DENMARK

The amount of strategic thinking in Danish government administration varies across different ministries. It also depends on the decision style of the ministry head. Major reforms in Denmark are usually prepared through committees or commissions established to produce a report outlining issues and options. However, one of the conclusions in a major research project on power in Denmark in the beginning of the new millennium was that “Denmark has never had strong traditions for basing political decisions on accessible knowledge ¬– as opposed to Sweden, for instance. The scientific/analytical level in Danish white papers has generally been low. White papers have often seemed negotiated rather than analytical presentations of political issues. Trends in recent years point toward a further weakening of the knowledge base of decision-making. Fewer and fewer bills are prepared in commissions, and when the commissions are formed, their time frame is often narrower than previously.”
It is not clear whether this conclusion still stands. In recent years there have been a number of commissions appointed (Strukturkommissionen, Velfærdskommissionen, Arbejdsmarkedskommissionen, Skattekommissionen and so on) to prepare inputs for important policy discussions and reforms. Moreover, professionalism in ministries has increased.
More overarching strategic policy plans or documents with a strong focus on economic policy in recent times are the government’s 2010 plan and the 2015 plan. The former was launched by the government under Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in 2000, and later adopted with minor modifications by the government under Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The 2015 plan is a revision and update of the 2010 plan, and a 2020 plan is expected by the end of 2010.
It should also be taken into account that government policies traditionally have been consensus-driven. This applies both in parliament, as most governments have been minority governments, and in relation to negotiations involving organizations and the political system, most notably in relation to labor market issues.
Additionally, a new type of forum has been developed which brings high-profile policymakers (ministers), representatives from society, and experts together in globalization councils (globaliserings rådet) or growth forums (vækstforum) to discuss important policy issues. This can be seen as a new instrument in the consensus-driven policy approach.

The administration has a certain amount of in-house expertise. However, for most policy areas there are advising councils or committees involving experts, for example doctors often are involved, consulted through various agencies, when health policies are being discussed. In addition, the Danish economic council plays an important role, and politicians listen to its members’ advice. Recently, an environmental economic council was also established. The two councils are chaired by the same four economics professors, known as the “wise men.” The chairmanship prepares reports that are then discussed by the members representing unions, employers, the central bank and the government. The reports also garner media attention.
Although unlike the American system, where a university professor can spend a few years in government administration and then return to academia, Danish academics remain outside politics.

The Danish Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is relatively small. It has a total of 91 employees, with 36 academics and 27 technical and administrative staff.

It is divided into two groups, one dealing with foreign policy and the second with domestic political and economic issues. There is also a law division and an administrative division. The prime minister has three portfolio tasks, namely the North Atlantic area, for example, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the press and constitutional law.

Being small, the PMO does not have a capacity to evaluate the details of all laws. But some officials are seconded from important line ministries to give the PMO a certain capacity. This capacity has been strengthened since the 1990s.

In Denmark there is a strong tradition of so-called minister rule (ministerstyre). A minister is in charge of a certain area (ressort). But the cabinet is a collective unit and it is supposed to have only one policy focus, for which the prime minister has the overall responsibility.

The prime minister has the discretionary power to take the actions deemed necessary. However, the fact that most governments have been minority governments implies that consensus and negotiation is involved.

The norms of minister rule and the “resort” principle (where ministers are in charge of certain areas) give the line ministries a fair amount of autonomy. It is also the line ministries that have the most technical expertise. But to achieve coherent government policy, interdepartmental coordination takes place. This is not a hierarchical coordination, but based on negotiations. The prime minister has a special place given his constitutional prerogatives as the person who appoints and dismisses ministers. The cabinet holds weekly meetings. This is a political clearing institution, where a number of political issues are debated under the chairmanship of the prime minister. The last check of proposals comes in these weekly cabinet meetings (regeringsmøder). Major issues and strategic considerations are dealt with in the government coordination committee (regeringens koordineringsudvalg) involving the prime minister and four other key ministers.

The Ministry of Finance also plays an important role whenever financial resources are involved. No minister can go to the finance committee of the People’s Assembly (Folketing) without prior agreement from the Ministry of Finance.

Apart from coordinating the preparation of next year’s finances, the Ministry of Finance is also involved in formulating general economic policy and offering economic and administrative assessments of the consequences of proposed laws.

Policy preparation tends to take place in cabinet committees (regeringsudvalg) involving a smaller number of ministers. Since 2001, there have been five to six such cabinet committees. Currently the following standing cabinet committees exist: the coordination committee (chaired by the prime minister), the economy committee (chaired by the finance minister), the security committee (chaired by the prime minister), the appointments committee (chaired by the prime minister), the committee concerning the European Council and greater foreign and security questions (chaired by the prime minister) and the foreign policy committee (chaired by the foreign minister).
This system has been strengthened under the most recent liberal-conservative government, and there are parallel committees of high-level civil servants.

Denmark does not have a tradition of political appointees or junior ministers. The ministries’ top civil servants are always career civil servants. There is a long tradition for relatively smooth cooperation between the minister and his top civil servants, headed by the permanent undersecretary (departementschef). In the 1990s, Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen started appointing media consultants from outside, and since then this practice has been accepted. The liberal-conservative government that followed continued the practice.

Since appointments of top civil servants are based on merit, these officials are usually quite capable. They also tend to be loyal, even if their own political convictions might not correspond fully to those of the minister. Some permanent under-secretaries have built up an impressive knowledge base and expertise as well as understanding of the political game. They see it as a central part of their job to protect the minister.

There are various interdepartmental coordination mechanisms at the level of civil servants. Often coordination starts at lower levels and moves up for a final check at the level of undersecretaries. Some committees of undersecretaries shadow cabinet committees within the government.

An area that requires a lot of coordination is EU legislation. From the start of Denmark’s membership, coordination between the ministries has taken place. Currently there are more than 30 EU special committees within the administration dealing with specific EU policies. These special committees involve representatives from ministries and agencies, and often also from interest organizations, that are concerned with the legislation in question. The lead ministry will chair these special committees.
The top-level committee is the EU committee chaired by the Foreign Ministry. Ministries that have most EU cases are permanent members. Other ministries take part on an ad hoc basis. At the cabinet level it is the foreign minister who chairs the foreign policy committee, but when it comes to meetings in the European Council these meetings are prepared by a permanent undersecretary committee chaired by the undersecretary in the PMO.

The Danish administrative system is a mix of formal rules and norms and more informal traditions. Officials hold informal talks in the halls of government, over lunch, during travel to and from Brussels, as just a few examples. The informal mechanisms can make formal meetings more efficient. But important decisions must be confirmed in more formal settings.
At the political level, informal mechanisms are probably more important than among officials.

An instruction (cirkulære) from the PMO in 1998 to all ministries and agencies established the requirement of evaluating various consequences of proposed legislation and administrative regulations. Subsequently, a number of ministries developed texts advising the civil servants on how to do this. In May 2005 a common guide was worked out with the Ministry of Finance as lead ministry.
The rules require impact assessments dealing with economic consequences for state and local governments, administrative consequences, business economic consequences and environmental consequences. The relation to EU legislation must also be assessed.
Thinking about consequences starts during the initial consideration of a new law or regulation (screening stage), continues while the content and degree of new measures are considered (scoping stage) and a detailed RIA is worked out during the final stage (assessment stage).
So RIAs have become a required part of Danish policy formulation.
The extent to which existing regulations are regularly assessed depends on the regulation in question and the feedback the administrative agency gets.

The instructions from the PMO and the Ministry of Finance require the RIA to analyze the purpose of and need for regulation. A needs analysis is expected to be part of the initiation of the legislative process. The examples outlined by the Ministry of Finance in its RIA guide are quite clear, concise and specific. So a needs analysis will normally be a part of a RIA. The thoroughness of this analysis depends on the importance and nature of the new regulation.

Assessing the consequences of new or revised legislation or administrative regulations entails a detailed process. The process may start with a white paper which outlines options. A ministry or agency will also most likely consider the options at the screening stage, but they only concentrate on the specific measure that has already been chosen. When it deals with a proposed law going before the People’s Assembly, only the regulatory consequences of that law are assessed. However, this does not prevent MPs from discussing alternative options or asking the responsible minister about alternative options. Moreover, there is also certainly an element of searching for a satisfactory solution with the result that not all options are considered. RIAs do also involve cost-benefit analyses.

There is a long tradition of involving economic and social actors at all stages of the policy cycle, even sometimes implementation. Both formally and informally there are good contacts between government administration and the main interest organizations (trade unions, employers, various business organizations and NGOs), as well as heads of major companies. Interest organizations provide important information for politicians and civil servants. While corporatism has changed over the years, it still exists in Denmark.

It is important for a government to effectively communicate its policies to its citizens. Communication strategy, and media attention, has become important aspects of politics, and political survival depends on efficient communication. Good communicators are more likely to get ministerial posts than poor communicators. The PMO plays an important role in communication, and in recent years prime ministers have employed media advisers.
There are only a few examples of ministers speaking out on issues that were not in accordance with the government’s policy. In such cases the prime minister will act swiftly and a corrective statement will follow from the minister in question – or he or she will most likely lose their job.

The government during the period under review was a minority government, and thus must seek parliamentary support for its policies. The parliamentary support is ensured by the Danish People’s Party, so compromises have to be found between the government and this party.

Danish government administration is reasonably good at implementation. It is important to point out that a large part of implementation is carried out by local governments, as Denmark is a relatively decentralized state. Much of the services of the welfare state are provided by decentralized units and the intention is actually to allow some geographical variation. But through stipulations in framework laws and budget constraints, the government is quite successful in steering agencies and administrative bodies even if they are not in a direct hierarchical relationship with the central government.

In recent years tensions have developed between the municipalities and the government/political system. This involves cases where policymakers at the national level do not accept the choices made by local governments, and thus attempt to control their actions via rules and regulations. More recently, the difficult financial situation in most municipalities and the need to coordinate local needs with national budget issues have caused tensions. Municipalities have violated negotiated budget agreement s and sanctions have been enforced.

A major structural reform effective in 2007 changed the structure of the public sector. Counties were replaced with regions that were mainly responsible for health care provisions, and municipalities were merged into larger units (now a total of 98). The reform is new and still being implemented, so it is too early to assess its consequences.

Denmark has parliamentary rule. The government can be forced to retire any time if in the minority in parliament. The prime minister is the leader of the government, and he does not allow ministers to pursue private interests that are not compatible with the declared goals of the government. Close scrutiny by parliament, including its committees, and an attentive press, seldom lets rogue ministers behave this way for long. The prime minister can both fire and promote ministers, so there are incentives to do what the prime minister expects. Party members can of course revolt against a prime minister, but this happens rarely in Denmark. There is a high degree of party discipline.

For sensitive political issues the prime minister has a strong incentive to monitor line ministries. But when it comes to less important issues or details, he has neither the time nor the means for close monitoring. His control is indirect, through the members of his cabinet.

Executive agencies have certain autonomy, but given the formal norms of minister rule, the minister is ultimately responsible for what happens in the agencies. So it is in a minister’s political interest to monitor activities closely.
The work of the agencies is often based on specialized expertise; as long as an issue is not politicized, the minister will normally defer to the decisions made by the agencies.

Part of the tax paid in Denmark is municipal income tax, and the tax rate varies between municipalities. The municipalities also receive money from the state (bloktilskud), and there is an equalization arrangement that moves funds from richer to poorer municipalities. The central government tries to control local expenditures through economic agreements. The current government does hold local governments on a tight leash given the tax freeze it introduced, which also includes local governments. There are annual negotiations between the municipalities and regions about the financial framework agreement. Many municipalities currently find themselves in a very tight financial situation. Since municipalities act independently – though coordinated via their organization (Kommunernes Landsforbund ) – there is an issue in ensuring that financial decisions of the municipalities adds up to a sum consistent with the overall targets set by the Ministry of Finance. Persistent deviations in recent years suggest that the current system is not fully efficient.

Section 82 of the Danish constitutions reads that, “The right of municipalities to manage their own affairs independently, under state supervision, shall be laid down by statute.”

So the constitution assumes some autonomy of municipalities, but leaves it to parliament to determine the scope. Indeed, in a comparative perspective Denmark is a decentralized state, but it is not a federal state. In recent years there has been a tendency to curtail the effective discretion of lower layers in the public sector, in particular the municipalities. The People’s Assembly can, at any time, change the scope of local autonomy and its organization. The latest change came in 2007, when the reorganization resulted in a total of five regions and 98 municipalities (kommuner). At both levels there were mergers to create bigger units, with economies of scale, and greater capacities for dealing with delegated tasks.

The regions are mainly responsible for health and regional development, while the municipalities have a wider range of tasks. They basically administer the welfare state: schools, day care, elderly care, libraries, sport and roads. They play an important role in employment policy as well.

National laws set standard with varying degrees of discretion for local authorities. The central government can supervise whether standards are met through benchmarks, tests and requirements that performance indicators be published, such as hospital waiting lists, school performance results, and so on. Here too an active press can play a role in exposing problems, and the central government, which is ultimately responsible politically, can intervene by setting stricter standards or transferring extra money to certain activities. Rhetorical action, such as shaming underachievers, can also be part of the strategy.

The most intrusive form of international/supranational cooperation Denmark takes part in is with the European Union. Since membership in 1973, an elaborate system of coordination within government administration has developed. It involves all affected ministries and agencies and often also interest organizations. In parallel, the European Affairs Committee in the People’s Assembly (Folketing) has become an efficient democratic control of Danish EU policy. Denmark speaks with one voice in Brussels.

Among international coordination of reform efforts, the EU’s Lisbon Process arguably has been the most important in recent years. Denmark took an active part in these efforts. We can expect Denmark to take an active part in the EU’s new 2020 Strategy, which is replacing the Lisbon Strategy, which in the end was not very successful.
For a small country, Denmark’s contribution to U.N. Security Council missions is not poor.
Danish development assistance is also considered a success in Copenhagen as well as by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee.

As part of a continuous modernization policy that goes back to the governments under Prime Minister Poul Schlüter in the 1980s, the current government in the period under review has consistently monitored institutional arrangements and many reform programs have been produced. The current public management and governance strategy includes contacts, result-oriented salaries, measurements, evaluations and efficiency reports.

When the first government under Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen came to power in 2001, it abolished some ministries and merged others, and there were various internal reorganizations. Rasmussen also closed a number of councils and committees (råd og nævn). In his New Year’s speech he criticized so-called judges of taste (smagsdommere), or experts he felt had too much influence. The government’s first reform program was entitled “With the citizens at the helm” (Med borgeren ved roret). A number of reform plans were introduced in the following years.
In 2009, Lars Løkke Rasmussen took over as prime minister from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who then went on to become NATO Secretary General. He inherited Denmark’s National Reform Program of October 2008. Another program, Denmark’s Convergence Program 2009, set a number of goals to be reached by 2015. After this followed the plan, “Denmark 2020: Knowledge>Growth>Prosperity>Welfare.” in February 2010. In this the government announced 10 ambitious goals for 2020:
(1) Denmark is to be among the world’s wealthiest countries.
(2) The Danish supply of labor is to be among the tenth-highest in the world.
(3) Danish schoolchildren are to be among the cleverest in the world.
(4) At least one Danish university is to be listed among Europe’s top 10 universities.
(5) Denmark is to be among the 10-top countries in the world where people live the longest.
(6) Denmark is to be a green, sustainable society and among the world’s three most energy efficient countries.
(7) Denmark is to be listed among the best countries in creating equal opportunity for its citizens.
(8) Denmark is to be amongst the freest countries and among the best in Europe at achieving integration.
(9) Danes are to be among the world’s most trusting and safe people.
(10) The Danish public sector is to be among the most efficient and least bureaucratic in the world.
While a tax freeze will remain in place, taxes on cigarettes and alcohol will increase as well as the registration tax for cars. Since cars already cost two- to three-times what they cost in most countries, this may not help to attract foreign workers.
These goals are extremely ambitious, especially given the economic downturn caused by the global economic crisis. It is tempting to see a certain amount of wishful thinking in this. In 2000, the European Union announced ambitious goals for the European economy to become the most competitive in the world within a 10-year period, through the so-called Lisbon Strategy. These goals were not achieved. Will Denmark be able to go through the required reforms over the next 10 years? Will Danish society be able to integrate and attract foreigners to work? Will Danish universities be able to pay competitive salaries to attract and retain talent? Will the culture in Danish schools allow for more competition? A number of similar questions arise, yet only time can answer them.

Citizens get most of their information on government policy developments through television, radio and newspapers, which of course are selective in their reporting. Computer access is widespread. Government documents are as a rule freely accessible via the Internet, and published work is also often free. Documents can also be read in public libraries, of which there are many.

Election campaigns serve the purpose of presenting and debating the policies of the government as well as the opposition. A relatively high turnout during national elections (the turnout for the 2007 election was 86.5%) suggests a certain degree of interest and enough knowledge to consider voting important. In the European Union context, Danes are considered among the most knowledgeable about EU issues (partly due to the use of referendums), but turnout at elections for the European Parliament are much lower than for national ones (turnout for EU elections in 2009 was 59.5%), presumably because the issues in such elections are considered less important. The bread-and-butter questions of national Danish politics – jobs, health, education, pensions and so on – can inspire citizens to seek information and take part in politics.

Parliament may ask for and will get most government documents. There are internal ministry documents, however, that are not made available. But ministers and ministries know that it is politically important to heed parliament requests. Documents may be stamped confidential, but most committee documents in general are publicly available.

Committees regularly summon ministers for meetings, called consultations (samråd). These meetings are key elements of how the Danish parliamentary system works. At consultations, MPs get much of their information for the legislative process. At the same time, the meetings are where the People’s Assembly exercises its parliamentary control of the government.

Normal committee meetings take place behind closed doors. However, committees can decide to hold open meetings – including ones without the minister present – and invite experts from outside, as well as civil servants and representatives from interest organizations to explore and discuss issues. Such meetings are also open to the press. Committees may also decide to conduct larger hearings, sometimes in cooperation with the Danish Board of Technology. Such hearings occasionally take place in the room in which the former second chamber of the Danish parliament, the Landsting, met until it was abolished by the new constitution in 1953.

The committee structure largely corresponds to the structure of ministries. The Ministry of Social Affairs, for instance, corresponds to the Social Affairs committee in the People’s Assembly (Folketing). The Ministry of Taxation corresponds to the Fiscal Affairs committee in the assembly. Other committees, for instance, deal with energy, defense, culture, environment, health and education, and all know who “their” minister is. A few committees don’t have such an easy parallel, such as the European Affairs committee. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for coordinating EU policy, the European Affairs committee will have consultations (samråd) with all ministers that take part in EU council meetings, and seek a mandate for upcoming negotiations in the council. So this creates some internal coordination problems in the People’s Assembly, between the European Affairs committee and the committees dealing with the substance of EU legislation (fagudvalg).

The national audit office (Rigsrevisionen) is an independent institution under the authority of parliament. It examines the soundness of state accounts and assesses whether institutions have applied funds in the best possible ways. Its work is highly respected.

In 1955, Denmark became the third country in the world, after Sweden and Finland, to introduce the institution of the ombudsman. The ombudsman is appointed by parliament, and the office is an independent institution. Citizens can complain to this office about decisions made by public authorities. The office, which has a staff of about 85, can also begin investigations on its own initiative and visit institutions. In 2006, there were 3,767 complaints, 245 own-initiative cases and 41 inspections of institutions. The institution produces an annual report.
Distinguished law professors have held the position of ombudsman. Criticisms from the ombudsman will normally lead to a change in practice or decisions. The ombudsman’s views have very high credibility and respect.

The media is, as in other democracies, rather important. Some have argued that the media constitute a fourth power, next to the legislative, executive and judiciary powers in modern democracies; and that journalists play the role of citizen advocate vis-à-vis public authorities. The media partly have power, through editorial decisions, not to cover certain stories, yet obviously have to be selective. Like media outlets elsewhere, the Danish media shows a tendency to make the news easier for the public to relate to by simplifying or personalizing the stories reported, and emphasizing an element of conflict. In editorial decisions about who or what is covered, there appears to be a tendency to favor top politicians and government representatives, as if what such actors have to say is considered more interesting. Weaker actors, such as immigrant representatives or ethnic minorities, get less coverage, although immigration stories have become important and now form part of daily news coverage.

Apart from daily news programs, television and radio stations offer more analytical programs where issues can be analyzed more in depth. Some of these programs can be quite informative. It is worth mentioning that the education of journalists has been improved in recent years.

Overall it is fair to say that the Danish media covers national news better than international news, including issues regarding the European Union.

The major parties or the two government parties in the period under review, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, as well as the leading opposition parties, the Social Democratic Party and the Social Liberal party, are the so-called old parties. They have existed for more than 100 years and have all regularly taken part in governments. Since they are either in power or have the prospect of being in the next government, they have a strong interest in proposing plausible and coherent policies, and indeed it is fair to say that they do so. Newer parties, including the third biggest party currently in the People’s Assembly, the Danish People’s Party, may be more tempted to propose popular, even populist, policies. But parties that have ambitions of being included one day in a government will have to moderate their views. One could argue that this has happened in the case of the Socialist People’s Party, which in some ways has moved closer to the Social Democratic Party. Recently the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party put forward a joint proposal, “A fair solution, together through the crisis.” In a press release, the Social Liberal Party supported the proposal, but called for more concrete proposals. The four opposition parties, including also the Red-Green Unity List (Alliance), recently published a common energy vision, a plan to make Denmark the strongest climate nation in the world.

Interest organizations play an important role in Danish politics. Policies proposed by the major interest organizations are of course “reasonable” as seen from the point of view of the group they represent. They may not be quite as reasonable, however, as seen from the point of view of society at large, or from the viewpoint of the collective interest. That is why the views of interest organizations must be aggregated by the government.

Given the corporatist tradition in Denmark, the major interest organizations are regularly involved in policy-making. This tends to educate them to moderate their policy proposals. Interest groups know they will lose influence if they propose policies that are seen as unreasonable. They realize that they have an interest in getting things to work. The trade unions also have learned at some point that demanding very high raises in salaries will produce inflation and be counterproductive. They too have a tradition of being quite responsible and negotiating in good faith.

There is a long corporatist tradition in Denmark. The major interest organizations are often members of committees and commissions preparing legislation. They provide information for the government and legitimacy for the policies adopted, thereby facilitating implementation.
In recent years, during the years of the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen government, the relationship between the government and interest organizations changed somewhat. Some laws were passed without having been prepared through corporatist committees. Instead, interest organizations had to lobby more – by making direct contact with civil servants and politicians – so as to influence policies. Larger companies, such as A. P. Møller Mærsk, Novo-Nordisk, and so on, have also pursued such actions.
The fact remains that the administration needs input from outside when legislation is prepared. So there is a common interest in continuous dialogue.