, 157–8, 171, 181–2, 223 European affairs committee European Commission, 9–10, 126, Green League (Finland), 87, 91, 93, 218, 222 99, 101, 103, 109 European Conservatives and Greenland, 51, 52, 218, 219 Reformists, 220 Greens (Sweden), 151, 153–5, 160–1, European Court of Justice, 1, 160 162, 164, 168–9, 171, 174–5, 177, European Economic Area (EEA), 2, 183, 192, 197, 199, 208, 223, 224, 11–12, 94, 124, 125–7, 131–2, 225 149–50, 155, 205, 213 Greens/European Free Alliance, 66 European Free Trade Association (EFTA), 11, 93–4, 123, 155 Hagen, Carl I., 136, 143 European integration, 2–3, 12–16 Halvorsen, Kristin, 129 European People’s Party, 66, 101, 133, 144, 162, 164, 220 Iceland, 12, 23, 44, 50, 51, 91, 119, European United Left/Nordic Green 123, 155, 205–6, 208, 212 Left, 66, 76 Independence and Democracy group, Europeanisation, 7, 21–2, 201 162 Euroscepticism informateur in Sweden, 152 in Finland, 98 Instrument of Government (Sweden), in Norway, 123, 128 see constitution in Sweden, 151, 160–1 Ireland, 14, 50, 57 iron law of oligarchy, 17 Faroe islands, 51 Italy, 226 federalism, 9, 32, 100–1, 161 Feminist Initiative (Sweden), 219, Juholt, Håkan, 224 223 June List (Sweden), 20, 151, 161, 162, Finns Party (Finland), 24, 87, 90, 93, 167, 173, 175, 177, 181, 211, 223, 98, 100, 101, 117–18, 219 224, 225 Folketinget (Denmark), see parliament June Movement (Denmark), 51, 66, foreign policy 73, 79, 162, 219 in Finland, 88–9, 92, 93 Justice Party (Denmark), 54 in Norway, 125, 129, 139 in Sweden, 155, 157, 164, 171 Labour Party (Norway), 46, 119, 120–2, 126, 127–9, 132–3, 134–5, 136, de Gaulle, Charles, 57 138–9, 140, 142–4, 146, 147, 149 Glistrup, Mogens, 54 Labour Party (UK), 46 government Lange, Anders, 129 centre-left, 56–7 Lahnstein, Anne Enger, 129 right-wing, 56 language cleavage (Finland), see single-party, 42, 45 cleavage structure single-party majority, 120 Laval judgment, 160 single-party minority, 56, 120 Left Alliance (Finland), 87, 90, 93, see also coalition 98–9, 101, 109, 219 government formation, 5 Left Party (Sweden), 151, 160, 169, in Denmark, 51 176, 181, 197, 223 in Finland, 88, 92 Left Socialists (Denmark), 55 in Norway, 120 left-right cleavage, see cleavage in Sweden, 152 structure 248 Index

Liberal Alliance (Denmark), 55–6, monarch 219, 226 in Denmark, 51, 52 Liberal Centre (Denmark), 220 in Norway, 119 Liberal Party (Denmark), 24, 51, 54–7, in Sweden, 152, 153 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75–6, 78, monetary policy, 8, 10 80, 82, 134 monetary union, 59, 64, 94, 100, 117, Liberal Party (Norway), 119, 120–2, 156, 161, 215 130–1, 133, 136, 138, 139, 145, monitoring, 28–9, 37, 40, 48, 195, 197 196, 202, 209–10 Liberal Party (Sweden), 151, 154, 161, in Denmark, 76 162, 168, 172, 173–5, 219, 223, in Finland, 103, 114, 115 225, 226 in Norway, 126, 146 Liberal People’s Party (Norway), 131 in Sweden, 178, 183 LO (Norway), 128, 136 see also control mechanisms LO (Sweden), 160, 165 Lundgren, Nils, 167, 224 National Coalition Party (Finland), Löfven, Stefan, 224 87, 90, 92–3, 98, 100, 101, 110, 114 Maastricht treaty, 58–9, 63 NATO, 123, 129, 155, 160 minister, European affairs negative parliamentarism in Finland, 95 in Denmark, 51, 56 in Sweden, 157 in Norway, 120 minister, foreign, 42 in Sweden, 152 in Denmark, 60 neutrality in Finland, 95 in Finland, 94 in Norway, 124, 125 in Sweden, 155, 158, 160–1 minister, government, 42, 45, 186 New Alliance (Denmark), see Liberal in Norway, 134–5, 143 Alliance (Denmark) in Sweden, 174 New Democracy (Sweden), 153, 197 minister, prime (PM), 3, 4–5, 7, 11, New European Left Forum, 133 42, 45, 186–7, 204, 218 Nordic Green Left Alliance, 133, 144, in Denmark, 59, 60, 214 162 in Finland, 88–9, 95, 117–18, 189 ombudsman, 29 in Norway, 131, 136, 146, 149, in Sweden, 181 222 in Sweden, 152, 157, 170, 179–80, parliament 189 in Denmark, 51, 220 ministry, defence in Norway, 144 in Finland, 89, 112 ministry, finance in Norway, 124 in Norway, 120 ministry, foreign affairs in Sweden, 152 in Denmark, 59–60 parliament dissolution, 5, 212, 214 in Norway, 124, 126, 138–9, 147, parties 222 bourgeois’, 120–1, 148, 154, 161 in Sweden, 156–7 cadre, 46 Moderates (Sweden), 151, 154, 161, cartel, 18, 203, 210 162, 164, 168, 171, 172, 173–4, catch-all, 203 175, 176, 179, 180, 182, 194, 207, centre-right, 47, 121 , 156, 161, 223, 224, 225 179 Index 249

electoral-professional, 203 party executive committee, 14–15, 23, elite, see parties, cadre 36, 38, 190, 211, 216, 219 ethno-regional, 90 in Denmark, 69, 76 Euro-, 12, 14, 25, 66–7, 101, 132–4, in Finland, 103–4, 110 144–5, 147, 150, 162–4, 175–6, in Norway, 135, 142, 222 178, 205, 223 in Sweden, 165, 168, 223, 224 franchise, 203 party identification in Norway, 148 left-wing, 46, 140, 202 party leadership selection, see mass, 17, 46, 104, 134, 142, 144, selection, party leadership 164, 167, 190, 202–3, 208 party manifesto, see election network, 172 manifesto new, 50, 55, 101 party membership, 17, 31–4, 35–6, 46, radical left, 47 166, 193, 194, 195, 203–4, 208 radical right, 55, 197 in Denmark, 67–9 right-of-centre, 54, 135, 148 in Finland, 103–4, 106–7 right-wing, 46, 64 in Norway, 137, 143, 148 transnational, 12, 24, 219 in Sweden, 165, 173, 184, 215 party board, 23, 29, 36, 192, 212, 216, Party of European Socialists, 66, 101, 219 133, 144, 147, 162, 164, 220 in Denmark, 68–9, 70–1, 72, 74, Party of Freedom (Netherlands), 211 75–6, 221 party programme, 33, 35–7, 188, in Finland, 103, 110 193–4, 195, 196, 212–14, 216 in Norway, 138, 146, 223 in Denmark, 67, 69, 70, 73–4, 75, in Sweden, 165, 167, 168, 174, 84–5 177–8, 180–2, 183, 223, 224, in Finland, 104–5, 115 225 in Norway, 137–8, 141, 143, 148, party cohesion, 5 223, 226 in Denmark, 77, 78–81 in Sweden, 161, 170–1, 175, 176, in Finland, 112–15 225 in Norway, 145–6 party statutes, 16, 19–20, 33, 190, in Sweden, 179–81 193–4, 195, 197–8, 202, 214 see also party discipline in Denmark, 69, 70, 71, 72, 220, party congress, 24, 31, 38, 193, 195, 221 216 in Finland, 104–5, 106 in Denmark, 67, 69, 84, 198 in Norway, 134–5, 137–8, 141, in Finland, 103, 115 142–3, 222, 223 in Norway, 129, 131, 134, 135, 143, in Sweden, 168, 170–1, 172, 183, 219 224, 225 in Sweden, 161, 164–5, 168–70, party system 177, 180, 184, 187, 224 alternational, 19, 120, 154 party council, 29, 211 five-party Scandinavian model, in Finland, 103, 104, 109 153 in Norway, 135, 137 party tax in Sweden, 164–5, 167, 168–9, 175, in Denmark, 75 184, 223 in Sweden, 176 party discipline, 5, 45 People’s Movement Against the EU in Norway, 142, 145 (Denmark), 51, 63, 66–7, 73 in Sweden, 159, 177 Persson, Göran, 170, 189 see also party cohesion Pirate Party (Sweden), 151, 223 250 Index policy committees, 33–4, 38, 195, 198 in Norway, 119, 122, 123–4, in Denmark, 60, 70–1, 76, 82, 85, 213 127–31, 139, 147, 149–50 in Finland, 105–6, 110–11, 115 in Sweden, 151, 156, 159–61, 162, in Norway, 138–9 223 in Sweden, 171 see also direct democracy policy divergence, 27, 115 Rice index, 78, 112, 221 policy slippage, see policy divergence Riksdag (Sweden), see parliament pre-electoral contract, 36, 194, 201 Rural Party (Finland), 90, 100 in Denmark, 75 in Finland, 110 SAMAK, 133, 147, 222 in Norway, 142 Schengen, 118, 124–5, 156 in Sweden, 176 screening, 14, 28, 33, 34–5, 39, 43–4, president of Finland, 88–9, 92 187, 189–92, 206–9, 216 presidentialisation, 33, 210 in Denmark, 84 presidentialism, 5, 32 in Finland, 109 primaries, 35, 44–5, 192, 199, 208 in Norway, 140, 148 in Denmark, 69 in Sweden, 173 in Finland, 104, 106–7, 108 see also selection, candidate in Norway, 140 see also control mechanisms in Sweden, 173–4, 216, 224, 225 second-order election, 9, 66 primary ballots, see primaries security policy, 60, 97, 123, 127, 155–6 Prime Minister’s Office selection, adverse, 28 in Finland, 95 selection, candidate, 28, 31, 34–5, in Norway, 124, 139, 222 43, 49, 187, 191–2, 193, 196, in Sweden, 157, 180 199–200, 205, 206–9 principal-agent approach, 9, 16–20, in Denmark, 71–3, 214 27–31, 187 in Finland, 106–9, 115 Progress Party (Denmark), 54–5, 197 in Norway, 140–1, 143, 209, 213, Progress party (Norway), 119, 121, 222 129–30, 132, 133–4, 135, 136, in Sweden, 171, 172–5, 183–4, 216 140, 142–3, 144, 146, 148, 192, see also screening 195, 197, 202, 212 see also control mechanisms Progressive Alliance of Socialists and selection, party leadership, 28, 32, Democrats, 220 189–91, 214, 216 public subsidies, 37, 39, 44, 46, 196, in Denmark, 69–70, 84 200, 202, 209 in Finland, 104, 115 in Denmark, 80–1, 86 in Norway, 135–7 in Finland, 113–14 in Sweden, 168–70, 224 in Norway, 143 selection committee, 32, 191, 216 in Sweden, 165, 179, 181 in Finland, 104 in Norway, 136 rapporteurs, 37, 78 in Sweden, 168–9, 170, 172–3, 184, Rasmussen, Poul Nyrup, 64–6 224 Red-Green Alliance (Denmark), 68, semi-presidentialism, 88, 95 71–2, 75 Seppänen, Esko, 98, 108 referendums, 3, 206, 208 shirking, 27, 29, 149, 195, 210 in Denmark, 57–9, 62, 63–4, 86, Single European Act, 1, 58 213, 218 Social Democratic Group of the in Finland, 87, 94, 98–100, 215 Nordic Council, 133 Index 251

Social Democrats (Denmark), 50, suicide clauses (Norway), 122 54–7, 64–6, 67–8, 69–70, 72, 75, Sweden Democrats (Sweden), 151, 76, 77–8, 81, 83, 190, 191, 208, 155, 162, 192, 223 221, 226 Swedish People’s Party (Finland), Social Democrats (Finland), 87, 90, 87, 90, 93, 100, 101, 103, 92–3, 99–101, 107, 112, 114, 118 110 Social Democrats (Sweden), 47, 151, 153–5, 156, 157, 158–61, 162, Thatcher, Margaret, 7 164, 165, 168–70, 171, 172–3, Thorning-Schmidt, Helle, 69, 208 174, 175, 177, 178–9, 180–1, Tories (UK), see Conservatives 183–4, 189, 191, 197, 199, 206, (UK) 216, 223, 224, 225 trade unions, 46, 190, 195, 219 Social Liberal Party (Denmark), 24, in Denmark, 68, 221 50, 54–7, 64, 66, 67–8, 70, 72, 76, in Norway, 128, 133, 136, 140 81, 82, 190, 192, 193, 197, 219 in Sweden, 160, 172, 224 Socialist Electoral League (Norway), see also Building Workers Union 128 (Sweden); LO (Norway); LO Socialist Left (Norway), 119, 121–2, (Sweden) 124, 126, 128–9, 133, 136, 138, Treaty of Amsterdam, 59, 223 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 197, 223 Treaty of Lisbon, 63, 156, 218 Socialist Party (France), 226 True Finns (Finland), see Finns Party Socialist People’s Party (Denmark), 50, (Finland) 55, 57, 62–3, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72–3, 74, 75, 76, 80–1, 83, 191, U-issues’ (Finland), 96 192, 193, 199, 221 unitary state, 9, 10, 18, 51 Socialist People’s Party (Norway), 128 urban-rural cleavage (Sweden), see Soria Moria declaration (Norway), cleavage structure 126, 129 Soria Moria II declaration (Norway), vote of investiture, 51, 120, 152, 126 153 speaker (Sweden), 152 vote of confidence, see vote of no spokesperson, 38 confidence in Denmark, 77–8, 79, 81–2, 83, 86 vote of no confidence in Sweden, 161, 164, 168, 178, 198, in Denmark, 57 224, 226 in Sweden, 152 Stortinget (Norway), see Parliament stratarchy Westminster style of parliamentarism, in Norway, 136 3, 16–19 in Sweden, 165, 183 whips, 39