UEF//eRepository
DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
2020
Nordic Cooperation
Laine, Jussi
Peter Lang B
Artikkelit tieteellisissä kokoomateoksissa
© Peter Lang AG 2020. This is a Accepted Manuscript that has been published in Critical Dictionary on Borders, Cross-Border Cooperation and European Integration edited by Birte Wassenberg and Bernard Reitel in the series Border Studies. The original work can be found at: https://doi.org/10.3726/b15774
All rights reserved
http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/b15774
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/24217
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
Laine, J. (2020). Nordic cooperation. In: B. Wassenberg & B. Reitel (eds). Critical Dictionary on Cross Border Cooperation in Europe, 615-625. Peter Lang, Brussels.
Nordic cooperation
The Nordic countries, or the Nordic, is a collective term used for five countries in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic, consisting of the sovereign states of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, including their associated territories of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both autonomous regions within the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland.
Politically, Nordic countries do not form a separate entity, but the existence of the region is based on extensive forms of regional cooperation. The five countries are commonly grouped together as family of democratic, welfare-capitalist countries, which in addition to geographical proximity have much in common historically, culturally and economically. Religion is also seen to provide another essential similarity; the Nordic countries all are Protestant nations, with Lutheranism being most important religion. Most notably, they share the so-called Nordic model of economy and social structure whereby the market economy is combined with strong labour unions and a universalist welfare sector financed by heavy taxes. However, although the concept of a Nordic is primarily used to underline the similarities between the five countries, there has been historical intra-Nordic variations and substantial differences exist also today. Each of the Nordic countries is politically independent and has its own economic and social models, while the security policy traditions, multilateral ties, and economic orientations of the Nordic countries differ considerably. Although the area is linguistically heterogeneous, the common linguistic heritage is often put forward as a factor in making-up the Nordic identity. The Nordic region is often inaccurately used as a synonym for the narrower concept of Scandinavia, which is somewhat ambiguously used to refer to the cultural and linguistic group formed by the monarchies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, or geologically to the Scandinavian peninsula, which generally comprises the mainland of Sweden, most of Norway, the northwesternmost part of Finland, as well as a narrow area in the west of the Pechengsky District of the Russian Federation.
Among the Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland (including Åland) and Sweden are members of the European Union (EU), while Iceland and Norway are members of EEA (European Economic Area).
The Faroe Islands and Greenland are not members of either of the organisations. Out of the Nordic countries, Finland is the only one that uses Euro as its official currency. As a geographical space, the Nordic region is diverse. From a temperate climate in the south to polar climate in the north, with everything from metropolitan urban regions, to very remote and sparsely populated rural regions. It covers the combined area of 3,425,804 km2, yet approximately half of the area is covered by uninhabitable glaciers, mostly in Greenland, or other marginal areas. The total population of the region has increased to over 27 million, yet the region still remains characterised by one of the lowest population densities in the world (7.62/km2). In all of the Nordic countries, a significant share of the population has concentrated in and around of the respective capital cities. The countries cluster near the top in numerous metrics of national performance, including education, economic competitiveness, civil liberties, quality of life, and human development. The population of the region is predominantly Scandinavian or Finnish, with Greenlandic Inuit and the Sami people as indigenous minorities. While most Nordic languages belong to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, the Finnish and Sami are part of the Finno-Ugric languages and Greenlandic belongs to the Inuit branch of the Eskimo-Aleut languages
The Nordic Region has a history that extends more than a millennium back in time, yet that is also a history full of struggles and wars. The loosely united Norwegian Realm around and after the turn of first millennium included the territory of modern-day Norway and parts of Sweden, and at its peak took control of the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland, interacting also closely with the Viking kings of Sweden and Denmark. During the Middle Ages, the position pf the Nordic region as a cultural, economic, and political entity was established. In 1397, the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden merged together under a single monarch to form the Kalmar Union (until 1523). The union also comprised the old Norwegian overseas settlements of the Shetlands, the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland, as well as Åland and the coastal areas of contemporary Finland, which were under Swedish rule during the era. Throughout the history, the internal borders of the region have altered several times. Sweden and Denmark–Norway became separate monarchies with the disintegration of the Kalmar Union in 1523. The area that we currently define as Nordic did not however crystalize until much later.
The current national border between Denmark and Sweden dates to 1658. Prior to that the historic provinces of Scania, Blekinge and Bohuslän belonged to Denmark, so that the Denmark–Sweden border ran across what is now southern Sweden. The changes in the border between Denmark–
Norway and Sweden were defined in the Treaties of Brömsebro (1645), Roskilde (1658) and Copenhagen (1660). The border was largely unmarked and merely based on local knowledge until the Treaty of Strömstad (1751) after which border cairns were erected between Norway and Sweden including Finland (i.e., the modern Norway-Finland border). The Finland–Sweden border was created in 1809 by the Treaty of Fredrikshamn, as Sweden ceded Finland over to Russia, until 1917 when Finland become an independent state. The modern Norway–Sweden border remained the border between Denmark–Norway and Sweden until the breakup of Denmark and Norway in 1814. After the Treaty of Kiel and the Convention of Moss (1814) the union between Sweden and Norway was established, and the Norway–Sweden border became a border between two union partners. The modern Denmark–Sweden border then became the border between Denmark and the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway until Norway achieved independence in 1905.
In essence, rather than an historical one, the idea of the Nordic is a modern creation. In the late 18th century, thinkers and writers sought to liberate themselves from the Latin culture by formulating new national ideals and values. The conflicts and wars of the past between the Nordic countries were deliberately discarded to make space for the idea of common Nordic culture based on which the national identities of the Nordic countries could be constructed. The common language family, with the exception of Finnish, the Protestant religion and common judicial system, Viking history, pre- Christian mythology and joint (although disputed) territories were combined to craft the basis for a common Nordic identity. This became evident in expressions the literary Nordism as well as in the Scandinavianism, which attempted foster Nordic unity and to transform former enemies into allies to defend against external threats. Certainly, different political and cultural contexts, and the radically differing Nordic experiences during the Second World War, as well as the Cold War and post-1989 phases, have provided different settings for articulating ideas of a shared Nordic identity.
The actual terms of ‘Norden’ and ‘the Nordic countries’ were coined in the interwar period, after Finland and Iceland gained independence and began to replace the term ‘Scandinavia’ as reference to the Northern countries of Europe. Lacking a strong central power that would have hold the Nordic countries together, the region evolved in into a system of small homogeneous states. A more official commencement of the Nordic cooperation stems from the establishment of the Nordic Council (NC) in 1952. It was created as a geopolitical inter-parliamentary forum to promote cooperation between the five Nordic countries and to bring the countries closer together culturally, economically, and politically as compensation for the lack of a political security arrangement. The Council does not
have any sovereign powers; it can only make recommendation for member states to act. It is nevertheless a unique body, with all the Nordic prime ministers being a part of the assembly, and thus and not without impact. Its first concrete results were the introduction of a common labour market in 1954, a Nordic Convention on Social Security in 1955, and the passport-free travel area (for the countries' citizens) in 1958. These measures contributed considerably to closer ties between the Nordic countries. The goal of ‘making the Nordic border invisible’, as it was described by a joint Nordic Parliamentary Committee for Freer Communications in 1951, resulted from a combination of political, economic and ideological considerations, reflecting a strong a political will to make the common Nordic space into a reality. As a result of the Nordic Passport Union, passport checks at the border were removed, yet, custom checks remained in force. As the earlier plans for a Nordic customs union have not materialised, the Nordic citizens are able to travel without showing their passports within the Nordic space, but must present all taxable goods at customs.
The Helsinki Agreement of 1962 forms the official framework for Nordic cooperation and sets out the actual objectives of cooperation and how it is organised. By this Treaty, Nordic states commit themselves to close cooperation on legal, cultural, and socio-economic issues as well as in the field of physical infrastructure and environmental regulations. The original text has been amended several times over the years. Much of the harmonisation between the Nordic countries was pragmatically motivated and resulted from informal contacts between decision-makers. Joint cooperation projects were supported by the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) and Nordic cultural activities by the Nordic Culture Fund. Cooperation in the economic area have, however, been more limited. During the late 1960s the Nordic states endeavoured to strengthen economic collaboration by means of a plan for the Nordic economic cooperation NORDEK, which soon failed to materialise as the economic policies the individual Nordic countries pulled in various directions. The formal and informal political ties in turn intensified Nordic unity and increased cooperation created a relatively unified Nordic area with coherent political solutions, acting on the foreign policy sphere often as a bloc and divided work and duties between themselves. The Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), an intergovernmental forum, was established to complement the Council in 1971. The Council makes recommendations to the Nordic governments and Council of Ministers, who in turn report back on the measures that have been taken in the light of recommendations at annual sessions. In the same year, the agreement concerning cultural co-operation was also signed with the objective to enhance and intensify co- operation in education, research and other cultural activities, and ensure that the countries work together to develop the Nordic cultural community. The Nordic Language Convention was signed in 1987 with an aim to ensure that Nordic citizens, in certain contexts, are able to communicate in their own languages with official bodies in other Nordic countries.
Cross-border cooperation (CBC) forms an important part of Nordic cooperation, but the cooperative frame extends wider and deeper to the Nordic societies. Close historical ties between the Nordic countries, their socio-cultural similarities, and the general parallels of social and economic development, even if with divergent paces, have ensured that a solid ground exists for close cooperation between many levels of society. In 1977, the Nordic Agreement between Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway on CBC between municipalities was concluded. It postulated that cooperation between municipalities across national borders should be pursued to the same extent and in the same way as between municipalities within one country, and that each contracting party should proceed with necessary changes to their national legislation in order to enable such cooperation. The regional bodies were authorized to conclude international agreements, according to their specific powers, albeit under the supervision of national authorities. In addition to the cooperation with the region, the Nordic countries have developed, particularly during the 1990s, closer relations also with the Baltic countries, Russia, and other countries in the Baltic Sea region as well as international organisations in neighbouring regions. Finland, which has had close yet not always warm relations
with the Soviet Union, led the expansion of co-operation, particularly with north-western Russia. The goal of international cooperation is to ensure stability throughout the region by preventing environmental disasters, improving maritime safety and preventing the spread of crime and contagious diseases.
As a consequence of the end of the east-west conflict and the changing international environment, the governments of the Nordic countries initiated revisions to their cooperation policy. Particularly following the accession of Sweden and Finland to the EU in 1995, the added value of Nordic cooperation had to be redefined in relation to European integration. On the other hand, it was agreed that cooperation with the Baltic states and Russia must be of a different character than the traditional Nordic cooperation. Consequently, Nordic cooperation became restructured on the basis of three pillars: the continuation of traditional inter-Nordic cooperation, cooperation with neighbouring regions (Baltic states and north-west Russia) and relations with the EU and Europe in a broader sense.
The NC thus abandoned its previous committee structure based on particular fields (e.g., environment, culture, etc.) and instead founded three committees in accordance with these geographically oriented pillars. However, as the new committee were unable to operate effectively due to having too many different topics under their jurisdiction, the parliamentary organization returned to its original committee structure in 2001.The intergovernmental NCM in turn initiated an annually rotating Council Presidency among member countries, established information offices in the Baltic state capitals and in St. Petersburg, and reduced the number of official committees operating under its umbrella. Furthermore, structures were also created to better coordinate the Nordic countries EU policies, yet they were soon abandoned for not functioning effectively.
Despite its’ at times ‘official’ nature, much of the cooperation is focused on the people-to-people level with the underlying objective to facilitate the free movement of citizens, enterprises, goods and capital between the Nordic countries and abolish border formalities to encourage cross-border cooperation. To promote mobility, the Nordic Council has set up various scholarships and exchange programmes and sought to harmonise the social welfare and educational systems of the Nordic countries to make it easier for people to move from one country to another. Despite increased migration from and to countries beyond the Nordic Region, together with the challenges it has brought to the adaptability of Nordic labour market institutions, intra-Nordic migration remains a significant part overall migration flows, and thus, plays an important role in maintaining the coherence of the Nordic Region. Denmark and Norway have net Nordic immigration, whereas Finland, Iceland, and Sweden have net emigration. Traditional areas of Nordic cooperation such as culture, education, and research, have more recently been joined by consumer matters, the environment, and cooperation with neighbouring countries and regions. The Nordic Council of Ministers' activities are financed by the five Nordic countries, the contribution of each is determined by a distribution plan which indicates that country’s share of the collective gross national product.
The NCM is member of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) with observer status and is represented in the AEBR Executive Committee. As a part of its regional policy, the MR-NER supports and funds a number of institutions, such as Nordic Project Fund and Nordregio as well as various cross-border committees and regions. The cross-border regions have grown out of local and regional initiatives and some of the cross-border cooperation committees (CBCCs) have been active since early 1960s. These regions are geographically delimited by their member institutions, consisting of subnational government organisations, such as municipalities, counties, local authority associations or other organisations that deal with regional development, in neighbouring countries.
When the Interreg initiative was introduced in the Nordic Region in 1995, as Sweden and Finland joined the EU, additional funding became available for cross-border and transnational cooperation, strengthening the Nordic CBCCs. The regional cross-border structures in the Nordic region have
considerable similarities with the Euroregions, in terms of their identity, capacity, and multi-purpose nature. In fact, the experience brought into the EU from the pre-accession cooperation in the Nordic countries can be seen to have influence on the formation of the Euroregions and their cross-border institutional arrangements.
Nordic cooperation seeks to safeguard Nordic and regional interests domestically but also in the boarder European and global community. On the other hand, the European transnational and cross- border cooperation policies have had an important impact on cooperation and networking across borders in the Nordic countries. Developments in the EU have affected the Nordic cooperation, much of which today has an EU dimension. The Nordic Council in turn brings an important the regional Nordic dimension to bear in the EU. The EU decision-making and orientation is naturally different from that of much more homogeneous Nordic community. In EU matters, the NC mainly acts through its representative members of parliament of a particular Nordic country or it may participate as an independent actor in general consultations organised by the European Commission. In the European Parliament, politics is based on party groups, whereby there is no recognised role for regional perspectives. This is to say that that regional parliaments have no recognised status in the EU’s activities and decision-making in the same way as member state parliaments have. From the EU’s point of view regional parliaments operate outside of the decision-making process, being practically on a par with all the lobbying organisations. In order to get its voice better heard in the EU, the Nordic Council published its first ever EU strategy in 2009 and has since then sought to forge closer contacts with the EU institutions and MEPs. The Helsinki Treaty, which forms the basis of Nordic cooperation, remains however to be amended in this respect. However, in practice Nordic-EU cooperation is far from self-evident, as in some cases, general EU attitudes and specific positions differ considerably, even among the three Nordic EU member states. Despite the often ambiguous rhetoric, the discussions on Nordic EU cooperation have remained rather abstract and the NCM’s desires for a more concrete implementation of EU cooperation has encountered scepticism, if not actual resistance, from individual governments.
To make matters more effective, the NCM initiated new reforms were launched in 2014. The ministers for Nordic cooperation presented their visions of future cooperation built on the idea that given that the Nordic region has decades of positive experience in facing the various challenges together, the countries are stronger together, and the region needs to prepare for the future through closely co-ordinated cooperation. It was also decided that the traditional inward-looking ambitions of a borderless Nordic Region (especially in terms of further removing border obstacles such as different taxation, etc.) and an innovative Nordic Region remain as goal worth aiming at. A complementary objective focuses attention outside the area in seeking to make the Nordic Region more visible and to intensify Nordic cooperation in regards to global issues and within international organizations.
Based on these visions, the NCM seeks to modernize Nordic cooperation in order to make it more effective and strengthen its political relevance. The catalogue of reforms, adopted by the ministers for Nordic cooperation, covers four areas: ministerial cooperation, the Secretariat to the Nordic Council of Ministers, budgeting, and project level. The reform agenda identifies also a more systematic dialogue on international and EU policy issues as a significant field of cooperation. The reform process has brought about many changes to the way the NCM operates, given more prominent role for the heads of government in formal cooperation, fuelled informal meetings, but the modernization agenda has been expanded to cover also cooperation with business and civil society.
Looking back, Nordic social and political cooperation has achieved a lot. It has strong traditions in politics, the economy, and culture, and the Nordic countries have been pioneers on many forms of cooperation achieving results that the EU has yet to reach. However, many assessments of the Nordic
model are discussed, to a certain extent, ‘nostalgically’ rather than as an effective cooperative structure of today. Seeking to find relevance in the midst of globalised capitalism, Europeanisation and national competition strategies, its status has become threatened and there is no denying that the golden era of Nordic cooperation is long gone. Ideas of reviving the Nordic cooperation have had hard time, as perhaps most notably showcased by the reintroduction of border controls at the inner- Nordic borders in 2016, which contrasted the 2014 vision of a borderless Nordic Region quite sharply.
More broadly speaking, it seems fair to asses that the tensions and open differences of opinion between the Nordic countries have hampered cooperation within the joint organizations and thus the entire political significance of the institutionalized Nordic cooperation.
The contemporary European reality — in particular the witnessed great irregular migration influx and the subsequent reintroduction of temporary border controls — has been detrimental to the crown jewel of Nordic cooperation, the Nordic passport-union, which many have held self-evident for decades. Five decades after the initial agreement on a passport-free Nordic area, the accession of the Nordic countries into the Schengen Zone brought tension between free mobility and local protectionism at the surface. As members of the Schengen Zone the Nordic countries become connected with a much broader passport-free area. The resulting increases in migration flows put Nordic unity to the test, and urged the individual countries to refine their agendas particularly in terms of immigration, the policies of which had previously been rather varied between the individual Nordic countries. Today, the Schengen Zone and the Nordic passport union to co-exist in a rather a complex relationship, challenging much of the original ideas of the Nordic co-operation on mobility issues.
Despite the credibility problem for Nordic cooperation and the apparent challenges the region faces, the Nordic countries still grace the top of many global rankings, the Nordic region’s ability to sustain its characteristic welfare systems, competitive economies, as well as social and co-operation model is profiled strongly throughout the world. However, while the positive reputation is taken with pride and celebrated throughout the Nordic region, it is increasingly done as a part of national branding strategies by particular Nordic governments, whereas the former emphasis on transnationality and cooperation that used to be an integral part of the ‘Nordic’ is predominantly left out. It is telling that, for example the 2015 report of the possible future of the Nordic model, commissioned by SAMAK (Joint Committee of the Nordic Social Democratic Labour Movement), did not even mention Nordic cooperation.
While the Nordic region is facing many challenges, internally and externally, the prospects for the future are not, however, all dim. There has been a rather consistent effort in dismantling the remaining cross-border barriers and making the Nordic region a single area where the individual Nordic citizen can move about easily, study, work and settle in across borders freely without losing benefits earned or without double taxation. While there have been plans to make restrictions to these benefits, it has also become apparent for there are many who hold these rights dear. One avenue to gain more relevance has been to assume more outward looking approach for the new Nordic by extending its reach to European and international fora. The Nordic Council has become more active in Brussels so as to give Nordic cooperation more visibility and influence in European debate. In addition to deciding how to position themselves on the future of the EU, for example regarding the Brexit negotiations, Nordic countries must also rebalance their geostrategic and security policy relationship with the neighbouring Russia.
On the other hand, with the recent European crisis and the related Euroscepticism, the effects of which have been felt strongly by the Nordic members of the EU Union, Nordic cooperation has returned onto both the political and public agenda. The Eurosceptic movements in the Nordic region have long argued for the Nordic Model as an alternative to European integration along the EU model. The debate
has, however, gotten new impetus form the recent critical external developments, tackling of which seem like a daunting task for any individual country. The Nordic cooperation as an intergovernmental model, preceding the EU and its ideas of free movement, is seen as an alternative to EU integration that would allow the persistence of borders as administrative regulators, yet keeping them open for integration and interaction to flourish.
Jussi Laine Associate Professor University of Eastern Finland Bibliography
GRUNFELDER, J., RISPLING, L., NORLÉN, G. (eds.), “State of the Nordic Region”, Nordregio Magazine, Vol. 2016, Issue 1, 2016.
STRANG, J. (ed.), Nordic Cooperation: A European region in transition, Routledge, London, 2016.
ENGELSTAD, F., HAGELUND, A. (ed.), Cooperation and Conflict the Nordic Way. Work, Welfare, and Institutional Change in Scandinavia, Sciendo Migration, Berlin, 2016.
HÖRNSTRÖM, L., BERLINA, A., “Added Value of Cross-Border Cooperation: Experience from the Nordic Context”, European Structural & Investment Funds Journal, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 2017, p. 178- 186.
BALDERSHEIM, H., STÅHLBERG, K. (ed.), Nordic Region-Building in a European Perspective, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1999.
KNUTSEN O., (ed.), The Nordic Models in Political Science : Challenged, but Still Viable?, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, 2017, p. 249-272.
OPITZ, C., ETZOLD, T., ”Seeking Renewed Relevance, Institutions of Nordic Cooperation in the Reform Process”, SWP Comment, Issue 3, 2018.
