State Regulation of Parties and Interest Groups in Norway

The paper aims to describe and compare state regulation of a) political parties and b) interest groups/NGOs in Norway. State regulation of political parties has traditionally been very weak in Norway. State funding of political parties was introduced in 1970, but legislation that requires parties to report their income and expenditures has only been introduced recently. Regarding other voluntary associations, Norway is usually classified as belonging to the social democratic model, where public welfare costs are extensive and welfare provision constitutes a minor part of the non-profit sector. Other activities, such as culture, sports and other leisure activities, dominate the Norwegian voluntary sector. This gives the state less incentives to regulate voluntary organizations, although the state in some areas has instrumental reasons for supporting them (for example, sports contribute to improving public health). However, a dominant share of the government funding supports the organizations’ own activities based on general criteria. Some researchers claim that Norwegian voluntary organizations have given up too much of their independent role and policy influence through handing over welfare services to the government, whereas others claim that they lose influence as a result of state ‘colonization’. In contrast, a third perspective claims that Scandinavian voluntary associations are surprisingly critical, since they play a smaller part in welfare services, and therefore are less afraid of alienating state sponsors. The paper will discuss these perspectives, and ask to what extent the relationship between the state and both political parties and other voluntary organizations in Norway has been based on mutual trust, rather than control. Accordingly, the Norwegian case may also give reason to question the thesis of a general transformation of voluntary associations into ‘semi-public agencies’. The paper will utilize previous research on Norwegian parties and voluntary sector, and thus bring together perspectives from two distinct sub-disciplines.