DENMARK

Denmark once again ranks 5th in the Status Index.

The Danish public enjoys a robust democracy with a credible and transparent governance structure. The general level of public trust in government and public administration bodies is high.

Denmark demonstrates that an extended welfare state and sound economy are compatible. Indeed, the Danish model is often upheld as an example of a healthy economy bearing low unemployment rates and balance surpluses. Several problems have surfaced in the wake of the crisis (unemployment, low productivity growth). Nonetheless, macroeconomic indicators point to strong performance relative to most other EU countries.

Despite generous spending on education, the Danish school system does not deliver the expected performance. Sub-par achievement levels are of growing concern.

According to two consecutive SGI surveys, Denmark has the fifth highest quality of democracy in the OECD.

Electoral procedures are among the best in the developed world. Access to information in media and from government agencies is virtually unrestrained.

While civil rights and political liberties are legally provided by the constitution and protected by state authorities and courts, there are some instances of (race-based) discrimination in the labor market.

Rule of law is well-established. The judiciary is independent even if judges are appointed by the government. Moreover, Denmark is considered one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

No longer at the head of the ranking for economic and employment policy, Denmark now ranks 4th.

The global financial crisis brought an end to the Danish economy’s boom period and exposed underlying structural problems, including a shrinking industrial export sector. Public finances are also in crisis.

Unemployment has spiked since the crisis. Whereas employment among youth and women is relatively high, immigrants face exclusion from the labor market.

Enterprise regulation is modest and there is little bureaucratic red tape.

A 2010 tax reform shifts taxes from labor to the environment and broadens the tax base.

At rank 4, Denmark’s rating on issues of social policy remains very high.

A high tax burden enables an extensive welfare state both in terms of service provision and the social safety net. Inequality is low. Despite the period’s sharp fall in employment, various forms of social transfers prevent most individuals from experiencing dramatic decreases in income.

Health care services are universally accessible free of charge, regardless of economic circumstances. Basic access principles underlying the health care sector have been changed in recent years, with expenditure rising as a result.

Issues of immigration and integration remain controversial. While the employment rate for immigrants from low income countries has improved in recent years, problems of equity remain.

External security is largely based on NATO membership, with no serious conventional threats posed since the end of the cold war. The emergent threat of a terrorist attack is related to the so-called cartoon crisis and Denmark’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Danish defense forces and the police provide for internal security. Cooperation between police and defense intelligence has increased since 9/11. The homicide rate is low, and Danes normally trust the police.

At rank 4, Denmark’s approach to resource sustainability remains quite strong.

The country is one of the world’s most progressive in terms of environmental protection. EU data on the actual implementation of environmental policies suggest that Denmark is doing reasonably well.

Public sector R&D expenditures are expected to reach 1% of GDP. Private sector expenditure is lower than in Sweden and Finland but above the EU average. The country’s competitiveness is rated quite highly in international comparison.

Education spending is very high, but student achievement levels do not match. This has prompted considerable debate over teaching aims and methods.

At rank 3, management performance in Denmark is sound (-1 rank relative to SGI 2009).

The government exercises its steering capability to good effect. Economic and social actors are actively involved in the policy-making process. Policy implementation is effective, despite periodic tensions between local governments and the central government.

The country is actively involved in international and supranational policy-making, most notably within the framework of the EU and the UN. Institutional arrangements are frequently monitored.

Danish governments demonstrate considerable accountability toward parliament and a well-informed citizenry.

Retaining its position at rank 6, Denmark displays steering capability that is very strong in OECD comparison.

In recent years, a number of commissions have been called and tasked with preparing research and analysis for important policy discussions and reforms. Professionalism in ministries has increased. The Prime Minister’s Office is relatively small, but all other ministries and agencies have been required since 1998 to evaluate the potential consequences of proposed legislation or regulations.

Economic and social actors have long been involved at all stages of the policy cycle, sometimes even including implementation. Corporatism has changed over the years, but remains a significant factor in Danish policy-making.

At rank 3, Denmark’s record of policy implementation is among the OECD’s best.

A considerable share of implementation responsibility is borne by local governments. Tensions between municipalities and the central government have risen in recent years.

The prime minister can both fire and promote ministers. There is a high degree of party discipline.

Municipalities have the ability to levy income tax, with the rate varying across the country. Local governments also receive money from the state, with an equalization arrangement transferring funds from richer to poorer municipalities.

At rank 2, Denmark’s institutional learning capacity remains very high despite marginal declines (-1 rank) relative to the SGI 2009 .

The EU represents Denmark’s primary focus for international or supranational cooperation. The EU’s Lisbon Process has arguably been the most important cooperative reform project in recent years. For a small country, Denmark’s contribution to UN Security Council missions has been substantial.

The current government has consistently monitored institutional arrangements, implementing a considerable number of reform programs. Since 2001, some ministries have been abolished and others merged, and various other internal reorganizations have taken place.

Holding steady at rank 4, Denmark’s executive accountability is rated as very strong by OECD standards.

Citizens get most of their information on government policy developments through TV, radio and newspapers, all of which are naturally selective in their reporting.

Parliament and its committees have substantial executive oversight powers, and most committee documents are publicly available. Ministers regularly attend committee hearings.

In addition to daily news, TV and radio stations offer programs analyzing issues in greater depth. Major political parties generally propose plausible and coherent policies. Thanks to a long corporatist tradition, the major interest organizations are directly involved in preparing legislation.