3.1 Introduction

The main purpose of this chapter is to discuss the notion of a Nordic model of local government in relation to the position of the municipal chief executive officer (MCEO). The chapter begins with the context in which the Nordic local government model is situated, with a special focus on gender and gender equality as a special condition of the Nordic context. The following sections focus on four key areas of interest: decentralization, fiscal capacity, autonomy, and horizontal power relations. The first area deals with institutional arrangements relating to the distribution of power and tasks between the state and local authorities. This area concentrates on central–local relationships in the Nordic context. The second area to be explored is the concept of capacity, which concentrates on the ability of local authorities to get things done, measured in fiscal indicators. Using the concept of autonomy, we examine local authorities in relation to the arrangement of local needs. The fourth area, that of horizontal power relations, explores the institutional arrangements of how local authority is divided between the elected council on one hand and the executive office on the other. The horizontal power division concerning the MCEO is also discussed. In the final section, the findings concerning the four key areas are summarized, and the Nordic local government model emerging from the common characteristics of the five Nordic countries is discussed, including some of the nuances captured in the differences. The model is viewed as a boundary condition for the MCEO as a leading actor within the Nordic municipal organization. The chapter makes use of both within- and cross-case analyses to explore individual differences between the Nordic countries and compares clusters of countries concerning the institutional arrangements of local government. The chapter serves as an opening contextual undertaking for the five country chapters in this volume. In sum, we aim to answer the following question: What is the relevance of the Nordic model of local government for the position of MCEO?

3.2 The Nordic Local Government Context

The Nordic countries share many characteristics in a multitude of areas: geopolitics, traditions, religion, and to a large extent history, identity, and culture (Meinander, 2021). They have also been democracies for a long period of time (Denk et al., 2015). Studies based on solid composite indicators, such as trust in government (OECD, 2023), financial equality (Petersen, 2019), political gender equality (Rauum, 2005), cultural values (Inglehart et al., 2022), and local autonomy (Ladner et al., 2019), tend to highlight the commonalities among the Nordic countries on one hand and the differences between the Nordics and the rest of Europe on the other. They all build on a far-reaching welfare state, generally characterized by high legitimacy among citizens. The local government level is important for the delivery of welfare services, which means that local government actors also have the potential to be highly influential. In terms of a broad understanding of how the Nordic local government model is performed and implemented in daily municipal life, there are two dimensions of importance: gender equality and political culture.

Gender equality issues are often described as an integral dimension of Nordic models (Teigen & Skeije, 2017). There are a number of ways of formulating the concept. For example, Kantola (2021, p. 212) states that gender equality is an important part of the Nordic model and that it ‘has indeed become both a central component of the countries’ national identities and even an export item’. However, Kantola also articulates that there remain inequalities between the sexes, such as a segregated labour market, pay gaps, and violence against women (see also Åseskog, 2018). In relation to the local level, Nordic municipalities are not only an important labour market for women but also a significant enabler for women in the labour market, since daycare for children is typically a municipal responsibility. Gender equality in the Nordic countries is, therefore, both an input and an output factor in the municipal organization.

In the 2020 edition of the European Institute of Gender Equality’s (EIGE) Index, comparisons between EU countries showed that the three Nordic member states all scored very high, with Sweden and Denmark in first and second places and Finland in fourth behind France. The index measures gender equality by means of 31 indicators in 8 domains: work, money, knowledge, time, power, health, violence against women, and intersecting inequalities (Papadimitriou et al., 2020).

The Global Gender Gap Index from 2021 showed similar findings, with the Nordic states at the top and Iceland holding first place, followed by Finland and Norway. Sweden was in fifth place, while Denmark held 29th place (World Economic Forum, 2021). Although these indices do not use exactly the same indicators, they are fairly consistent and usually show the same group of countries in top 10 places. However, the index shows that Denmark dropped from 8th place in 2006 to 29th place in 2021. A thorough discussion of this deviation is beyond the scope of this chapter, but in relation to local government, the index reveals that compared to the other Nordic states, Denmark scored much lower on the indicator of political empowerment (32nd place). Teigen and Skeije (2017), who discussed the EIGE’s Gender Equality Index from 2012, pointed out that although there are many similarities between the Nordic EU members, there are also some important differences when it comes to power. They also added Iceland and Norway to their Nordic model, and based on their measurements, they concluded that this had no effect on the general similarities between the Nordic countries. Other studies have pointed out that the development of gender and political empowerment seems to have stalled in Denmark (Kjaer & Kosiara-Pedersen, 2019). The proportion of female councillors has remained around 30% since before the turn of the century compared to the continuous advancement in the other Nordic states. For example, female councillors made up 47% of the total in Iceland following the local election in 2018 and 43% in Sweden.

Another interesting contextual factor is political culture: the relationship between citizens and political life. Denk et al. (2015) developed the pivotal work of Almond and Verba (1963) concerning political culture as the composition of citizens’ attitudes towards the political system and their willingness to support and participate in politics. Their investigation of 25 European countries revealed high scores on citizens’ orientation towards an active political role and a positive orientation towards the political system in the Nordic countries, which implies a political culture consisting primarily of civic citizens. The second most common type is the stealth citizen who is also positive towards the political system but takes a more passive role in political life. Only Cyprus, the Netherlands, and Switzerland had similar features. Denk et al. (2015) portrayed the Nordic countries, Cyprus, the Netherlands, and Switzerland as old and stable democracies. Iceland was not included in the study; however, similar studies (Dalton & Shin, 2014; Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007) have revealed that it shares common features with the other Nordic countries.

The Nordic countries share fundamental contextual characteristics, even if there are some differences. We claim that the characteristics concerning gender equality and political culture are important for the emergence and performance of the Nordic local government model. Political culture presupposes and allows citizens to both participate and have confidence in their political institutions. In the Nordic countries, which built their extensive welfare services largely at the local level, the municipality has a major impact on citizens’ lives. However, citizens also have a major impact on municipalities. The common view of the importance of gender equality also involves municipal dynamics whereby women both participate in municipal decision-making and receive services that facilitate their presence in the labour market. With this in mind, we now turn to the discussion on the characteristics of local government in the Nordic countries.

3.2.1 Decentralization

One of the key concepts in any discussion of the Nordic local government model is decentralization. Decentralization is arguably a multi-dimensional concept (Filippetti & Sacchi, 2015); therefore, it is possible to explore levels of decentralization through political, administrative, or fiscal lenses (Ryan & Woods, 2016). This section will concentrate on the first two aspects of decentralization, while the next section will discuss fiscal decentralization through the concept of capacity.

According to Kuhlmann and Wollmann (2014), the Nordic model (they refer to it as the Scandinavian model) is centred on decentralization, as local authorities are generally viewed as politically and functionally strong, with a high degree of local autonomy. A traditional way to separate different types of local government systems is to concentrate on central–local relations. Two classical typologies created by Page and Goldsmith (1987) and Hesse and Sharpe (1991) laid the groundwork for this approach. Swianiewicz (2014) argues that local government research continues to draw heavily from these classical typologies, including more recent typologies such as those of John (2001) and Loughlin et al. (2011). Although these typologies make use of different indicators, the Nordic states all fall into the same group in each typology. This could be interpreted as the Nordic states simply being very similar and that their internal differences may not warrant assigning them to different categories. However, authors such as Swianiewicz (2014) have argued that the classical typologies and their direct descendants are in many ways outdated, since they cover neither the development of governance systems (as opposed to systems of government) nor the large number of Eastern and Middle European countries included in the classical typologies.

The modern systems of Nordic local government all trace their origin back to the nineteenth century. These early versions of Nordic local government were very much designed in the classical notion of municipalities as small communities based on participatory opportunities for local citizens on local issues, mainly to achieve effective and efficient decision-making on local issues (Mill, 1865). Moreover, the state or national governments were generally much less intrusive in the everyday lives of local citizens, as the notion of the welfare state had yet to be invented. Thus, local government was highly autonomous within its boundaries and was seen as separate, special, and detached from other levels of government (Kjellberg, 1985). The rise of the welfare state in the aftermath of the Second World War changed this traditional idea of the purpose of local government, and scholars and practitioners began questioning the idea of the local community, emphasizing democracy and local autonomy (Sharpe, 1970). Thus, reforms aimed at decentralizing welfare tasks down to the local levels of government stressed the notion of subsidiarity, as localness was seen as more effective and efficient in providing services. At the same time, however, this approach views local government as a crucial part of the state, whose purpose is first and foremost to implement national policies (Kjellberg, 1985). This is a key argument for assigning the Nordic states a special Nordic model, as they emphasize the separateness between state and local authorities. In a similar manner, Kuhlmann and Wollmann (2014) argue that it is possible to separate different types of local government systems based on the level of separation and fusion of central and local relationships. Thus, in the Nordic systems, there is a strong tradition of separation, and once tasks are assigned to the local level, they become ‘local’ tasks.

A closer examination of history reveals variations in the development of the basic Nordic model of local government. Sellers and Lidström (2007) show that the devolution of welfare state responsibilities to local governments took place under different circumstances in the Nordic countries. Even before statutory welfare services came to dominate local government activities, in the 1930s, local governments in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden accounted for a larger share of the public economy than in comparable countries, which means that the respective parliaments entrusted new responsibilities for social care and education to local governments with relatively high capabilities. In Finland, the growth in local responsibilities began later, after WWII, and from a lower level of local capacity, but ever since, it has followed the same trajectory as in Scandinavia. In Iceland, local government did not become an active partner in welfare service provision until the 1990s. Since then, local government responsibilities in Iceland have become similar to those in the other Nordic states. However, they still have fewer tasks.

3.2.2 Fiscal Capacity

Although there is a general trend towards decentralization in Europe, the Nordic states have gone very far when it comes to decentralizing tasks and decision-making powers onto the local level. This is especially evident in relation to fiscal decentralization in OECD data on public spending among sub-national governments (SNGs), as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Public spending in the Nordic states in international comparison
Full size table

The figures reveal that Denmark and Sweden are the most fiscally decentralized countries, while Iceland is the least decentralized of all the Nordic countries in terms of the SNGs’ share of total expenditure (percentage of GDP), total government expenditure, and staff expenditure. Importantly, however, Iceland has not decentralized health care onto the sub-national level, in contrast to the other Nordic states. Sweden, Finland, and Denmark also score above average on all indicators compared to the EU28, similar to the average for OECD federal and unitary states. However, Norway and Iceland have lower scores. In terms of the discussion around fiscal decentralization in Norway, an important point is that Norway has a very high GDP due to, amongst other things, a considerable oil industry, which means that even a lower share of GDP represents considerable fiscal means. Concerning Iceland, previous research has demonstrated that in small states below 1,000,000 inhabitants, SNGs have less fiscal capacity than larger states (Hlynsdóttir, 2020). Thus, although local authorities seem to have less fiscal capacity than their counterparts in other Nordic states, they are still strong and capable in comparison to other small states, such as Latvia and Slovenia. In summary, all the Nordic countries have—with some variation—considerable financial muscle compared to many other countries, which makes them strong in relation to the state level.

3.2.3 Local Autonomy

There are a number of ways to discuss the concept of local autonomy. According to Ladner and Keuffer (2021, p. 211), local autonomy ‘is probably one of the most fundamental features of local government’ and is as central as it is complex to determine. They argue that the concept of local autonomy captures the difference between the ability of the local level to independently determine needs and implementation and only being able to implement what is decided at the central level. Thus, local autonomy includes more than formal decentralization, since a high level of functional devolution will not automatically materialize in a high level of autonomy. Several scholars have pointed out that a high level of decentralization may also lead to high levels of regulation on behalf of the central government (Goldsmith & Larsen, 2004). Thus, decentralization may be counterproductive in relation to local autonomy, as it increases the state’s interference in local affairs.

As pointed out earlier, it is possible to view decentralization from three points of departure: political decentralization, as in popularly elected local government, levels of decentralization of public administration, and fiscal decentralization (Ryan & Woods, 2016). Ladner et al. (2019) argue that to many state governments, local autonomy has become a normative goal in and of itself, as a ‘policy space for local democracy’ (p. 11). In a more practical sense, it may be argued that local autonomy is the capability of local authorities to make decisions about local issues on one hand and implement these decisions on the other (Goldsmith, 1995). Thus, it involves the discretionary powers of local authorities over the organization of the administration and the implementation of local administration tasks as well as the level of autonomy in relation to fiscal organization.

The overall picture of the development of SNGs in Europe since 2000 is one of fragmentation. On one hand, EU expansion and the deepening integration have resulted in convergence around local autonomy (Ladner et al., 2019). On the other hand, there are increasing variations in the division of labour between levels of government, as countries facing the need to reform their local and regional government tend to embark on individual trajectories (see, e.g., Bertrana et al., 2016). Consequently, autonomy is a highly value-laden and elusive concept. However, Ladner et al. (2019) attempted to measure levels of local government autonomy in Europe and identified nine types of local autonomy based on two dimensions, the first describing the degree of political discretion, the second the degree of financial autonomy. Political discretion combines a number of indicators describing the formal autonomy and task scope of local government in each country, whereas financial autonomy sums up variables describing the degree of local discretion in taxation, spending, and borrowing. Combining the two dimensions depicts the degree of local democratic space in each country.

Their findings confirmed the notion of the Nordic states as highly autonomous in nature, as they all scored very high (73.9–79.4) on the index. However, the index does not demonstrate the finer nuances in the levels of internal decentralization; for example, it shows that Iceland ranked third after Switzerland and Finland (p. 240). Throughout the period under study (1990–2014), all five Nordic countries scored high on both political discretion and financial autonomy (see also Ladner & Keuffer, 2021). Together with Germany and Luxembourg, the Nordic countries represent a model of local autonomy based on partnership between central and local government. The partnership model implies that local authorities bear responsibility for a wide range of statutory services, while central–local relations build on mutual trust rather than supervision (Ladner et al., 2019). Their findings confirm earlier conclusions concerning the importance of local government in the Nordic welfare state (Sellers & Lidström, 2007).

Nevertheless, there are some fine-tuned differences between the Nordic states (Ladner & Keuffer, 2021). For example, Icelandic local authorities enjoy considerably higher levels of fiscal autonomy than Norwegian local authorities (Baldersheim et al., 2019). In health care and social services, the division of labour among the local, regional, and national levels varies among the countries. Danish local authorities have greater responsibility for social insurance issues than other local authorities in the rest of the Nordic countries. Conversely, Finnish local authorities, until the major healthcare reform of 2023, had broader responsibility for both primary and specialized health care than any other Nordic country. Nevertheless, as a group, Nordic local governments play a decisive role in the provision of welfare services and the organization of local infrastructure; thus, they are known for their administrative capacity. This is also reflected in the organization of political and administrative leadership, as administrative leaders in the role of council or city managers all play a vital role in the daily management of Nordic local governments.

A recent study of local state–society relations showed that Finland, Norway, and SwedenFootnote 1 fell into a group characterized by a nationalized infrastructure, which emphasizes the consolidation of governance around national agendas. In contrast, Iceland fell into the group of local elitists, where civil society is much less organized and weaker than in the nationalized infrastructure (Heinelt et al., 2021). The findings from this study suggest that Iceland deviates from the other Nordic states in relation to the level of civic participation and citizens’ willingness to participate in the political system. This suggests a more complex picture than that revealed by Denk et al. (2015). The findings suggest that while countries may share cultural and historical traits, they may deviate in important aspects from the mainstream behaviour of the main group of countries.

According to John (2001), at the beginning of the new millennium, the position of local government authorities was changing. Old patterns of local government decision-making were breaking down under the influence of new public management (NPM), organizational fragmentation, and to some extent the growing role of the EU. In sum, he argued that local government decision-making was moving from government to governance. This trend has especially affected MCEOs, as shifting emphasis on political versus administrative powers has direct consequences for their role. Thus, the organization of the horizontal power structure is of special importance.

3.2.4 Horizontal Power Structure

The shift from local government—involving a relatively small population, community-based, and with limited responsibilities—to large multipurpose entities focusing first and foremost on service production and provision stresses the importance of administrative management. The Nordic model assumes a high level of administrative capacity at the local level in relation to specialization and professionalization. Strong professions (e.g. teachers, nurses, engineers, and social workers) play a crucial role in the daily provision and management of local government services. However, party politics and democratic government are important features of Nordic local government. Local government is based on the layman’s approach, which draws council members from the general population via popular elections at regular intervals (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002). This puts the MCEO in a key position as a crucial figure integrating the political and administrative branches of local government.

Horizontal power relations are concerned with the division of power between the elected council, political leaders, and the executive board (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002). It is also important to distinguish between formal and informal powers, where formal powers are restrained by law and regulations, while informal powers depend more on local customs and traditions and can fluctuate between time and entities (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013). The focus of this chapter is mainly on the formal structure of local government, with the individual country chapters in this volume focusing more on informal powers.

It is possible to distinguish between several schools of thought in relation to the horizontal power structure. For example, Demir (2009) concluded that there are three schools of inquiry in relation to horizontal power relations: the separate, political, and overlapping schools. The first emphasizes the separation between the political and administrative spheres, while the second stresses political leadership and the subordination of the administration to politics. The third approach views the relationship between political and administrative leadership as overlapping. A classical notion is to view Wilson (1887) and his followers as staunch advocates of the separate model, with Svara (1998) being a notable scholar of the overlapping model. The first study on horizontal power relations and the relationships between senior administrative officials and politicians was a comparative study conducted by Aberbach et al. (1981) in the 1970s by high-level officials, senior civil servants, legislative politicians, and politically appointed executives of the presidential administration. It was one of the first ‘systematic data collection and analysis of the development and status of political-administration relations’ (Lee & Raadschelders, 2008, p. 419). The focus of the study was on the sociology and psychology of roles, drawing from older works such as Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (Selznick, 1957), The Mandarin of Western Europe: The Political Roles of Top Civil Servants (Dogan, 1975), and The Comparative Study of Political Elites (Putnam, 1976).

Aberbach et al. (1981) discovered important differences between politicians and administrators, as they approached governmental and political issues in different ways. They also concluded that international differences in political systems were primarily based on institutional differences. Their findings demonstrated that, at the time, the roles of politicians and administrators overlapped more in America than in Europe (Aberbach & Rockman, 2006). Their approach laid the foundation for a ‘vigorous study about characteristics and behaviors of elected officials and top civil servants and interactions between the two groups’ (Lee & Raadschelders, 2008, p. 431). More importantly, it laid the foundation for one of the most influential typologies of the relationship between politicians and administrative officials at the local level, that is, the typology of Mouritzen and Svara (2002).Footnote 2 There are considerable differences between and within states on how power is divided between different positions within the institution of local government. Usually, council members are directly elected, although they are sometimes centrally appointed (as in Singapore). The mayor is sometimes indirectly elected from within the council (as in Norway) and other times directly elected (such as in the German state of Bavaria) or even appointed by the national government (e.g. in the Netherlands). In some countries, such as the United States, both approaches to choosing mayors are practiced (Svara, 1998).

There are also differences in the power balance between the councils and the executive boards or committees. In some cases, the council takes precedence (as in Iceland), while in other cases, a more dualistic approach is in place (e.g. in the Netherlands). The importance of party politics at the local level also differs among countries. For example, it has been argued that local councillors in England are under the strong influence of the party line, while in the United States, parties generally have limited authority over council members (Benton, 2022; Jones, 2022).

Finally, the importance of the MCEO role depends on the context. For example, in some US cities, the city manager governance system emphasizes the role of the MCEO, while in others, there is a government system in place where the MCEO is directly subordinated to the mayor. These differences contribute to a number of models of local government (Heinelt & Hlepas, 2006). Larsen (2005), for example, distinguished between three types of local government models based on the centrality of political authority: the council committee, majoritarian, and presidential models. The first model emphasizes the formal role of the council as the main source of authority, with all other committees being directly subjugated to it. In the majoritarian model, the majority parties in the council form a cabinet body responsible for all executive functions. Members of this body may or may not be members of the elected council. The presidential body emphasizes political leaders and leadership, often giving mandates to the political leader through direct voting. This model often distinguishes between the executive and legislative parts of local government; thus, the importance of the council as a major source of political power is substantially diminished. It is also possible to simplify this relationship even further and distinguish between monistic and dualistic traditions (Wollmann, 2004). In sum, in monistic systems, the main source of power is the local elected council, and other factions draw their power from the council. Conversely, in dualistic systems, different parts of the system have special sources of power, such as popularly directly elected mayors or state-appointed positions. Most importantly, different types of systems provide very different working environments for MCEOs.

An examination of the size and institutions of Nordic local governments (see Table 3.2) reveals various implications concerning the horizontal power structure. There are significant variations in the number and size of local authorities, despite recent amalgamation reforms in four of the Nordic countries (excluding Sweden). Danish local authorities are among the largest in Europe, with a median number of inhabitants of 40,000. In Iceland, more than 50% of the municipalities have less than 1000 inhabitants. After the Danish amalgamation reform of 2007, variations in municipal size were relatively small; 93% of Danish municipalities have more than 20,000 inhabitants. In Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, there are substantial differences between the largest and smallest municipalities, which pose a challenge to the generalist model of local government. According to the present model, the smallest and largest municipalities have identical statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, differences between densely populated urban areas and sparsely populated rural areas have consequences for the position of local government in these four countries, even though some tensions also feature between the centre and periphery in Denmark.

Table 3.2 Political institutions, political leaders, and types of MCEOs in Nordic local governments
Full size table

There are some shared characteristics among the horizontal power structures of the Nordic states, which could be applied to a Nordic model of local leadership. There are considerable similarities between the Nordic local government acts laying down the foundation of local politico-administrative systems (Sletnes et al., 2013). One of the fundamental similarities is the large discretion given to local authorities in organizational matters (see also discussion on political discretion above), which means that the size of the council, the number and position of boards, and the position of the MCEO may vary among municipalities within the same country.

The Norwegian local government act allows for the largest degree of local variations in the politico-administrative system, allowing, for example, municipalities to choose between traditional assembly government and local parliamentarianism. The Danish local government act provides the most standardized rules for horizontal power relations (Bäck, 2006; Sletnes et al., 2013). The Finnish local government act enhances a wide array of choices with respect to the top leadership at the municipal level (Sletnes et al., 2013).

All five countries are unitary states, where local government is based on a monistic approach, as the local council is formally the main source of power within the local authority. Within this frame, council sizes vary among countries. The average number of local council members is lower in Iceland, Denmark, and Norway than in Sweden and Finland (see Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Institutional nuances of Nordic local governments
Full size table

Executive powers are drawn from the municipal council and delegated to executive boards and committees and the top manager of the local authority (MCEO). Thus, the factions of local authority do not have independent powers; they are mutually dependent. With a few rare exceptions, the delegation of powers from the council to the boards follows a principle of assembly government, which means that all parties in the council have access to membership in the executive branches of the political system (Bäck, 2006).

Political parties play a crucial role in Nordic local government. First, with the exception of Iceland, a large majority of local council members in the Nordic countries represent one of the parties in the national parliament. The nationalized party system is one of the crucial links between the levels of government in unitary states (Hlynsdóttir & Önnudóttir, 2022; Kjær, 2020, 2022; Lidström, 2022; Saglie & Segaard, 2022; Sandberg, 2022). Second, comparative studies have shown that local councillors from the Nordic countries express a stronger party identity than their colleagues in, for example, France, Italy, Switzerland, or the Czech Republic. In a wider context, this strong party identification is associated with models of assembly government (Karlsson, 2013).

The horizontal power structure in the context of the division between politics and administration is interesting. It provides the foundation for the latitude of the leaders in the non-politically elected branch. This brings us further into the discussion on the MCEO as a key position, both as a leadership institution in itself and as a link between politics and administration.

There are a number of variations in the formal position of the Nordic MCEO. In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the position of MCEO is mandated by law, which states that the MCEO is the head of the local administration. The Danish local government act does not recognize the MCEO as an independent institution. The mayor is the formal administrative head, and the MCEO is subordinate to the mayor (Sletnes et al., 2013). In Iceland, the MCEO position is also mandated by law, but municipalities have the choice between a model with an executive mayor or a council manager (Hlynsdóttir, 2020).

In Mouritzen and Svara’s (2002) seminal work on the local CEO, they came up with four ideal types of forms of government. The concept of ‘ideal’ should be kept in mind. It is unlikely that we find systems that fall completely into any one of these four types. In the original study, all the Nordic countries were included except Iceland. Their typology can be examined on a spectrum from the highest emphasis on political leadership (the strong mayor form) to the lowest emphasis on political leadership (the council–manager form); in-between, there are the committee–leader and collective forms. The Nordic states fall into two groups, both of which are centred on the powers of the local council, albeit stressing the role of the administrative leader in different ways. The committee–leader type emphasizes political leadership over administrative leadership. This is epitomized in the role of the Danish mayor (Borgmester), who is very much a hands-on leader, with the Danish MCEO taking a secondary role on the organizational chart (Berg & Kjær, 2005). The essence of this type of political leadership position provides political leaders with executive rights, albeit without formal rights to hire or fire within the administration, which separates them from the strong mayor form of government (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002). However, while the Danish mayor shares executive rights with a CEO, the Icelandic executive mayor is simultaneously the de facto head of the administration and the political leader. Thus, there is no MCEO working beside him/her, as in the case of Denmark. Therefore, the Icelandic executive mayor has taken over the responsibilities of the MCEO as the leading political figure. However, the position does not have separate power sources from the council and, therefore, cannot be assigned to the group of strong mayors.

The Swedish system has traditionally been characterized by a high number of actors and relatively unclear leadership roles. For example, there is no clear mayoral position as that found in the other states, and until recently, administrative leadership was shared between the municipal chief executive manager (kommunchef) and the chief administrative officer (förvaltningschef) (Montin, 2005). This was not altered until 2017 when the position of the MCEO was formally included in the Swedish local government act, institutionalizing the MCEO as the head of the administration and potentially moving Sweden more towards the council–manager form.

The other type of horizontal power structure in the Nordic setting is the council–manager form of government. While this type of government has many variations, the common denominator is that the council manager is clearly subordinated to the local council and may (usually) be disposed of at will. Council managers do not need to share their executive rights with political leaders in the same way as in the committee–leader form. It is also very common in this form of government for council managers to become very powerful, often being set up as the face of local authorities to the outside world.

In Norway, the mayor is the undisputed leader of the council; however, Norwegian local government law distinguishes between the role of the MCEO and political leadership, thus closely resembling the separation school defined by Demir (2009). The second type of MCEO in Iceland is similar to that in Norway; however, the separation between the administrative and political branches is not as clear-cut in the Norwegian case. In Finland, the lack of a strong political counterpart established the appointed MCEO as the undisputed leader in most municipalities (Sandberg, 1998). In the last 15 years, Finland has taken steps towards the committee–leader model, as the 2006 local government act allows municipalities to choose between two alternative leadership models. Even if 95% of Finnish local authorities still apply the traditional council–manager model with a strong MCEO, a number of larger cities have chosen the leadership model with an executive mayor at the apex.

3.3 The Relevance of a Nordic Model of Local Government?

Even if the five Nordic countries have much in common—geopolitical location, intertwined histories, the same kind of welfare state model—they are by no means identical quintuplets. Whether Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden are predominantly similar or predominantly different societies partly depends on the perspective taken and the level of comparison. In the book The Nordic Economic, Social and Political Model, Koivunen et al. (2021, p. 5) contended as follows:

[T]he Nordic model, regardless of how it is defined, has to be seen as the outcome of a century-long process of voluntary cooperation. The Nordic countries have influenced each other’s policies and have learned from each other’s experiences but have been free to apply bespoke national solutions when it suited them. This explains why it is almost always possible to find at least one exception among the Nordic countries that defies any attempts to strictly define the Nordic model.

Here, we are interested first and foremost in the Nordic model of local government and what such a model means for the role of the MCEO. However, the general characteristics of the Nordic model concerning the welfare state as a whole are interesting, since they build a foundation for the relations between the central and regional/local government levels and the local government and its citizens. Questions concerning, for example, the history and development of Nordic local government vis-à-vis national governments, the arrangements of local political institutions, and the political culture in the respective nations are all important in understanding the Nordic local government model.

In this chapter, we reviewed the notion of the Nordic local government model from a four-feature perspective: decentralization, fiscal capacity, autonomy, and horizontal power relations. This is summarized in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Characteristics of the Nordic local government model and nuances among countries
Full size table

Nordic local governments are generally characterized by local authorities that are politically, fiscally, and functionally strong and autonomous vis-à-vis the state, a characterization supported by history and tradition as well as the legal framework. Their autonomy is based on partnership and trust between the local government and the central state. Nordic citizens generally have a positive attitude towards the political system and take an active part in political life. Furthermore, the municipal sector is generally large in the Nordic model in relation to other sectors and countries. Taken together, these features entail municipal organizations with strong administrative capacity and a multipurpose, professional production. In other words, the municipalities of the Nordic model are both large and dynamic, and their leading actors have substantial opportunities to influence people’s everyday lives and societal development. As discussed above, the layman’s approach in conjunction with regular elections means that non-elected leading positions often stand for continuity and organizational memory. This is also amplified by the entry of NPM and the increased faith in administrative reforms and governance. The Nordic countries also have strong administrative leader positions, albeit with variations in nuances.

In relation to the two broad dimensions of gender equality and political culture, the discussion revealed that in the Nordic states, women are comparatively well represented in the position of MCEO. However, the main exception to this is Denmark, where the representation of female MCEOs is particularly low compared to the other Nordic states. Thus, a further investigation into the position of female MCEOs is highly warranted. Moreover, studies have shown that civic engagement at the local level is much less developed in Iceland than in the other Nordic states. This suggests that there are important differences in political culture between Iceland and the other Nordic states, which affect the daily role of the MCEO and the overall organization of local government.

From our point of view, the answer to the question regarding the relevance of the Nordic model of local government for the position of MCEO depends on perspective. All the countries share some important structural features that distinguish them from the outside world. They emphasize gender equality, diversity in local politics, as well as local identity, as in the strong position of local self-government. They also try to strengthen local self-government through functional decentralization and participatory governance. The large functional scope of local authorities also adds to the importance and centrality of the MCEO’s role. This individual is in a key position within local government.

There are, however, important differences in relation to how central the role of the MCEO is. For example, the Danish structure emphasizes political leadership over administrative leadership. The opposite is true in Norway and Finland. In relation to the position of MCEO, the context of the Nordic local government model is of great importance. The essential similarities among the Nordic countries, together with more general features of the political culture and the fundamental idea of equality, build a Nordic character—or perhaps even a model (although it may be a bit fuzzy on the edges). This creates an interesting basis for the potent and fascinating role of the Nordic MCEO.