The Labour Market Regimes in the Nordic Countries: A Comparative Analysis

The aim of the article is to discuss the differences between the labour market regimes in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland in a historical perspective. The foundations of the regimes were laid more than 100 years ago. Differences in labour market institutions and practices are in fact substantial, particularly as regards the role of the state in collective bargaining and conflict resolution, but also in connection with incomes policy. While the state for a long time has played a significant role in Denmark and Norway, mainly concerning conflict resolution, and in Finland since the 1960s in the form of comprehensive incomes policy agreements, a doctrine of freedom of the labour market from state intervention has dominated in Sweden. These divergences can to a great extent be explained by differences in the democratization process and the organizational structure, particularly in the trade unions, which reflect different timing and structure in the process of industrialization. 'Path dependency' has been strong in the North. The main elements of the four national labour market regimes are still there, such as trade union fragmentation and strong instruments for conflict resolution in Denmark and Norway, relatively advanced social partner responsibility for bargaining outcomes and conflict resolution in Sweden (although sometimes against the background of threats of state intervention), and almost continuous tripartite consultation in Finland as a stabilizing element in a much more turbulent political environment than in the neighbouring countries. There are no clear tendencies towards convergence between the Nordic labour market regimes.     

Measuring Political Competence: An Analysis with Reference to the Gender Gap*

Political alienation has been an important concept in theories of participation and democratic policies. Subjective political competence (‘internal political efficacy’) is considered to be a main element within the broader concept of political alienation, and an important determinant of political participation. The main purpose of this article is to test statistically the assumption of similarity in model structure for men and women, i. e. the relation between political competence and voting turnout. Our findings, generated on the basis of a common survey questionnaire item, show that subjective competence has different significance for men and women. For men, it has an expected substantive meaning. For women, it seems to be irrelevant with respect to expected sources and consequences. Given this apparent incomparability in measurement, we conclude that it is inappropriate to use identical models for men and women. It is also argued that political competence should be conceived of as containing a cognitive element, ‘objective political competence’. Empirical analysis shows that this concept is gender neutral with respect to political involvement.     

Arab Citizen and the Arab State: The “Arab Spring” as a Critical Juncture in Contemporary Arab Politics

The basic characteristics and historic significance of the Arab uprisings of 2010–2011 are given a multitude of interpretations, not least in light of the dramatic events that have followed. This article seeks to understand the uprisings as expressions of an unfolding crisis in the relationship between the rulers and the ruled in the region within a historic-sociological approach to citizenship as a “contractual relationship.” A brief discussion of Egyptian developments is used to illustrate the approach. The mass mobilization in the 1950s and 1960s inspired by Nasserism and the “authoritarian bargaining” introduced at the time is contrasted with the demands for a new social contract that mobilized millions during the recent uprisings. The uprisings clearly represent a critical juncture in contemporary Arab history, but their long-term impact on the direction of the future political order in the Arab region remains an open question.     

Lost in Aggregation: Improving Event Analysis with Report‐Level Data

Most measures of social conflict processes are derived from primary and secondary source reports. In many cases, reports are used to create event‐level data sets by aggregating information from multiple, and often conflicting, reports to single event observations. We argue that this pre‐aggregation is less innocuous than it seems, costing applied researchers opportunities for improved inference. First, researchers cannot evaluate the consequences of different methods of report aggregation. Second, aggregation discards report‐level information (i.e., variation across reports) that is useful in addressing measurement error inherent in event data. Therefore, we advocate that data should be supplied and analyzed at the report level. We demonstrate the consequences of using aggregated event data as a predictor or outcome variable, and how analysis can be improved using report‐level information directly. These gains are demonstrated with simulated‐data experiments and in the analysis of real‐world data, using the newly available Mass Mobilization in Autocracies Database (MMAD).