Fredrik Engelstad

Needs and social justice: The criterion of needs when exempting employees from layoff

Norms applied in layoff decisions in Norway and Germany are compared. Despite similarities in legal traditions, the norms used for selecting employees for layoffs differ in several respects. In Norway there are no legal prescriptions as to selection criteria, but seniority is generally preferred by employees and to a large extent accepted by employers. The German Labor Law prescribes several criteria. Seniority is among these, but holds a less prominent place in practice. Needs (“social considerations”) on the other hand is accorded considerable weight. German “exceptionalism” in the social security legislation, due to the political turbulence during the first half of the 20th century is not a sufficient explanation, as it does not account for the legitimacy of needs criteria in the population. Explanations are sought in the bargaining systems within companies, its interplay with the social security system, and in genuine “cultural” characteristics. All of these hypotheses seem to have some explanatory power.

The Significance of Seniority in Layoffs: A Comparative Analysis

The role of seniority in decisions about layoffs when firms have to downsize is discussed on the basis of comparative studies from five countries: Brazil, France, Germany, Norway, and the United States. The relevance of seniority is viewed in relation to pure norms of allocation, such as equality, contribution, needs, and productivity. Seniority is shown to have strong adherence in Norway and the United States, while it has a rather weak position in Brazil and France. Germany ranked as an intermediate between these two extremes. Reasons for the variation in the strength of the seniority principle are sought in general legal regulations, in wage agreements, and in the structure of the bargaining situation between employees and management. The future of the seniority principle is briefly discussed and it is assumed that it may lose importance due to organizational changes in the workplace.

Elite Consensus on the Norwegian Welfare State Model

Abstract Is the Norwegian welfare state model under pressure? In this article we argue that this model will persist to the extent that there is a relatively strong consensus among the majority of the national elites to support it. The empirical results presented indicate that the majority of the Norwegian elites at the time of the study (2000) supported the basic institutions and policies in the model and the political compromises upon which they are based. They express strong support for the system of centralised wage settlements, a main element in the industrial relations system. They rally behind continued economic transfers to the rural areas. A majority (albeit small) of the elite groups prefers to uphold the present state model of production and distribution of welfare services. There are, however, differences between the various elite groups as to how they view the welfare state model. While the members of the private business elite express preference for basic changes, the mass media elite, the academic elite and the church leaders are clearly in favour of the present model. The opinions of the individual leaders are particularly related to the elite groups to which they belong. Social and educational background has much less effect upon their attitudes.

Introduction: Social and Political Elites in Modern Democracies

The fruitful development of the theory of elites within the framework of democratic societies, naturally presupposes ample empirical work, allowing broad descriptions of elite structure. Unfortunately, representative data on modern social elites are still relatively scarce. The most ambitious attempt to cover elite formation in Europe is restricted to the political sphere, a large longitudinal data set on parliamentary elites, covering members of parliament in 12 European countries over a period of 150 years (Best & Cotta, 2000). On a more ad hoc basis data sets covering broader sections of European national elites have been collected in Germany, the Nordic countries, and Eastern Europe. These data sets are utilized in several of the articles in the present volume.

NATIONAL LITERATURE, COLLECTIVE IDENTITY AND POLITICAL POWER

The significance of literature in nation-building in two “second generation” nations, Germany and Norway, is discussed. In both countries a specific national literature was constituted parallel to the political institutions during the latter half of the 19th century. Yet there are clear differences in political effects in the two cases. In Norway, the struggle for national independence up to 1905 entailed a significant democratization of society. Germany, in the wake of the revolution of 1848, developed into a politically authoritarian regime, fully established under Prussian leadership in 1871. These processes are mirrored in the position of literature. In Norway, where artistic traditions were absent, the national literature was a product of the 19th century, and emerged in close connection to ongoing political debates. In Germany, the Weimar heritage had gained classical status during the 1850s. Thus, the problem was foremost that of redefining the spiritual heritage to fit the history of the German Reich. A related difference is found in the diffusion of literature through its most important channel – the school system. Norway developed a modern, uniform school, where the nation’s new literature was accorded a central place. In Germany, a more class-based school system was cemented, and the idea of diffusing the cultural heritage to the population at large held a weak position. Along with these institutional factors, the development of national literatures in the two countries is seen in the light of regional specificities, constellations of literary genres with high and low prestige, and the social and political position of writers.

Models of Elite Integration

In this chapter, elites are associated with the possession of decisive political power that gives them disproportionate influence on political and social outcomes. Two opposing views of elite power in democracies are found in the literature. One is of a coalescent power structure or “power elite” and the other is of a pluralistic power structure consisting of elite groups located in diverse economic, governmental, military, media, scientific, and other sectors. The accuracy of these two conflicting views of elite power is treated as an empirical question and takes the pluralist view as the point of departure without, however, ruling out the coalescent view.

A power elite in the cultural field. A story of Norwegian neo-corporatism

The organizational culture elite is studied as a new elite group emerging within a stable neo-corporatist state. Does this new elite adopt existing modes of operation or place itself at bay from the more established elite groups? The emergence of and changes in the culture elite are discussed from a historical perspective in terms of social background, recruitment processes, occupational careers, gender composition, political outlooks, lobbying, and media strategies. The culture elite is systematically compared to two other elites: the university elite, the most similar among the elites, and the economic elite, assumedly representing the greatest contrast. Despite special characteristics in the social situations and political views of the culture elite, it is concluded that the mode of operation of this group indicates a high degree of adaptability to the general system of elites. A main reason is assumed to be the integrative power and liberal quality of the state in a neo-corporatist regime.

Elite Compromise, Crisis and Democracy: The United States, Norway and Italy Compared

The post-2008 financial crisis has been and still is a serious challenge to trans-Atlantic economies. It is too soon to calculate total costs of the crisis, but it is certain they are immense. Has the crisis also been a challenge to democracy? This is the main question I want to address. The crisis has certainly challenged democracy in the sense of eliciting mass protests in several countries, most notably repeated demonstrations and strikes in Greece, the Indignados in Spain and the Occupy movements in the United States and United Kingdom. However, the lasting significance of these protests is unclear, and challenges to democracy during the crisis have a broader compass. Modern democracy hinges not just on the familiar Schumpeterian conception of voters choosing between competitors for elective office. Democracy entails a country’s political culture, its pattern of elite interactions and its framework of institutions.

11 The Return of Religion in the Public Sphere? The Public Role of Nordic Faith Communities

The public role of religion has been a recurrent topic of debate in the sociology of religion. This debate gained momentum with José Casanova’s book Public Religions in the Modern World (1994) in which he claimed that a worldwide deprivatization of religion was taking place. Only a few years later, Peter L. Berger (1999) argued that large parts of the world were characterized by desecularization, even if Europe continued to be secular. In 2006, Jürgen Habermas labelled modern, Western societies as postsecular (Habermas, 2006). The question that forms the title of Titus Hjelm’s (2015) book Is God back? is indeed pertinent in debates on the public sphere in Nordic countries. During the past decades, new interfaith infrastructures have emerged in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland that enable a great variety of faith communities to participate as civil society actors in the public sphere. Whereas the Nordic Lutheran majority churches previously had hegemonic positions in the public sphere as it related to religious issues, new channels of communication have developed that change the ways in which faith and worldview communities act in the public sphere. The emergence of the new religious infrastructure also seems to have implications for the type of religion that is present in the public sphere. This chapter will map these developments and attempt to explain them. In the following, we outline the Nordic religious landscapes and the theoretical perspectives that are used. The development of the Nordic interfaith infrastructure is then described, including some critical issues that this development has raised. We then conclude with a discussion of various explanations for the institutional changes that are outlined.

13 Afterword: A Viable Model of the Public Sphere?

At the end of the Introduction a generic theory of the public sphere in institutional perspective was sketched (Engelstad, Larsen, Rogstad & Steen-Johnsen, this volume). Seven main dimensions, or building blocks, aimed to describe variations in the shape of different public spheres, were pinpointed. The foregoing chapters demonstrate that combinations of values on these empirical variables appear in clusters. It is widely outside the scope of the present volume to treat the totality of relevant elements, but the empirical studies presented here yield some significant indications of what one such cluster looks like. It should be borne in mind that the Nordic model is an ideal type. Its fruitfulness rests on a high degree of correspondence, but in no way identity, with the empirical Nordic societies. Conflict, inconsistencies and compromises are also necessary parts of societies labeled under the Nordic model. The ability to cope with such conflicts determine the viability of the model.