ICELAND

Iceland's electoral process is generally fair and transparent, with civil rights well protected and corruption rare.

However, the separation of powers is weak, with the executive branch clearly dominating the legislature.

Media freedom is marred somewhat by occasional government attempts at influence, and journalists have sometimes been denied access to government information.

Unemployment in Iceland has been kept low for decades, with the help of a flexible labor market, and policies holding inflation artificially high.

However, this has resulted in significant budget deficits and a dependence on foreign loans. Once-low tax rates have risen sharply, excepting corporate taxes.

The government has successfully fostered innovative companies, but some protectionist enterprise policies have remained.

Income inequality has grown in recent years, largely due to regressive tax policies.

However, Iceland's social policies are more equitable on other fronts.

Family policy strongly supports working women, and high-quality public health care remains universally available, despite growing waiting lists for service.

Pensions largely prevent old-age poverty, but are often very minimal.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2005, and the closure of a NATO base, left Iceland with no military to defend the island.

Though this was expected, the government offered no clear alternative plan. Security policy thus requires a thorough overhaul.

A new policy on immigration, published in early 2007, left government without clearly defined responsibilities.

A resource-rich environment has diminished Iceland's focus on issues of sustainability.

Water and energy are abundant, but little attention is paid to conservation. Topsoil erosion is a persistent problem, with solutions blocked by farmers' political power.

Research and education spending have surged in recent years. Iceland's school system provide equitable access, but universities are underfunded.

Long-term strategic planning in Iceland is often vague, lacking detailed plans for execution, supervision and revision.

The government is small, and ministers can draft proposals without the prime minister's input.

There is no tradition of regulatory impact assessment in Iceland. Longstanding relationships between the government and labor groups have kept dialogue open, and levels of cooperation high.

Government communication has been consistent and coherent.

Due to the executive branch's considerable power, government-sponsored bills rarely fail to be approved.

There is no second chamber, and the head of state and the Supreme Court only infrequently exercise their veto powers.

Thus, the government has substantial influence, and achieves almost all policy objectives.

Because of its traditions and small size, Iceland tends to be a team player with regard to international cooperation.

The country is not an EU member, but EU structures have to some extent been integrated and adapted domestically.

Recent discussion has focused on serving more actively as a mediator in international peace negotiations.

No established, formal system of self-monitoring exists, although ad hoc programs have become more common in recent years.

Institutional arrangements are reconsidered from time to time, and in 2007 the ministry structure was revised.

With the media providing substantive analysis of government actions, Icelandic citizens are well-informed, although domestic issues dominate.

The parliament exercises its oversight powers to different degrees, only seldom summoning ministers for hearings.

Interest associations are influential, offering well-grounded, coherent policy proposals.