Women in decision-making: The Norwegian Paradox

Mari Teigen, Institute for Social Research, Oslo
Women in decision-making: The Norwegian Paradox
Paper presented at EUROCADRES network conference “Women in decision-making making
– from Europe to the Company”, Brussels 21.-23. January 2008.
ISF Paper 2008: 2

Introduction
In world-wide comparisons on gender equality the Nordic countries are regularly placed on
top of the lists. This is the case when it comes to the number of women in political positions
as well as broader aspects of gender equality such as economic opportunities, educational
attainment, health and well-being for women and men. 1
This fortunate situation in regard to gender equality is largely due to major
transformations in gender relations that occurred in Norway throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
The employment of women increased dramatically and women got access to political decision
making assemblies to almost the same degree as men.
Still it is important to emphasize the ambiguities and paradoxes of the Norwegian, as
well as for the rest of the Nordic countries, in relation to gender equality. On the one hand,
processes of gender equality are a general trend. Female employment has increased
immensely, from less than half of the female population in the early 1970ties to about twothird
today. Recently employment has increased the most among mothers with small children.
However, this is often not full-time employment. Statistics show that 40 % of all employed
women work part-time and 12 % of all employed men. In spite of the gender differences, parttime
work is more common in the Norwegian labour market, than in the rest of Europe. This
is partly a consequence of high employment rates
(http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/02/10/ola_kari_en/arbeid_en/). Strong gender
segregation is another important feature of the Norwegian labour market. Along the horizontal
dimension, occupations and professions in the Norwegian labour market are strongly
segregated by gender, and the gender segregated structures co-varies clearly with the
1 Some examples of recent world-wide comparisons on gender equality are the World Economic Forum Gender
Gap (2005) which rank Sweden first and Norway second on the list (http://www.weforum.org) and the United
Nations Human Development Index (2002) which ranks Norway first and Sweden second (http://www.undp.org)
(also when gender aspects are taken into account see the GEM Gender empowerment measure and GDI Gender
Related Development Index). The Inter-parliamentary Union provides statistics regarding women in national
parliaments (http://www.ipu.org). Currently (2005) Sweden is ranked as number two and Norway number three
on the list.

public/private divide. Women dominate in public sector occupations and men in the private
sector. Along vertical lines, with some important exceptions, men dominate decision making
positions to a large extent (Teigen 2006).
The ways in which the Norwegian society is featured by a mixture of gender equality
and gender traditionalism in top-positions, will be addressed in this presentation. I will also
include some reflections on the Norwegian tradition to adopt affirmative action and quota
strategies to achieve gender equality, with special focus on the latest reform, the legal
regulation of the gender composition of the boards of large joint stock companies.
Politics
The close to balanced representation of men and women in Norwegian politics has been the
main symbol for the Norwegian gender equality achievements. In the Norwegian Parliament
(Stortinget) women have occupied 37 percent of the seats – and it has been approximately so
during the last fifteen years. The proportion of women has been about the same among the
cabinet of ministers. Yet, at the moment in the red/green government established in 2005,
there are in fact 10 women and 9 men in the cabinet. (Figure 1)
In the municipal councils women are at an average represented with 36 %.
Yet, also the political field offers important paradoxes of gender equality. In the
national parliament the representation of women vary importantly between the political
parties. On the one hand, close to gender balance characterizes the situation in the Labour
Party (49 % women), in the Socialist Left party (47 % women), in the Christian Democratic
Party (45 % women) and in the Liberal Party (40 % women). On the other, men dominate
among members of parliament in the right wing parties, the Conservative party (22 %
women), and in particular in the Progress Party (16 % women). Hence, the election results in
2

egard to number of seats of the different parties in elected assemblies, affect importantly the
gendered distribution.
In the municipalities the situation is similar. The representation of women in
municipal councils varies significantly throughout the country, it varies along party lines, and
men dominate strongly the top political positions in the municipalities. Only 17 % of the
mayors are women.
Figure 1: Women members of Parliament, 1945 – 2005 (%).
60
40
34
36
39
36 36
37
24
26
20
16
5 5 5
7
9 8 9
0
1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
Figure 2: Women members of parliament per party (2005-2009) (%)
3

80
60
47
49
45
40
36
20
27
22
16
0
Socialist P Labour P Centre P Christian
Dem P
Liberal Left P Conservative
P
Progressive
P
Variation in male-dominance in decision-making
As a part of the Norwegian “Power and Democracy Study” an extensive survey of
institutional elite groups were carried out. About 2000 top leadership positions were
identified, and the persons holding these positions were interviewed. The survey revealed a
strong male dominance in Norwegian leadership positions: on average men dominate 84
percent of Norwegian elite positions, varying from close to gender balance in party politics to
complete male dominance in top military positions. The tendency is that the closer to the
sphere of politics, the more balanced representation of men and women. With one major
exception, in the justice elite there is a surprising and overwhelming male dominance. In
public administration and academia about one fifth of the top positions are held by women. In
the organizational and cultural elite the representation of women varies between 30 to 40 %.
The organizational elite is featured by a significant gender divide; while women hold more
than one third of top positions in the employees’ organizations, men dominate more than 90
% of top positions in the employer’s organizations (see Skjeie and Teigen 2003, 2006).
Figure 3: Men and women in Norwegian elite groups (2001) (%).
4

Defense
Business
Church
Justice
Media
Central Public Administration
Academia
Organizations
Culture
Politics
0 20 40 60 80 100
Business
The absence of women is very striking in economic decision making. In the large private
enterprises women constitute only 2 %, even in the publicly owned enterprises the situation is
about the same, men dominate totally. This is however not a particular Norwegian situation.
The current situation in the other Nordic countries is very similar. The number of women in
top-positions in the Norwegian as well as the Swedish business elite was only four percent. A
corresponding study in Finland, also from 2001, reveals exactly the same number; four
percent women in the business elite. A current example from Denmark is that it is only one
female CEO in the top 200 Danish firms (Christiansen and Togeby 2005).
In all the Nordic countries the absence of women in economic decision making has
been widely debated. In Norway, a particular strand of this debate is about the possibility and
fairness of legally regulating the gender composition of the boards of large business
enterprises. However, before I approach the recent Norwegian regulation of the gender
composition of corporate boards, I will give a brief introduction to the role of affirmative
action and quota policies in Norwegian gender equality politics.
Figure 4: Men and women in the business elite in the Nordic countries (2000/01) (%).
5

Denmark
99
Finland
96
Sweden
96
Norway
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Quotas – the Norwegian solution
In comparison with the other Nordic countries, quotas and positive action procedures have
played a particularly prominent role within Norwegian gender equality politics (Borchorst
1999). Throughout the last thirty years an extensive system of quota and positive action
arrangements has been established in Norway. Positive action and quota procedures exist
almost within all fields of the society: education, employment, political and economic
decision making; and also in the private sphere, by the “father quota”, requiring that at least 6
weeks of the 44 weeks parental leave is reserved to the father.
Positive action and quota arrangements differ from quite soft measures to strict quota
demands. The existing positive action and quota arrangements can be divided into three main
types: preferential treatment procedures, promoting procedures and minimum representation
rules (see Teigen 2003, PhD dissertation partly published in English, Teigen 2002a, Teigen
2006).
Preferential treatment: In recruitment and promotions in the state, the municipal sector, in
some private companies, and in connection with admission to gender skewed types of
6

education, applicants from the underrepresented gender are given priority, when qualifications
are equal or about equal. Following from the carefulness of the formulation of these
procedures, they have proved to have only minor direct effects. In spite of their relative
efficiency, studies indicate, however, that they affect organizations’ prioritizing and
legitimizing of gender equality (Teigen 2002b).
Promoting procedures: A slightly different kind of positive action procedures are promoting
procedures. These kinds of procedures imply that candidate’s chances are improved by being
moved upwards in a prior ranked queue or row. The “additional point” system is the most
commonly applied promoting procedure, typically practiced in connection with admission to
universities and colleges. A resembling, yet quite more effective, system is “earmarking” of
positions
Minimum representation: Rules of minimum representation set requirements for the gender
composition in terms of fixed distributions – generally formulated as a demand for at least 40
% of each gender. Principles of minimum representation also exist as voluntary agreements in
the major Norwegian political parties, with the exception of the Conservative Party and the
Progressive Party. In the Liberal Party, which was the first party to adopt quota procedures in
1974, the quota procedures is reserved the internal party system. The other four major parties
have adopted quota arrangements in terms of both internal party quotas and candidate quotas:
The Socialist Left Party in 1975; the Labor Party in 1983; the Centre Party in 1989; and the
Christian Democratic Party in 1993 (Christensen 1999). In the organizational sector, mostly
the voluntary organizations and the large employee organizations, quota systems for the
composition of representative assemblies, are widely dispersed. In the largest of the
employee’s organizations, the National trade union federation (LO), the introduction of a
7

quota system has however been a highly controversial issue. Finally, a quota rule got a
majority of the votes at LO congress in 2005.
Legally regulated quota arrangements were however first introduced in connection
with the composition of publicly appointed boards, councils and committees (the Gender
Equality Act, section 21, 1981). Recently the boards of publicly owned enterprises (from 1 st
of January 2004) and large joint stock companies in the private sector (from 1 st of January
2006/2008) are met by the same requirements, through a revision of the Company’s Act.
Figure 5: Types of positive action/quota procedures according to field of the society
Field of society Types
Education Preferential
treatment
Promoting
procedures
Procedures
Candidates of the underrepresented gender are given
priority in cases of equal qualifications (same amount
of school points).
Additional school points granted to applicants of the
underrepresented gender; earmarking of
school/student places for candidates of the
underrepresented gender, with strict restrictions
according to qualifications.
Employment
Politics
Publicly
appointed
boards, councils
etc.
Preferential
treatment
Minimum
representation
Minimum
representation
In recruitment and promotions applicants of the
underrepresented gender are given preferential
treatment when qualifications are equal or about
equal.
Quotas (at least 40 % of each gender) regulate party
election lists and appointments within party
organisations in five out of the seven major political
parties
Minimum 40 % of each gender should be represented
in publicly appointed boards, councils and committees
Corporate boards Minimum
representation
Minimum 40 % of each gender should be represented
in the boards of publicly owned enterprises and large
joint stock companies in the private sector.
8

Corporate Board Quotas
As already mentioned, the legal regulation of the gender composition of corporate boards has
been a central issue in the public debate in Norway for more than a decade.
In December 2003 the Norwegian Company Act was revised, by support from the
Conservative-Centre government coalition, the Labor Party and the Socialist Left Party. From
2003 all publicly owned companies have to have at least 40 % of each gender in their
corporate boards. While the large joint stock companies were allowed some time to make
such hard demands possible. If they did not voluntary achieve the 40 % quota until July 2005,
the legal demand of at least 40 % of each gender would also apply for them. By 1 January
2008, all large joint stock companies must have at least 40% women in the boards.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the adoption of legal regulations to secure about
equal representation of men and women in the large joint stock has been controversial. No
other country has intervened into the recruitment to top positions in a similar way. The quota
procedure has however not only produced heated debate it has also produced major changes
in the gender composition of corporate boards. At the time when the issue entered the public
debate in the first part of the 1990ties, not even reliable statistics existed. The counting of
women in corporate boards indicated they there were very marginally represented by no more
than 2 to 4 % of the positions. Statistics from 2002 confirm that there were 6 % women in
corporate boards, 16 % in 2005, 30 % in 2007 and finally 36 % in 2008. Still, the gendered
composition of boards varies to a large extent, and there are 91 companies that have not
fulfilled the quota demands. So, the big issue today, is whether the government will sanction
the companies that have not filled the quota requirements.
9

Figure 6: Women in Corporate Boards (%).
80
60
40
30
36
20
6
11
16
0
2002 2004 2005 2007 2008
According to the Companies Act, a company that does not have a legal board, despite several
warnings with the possibility of correcting the matter will be subject to forced dissolution.
The company board quota regulation is the result of a complex interplay of political
processes. The debates on the issue have been very heated. Still I would say that the
impression is that it is more widely accepted today than when the debate sparked off. The
corporate board quota rule has to be understood in the light of a Norwegian gender equality
self image, where the gender equality deficits of business life came to constitute a major and
disturbing problem. The boards, and not the hired management, were chosen as the impact
area simply because this was where legal regulations could be imposed. Among owners and
top business executives, women continue to be almost unrepresented. A legal regulation of the
gender composition of company boards were not chosen because this was considered to be the
most important arena for the exercise of power in the private economy, but because this was
the only place where regulations to change the gender composition could be imposed.
10

Concluding remark
Finally, I will reflect upon how the Norwegian gender equality discourse handles the paradox
of an extreme male dominance in formal positions of power and influence combined with a
strong commitment to equality values. The dominant discourse on elite levels of society
portrays equality as a kind of nationally encapsulated and largely harmonious common
“journey”. The equality rhetoric claims that problems of gendered power are “almost solved”,
that only “a few problems remains” before gender equality is actually “achieved”.
Consequently the public debate is seldom concerned with issues of discrimination or other
unpleasant matters. Gender equality is seen as a linear process where we all, together,
continuously take new steps towards the goal. The goal can be “far ahead”, but still securely
within reach; we just have to travel for long and far enough. Gender equality is pasted into a
language of concerted action that creates continued illusions of a change in “the right
direction” happening all the time.
The travel metaphor adds to the construction of a seeming consensus on gender
equality. Problems of individual and structural discrimination and misrecognition are simply
bypassed. Gender equality is given a yielding duty - as they conceal informal power structures
and hide the fact that equality often is a matter of concrete clashes of interests and rights. The
public debate then becomes featured by what we have called the problem of benevolent noncommittal.
Principles of gender equality often have to yield “a little”, and become politics that
lack systematic priority. Rather the public debate is characterized by ad hoc interventions and
measures, not general, systematic efforts to achieve gender equality. Adopted measures
appear as delimited interventions. Thus, many of us will, with great excitement, follow the
impact corporate board quotas, will have, both in relation to implementations and sanctions,
and not the least if and how this may affect gender hierarchies of power and positions within
business life, but also more broadly in relation to our understandings of gender, capital and
power in society.
11

Literature:
Borchorst, Anette (1999), “The Gender Equality Machinery.” In Bergquist, Christina et al. Equal
Democracies? Gender and Politics in the Nordic Countries. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Christiansen, Peter M., and Togeby, Lise (2007), ”Elite Transformation in Denmark 1932-1999.“
Comparative Social Research, Vol., 23, pp. 35-54.
Christensen, Ann-Dorthe (1999), “Women in political parties”. In Bergquist, Christina et al. Equal
Democracies? Gender and Politics in the Nordic Countries. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Skjeie, Hege, 2003, Menn imellom. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Skjeie, Hege and Mari Teigen (2005),”Political constructions of gender equality: ”Travelling towards
.......a gender balanced society”. NORA Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies. Vol. 13. No. 3, 187-
197.
Teigen, Mari, (2002a), “The Universe of Gender Quotas.” In NIKK-magasin, 4-11.Oslo: NIKK, The
Nordic Institute for Women’s studies and Gender research.
Teigen, Mari (2002), “The suitable few: managerial recruitment practices in the Norwegian State
Bureaucracy.” Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18 (2002), 197-215.
Teigen, Mari (2006), “Die Norwegische Gender-Politik: Quoten und aktive Förderung” WSI-
Mitteilung. (3) 138-143. 2006.
Teigen, Mari (2006), Det kjønnsdelte arbeidslivet. En kunnskapsoversikt. ISF rapport 2006:002.
http://www.samfunnsforskning.no/files/R_2006_2.pdf.
12