Abstract
The Nordic saga of national election studies is not ancient, but some of the countries do have impressive time series data starting in the 1950s. Still, The Nordic Voter: Myths of Exceptionalism, the joint effort of five Nordic researchers, is the first book-length study of comparative election behaviour based on the Nordic region of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. In the introductory chapter, the team of researchers states their quest for the Nordic voter at two levels. At the first level, they argue that the common description of the Nordic countries, to be not only exceptional from other advanced democracies but also remarkably similar to each other, is an over-simplification. Therefore, they want to investigate the similarities between the Nordic voters and their political systems, and if electoral behaviour in the Nordic countries is deviating or is similar to other countries. At the second level, the authors want to focus on “the decline of the party-in-the-electorate” and the challenge from a more individualistic electorate, and ask: to what degree is the change among the Nordic voters similar to a general trend in other advanced democracies?
Even if the authors emphasize increasing differences between the Nordic countries, they base their comparisons, mainly using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, on a ‘most-similar systems’ design. The comparison of the Nordic voter is carried out in eight empirical chapters, which compare: the political systems, the party systems, democratic attitudes, party identification, preferential voting, election campaigns, left-right blocs, and party choice.
This is an important and well-written contribution from Bengtsson et al. concerning voter behaviour in general, and especially regarding Nordic voting behaviour. According to this study, Nordic exceptionalism is, to a large extent, a story of the past. Their main conclusion is that the Nordic countries are not exceptional on most investigated factors: one Nordic country is not interchangeable with every other country in the region. The variation within the Nordic region is often greater than the variation between a Nordic country and some other country outside the region. Indeed, the decline of the party-in-the-electorate is a general trend among Nordic voters, but this is also a general international trend and not an exception from non-Nordic representative democracies.
Bengtsson et al. stress that the Nordic party systems of today are rather different from each other, especially concerning the existence of green or populist right parties. The presence – or absence – of such parties in the Nordic party systems seems to affect other parties and what voters they attract. The research team also underlines that the Nordic proportional electoral systems are quite different regarding the possibility of preferential voting. However, one Nordic exceptional trait is found by the research team: the well-being of democracy. Still, they only find that the Scandinavian (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) voters show exceptional political participation and trust in political institutions, while Finnish and Icelandic voters have less voter turnout and trust, respectively. Over time, the authors argue, institutions tend to diverge between the Nordic countries, even the comprehensive social welfare state. To some extent, Nordic voters are united in similar trends of voting behavior, not as exceptions but as the general trend among advanced democracies. For example, the explanatory power of the social cleavage model has faded and the authors describe an increasing individualization of the Nordic electorate. The study also reports that the left-right continuum has a strong hold on the way Nordic voters think about party politics. Yet, even if the trends are similar, their impact in the individual Nordic countries is different, which, in turn, results in greater dissimilarities between the Nordic electorates than before.
The research team mentions the increased differences between the Nordic countries as one reason why they find significant deviations between Nordic voters at the micro level. For example, the study reports that election campaigns are more effective (that is, parties interact more with voters) in Denmark, Finland, and Iceland than in Norway and Sweden. As a result, in the first three countries parties are able to reassure voters not to change their vote between elections. This effect is lower in Norway and Sweden, resulting in greater voter volatility among those who decide what party to vote for late during the election campaign. The study contains several details that the student of politics will find interesting, more than it is possible to mention in the space given to this review.
Still, sometimes the authors would have benefited from more nuanced conclusions. I will give two examples. The authors stress the differences in preferential voting among the Nordic countries. However, the proportional electoral system must be regarded as a much more important similarity than the different rules about preference voting. Changes that increase the similarities between the Nordic countries are also important to highlight: when Finland abandoned the semi-presidential system in favor of parliamentarianism, the country became more similar to the other political systems in the Nordic region.
In some limited parts, the study reminds me of the story of the man who had lost his keys on a dark night and was looking for them under a lamppost. A passerby wanted to help and asked if it was here that the man had lost his keys. “No”, replied the man, “it was there in the dark, but I can’t look there because it’s too dark so I can’t see”. Relating this story to the study of Nordic voters, it would have been beneficial for this book if the authors had discussed how the lack of important variables (for example, voters’ religiosity, evaluations of party leaders, party consideration sets, and psychological attachment to the actual political blocs) affected the study. However, these are minor objections. This book increases our understanding about the Nordic voter and is a valuable contribution to the study of voting behavior.