Stine Hesstvedt

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2022). Partisanship and science advice: Do the right prefer economists and the left social scientists? Party Politics. p. 1–14. doi: 10.1177/13540688221122330. Show summary

  It is often claimed that parties on the left and right have different preferences for scholarly knowledge. However, little research has addressed whether partisanship actually matters for science advice preferences, particularly in the European setting. Drawing on original data on governmental appointments of academic scholars to more than 1400 public advisory commissions in Norway between 1969 and 2020, this article examines whether the left–right divide matters for cabinets’ consultation of economists and social scientists. The findings reveal that left-wing governments in Norway have consulted scholars of social science—such as sociologists and political scientists—more frequently than right-wing governments. In contrast, partisanship seem to matter less for the consultation of economic scholars, as economists have been extensively used as advisors by both blocs in the period studied. Overall, the article contributes theoretical and empirical knowledge to the politics of science advice.

• Hesstvedt, Stine; Bergh, Johannes & Karlsen, Rune (2021). Kampen om dagsorden: et historisk tilbakeblikk på stortingsvalgene 1957–2017. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning. 62(3), p. 273–292. doi: 10.18261/ISSN.1504-291X-2021-03-04. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Valgkamper blir gjerne omtalt som en «kamp om dagsorden» (Valen, 1999). Hvilke saker som opptar velgerne, og hvorvidt politikere kan å overbevise velgere om at de har de beste politiske løsningene, er tett forbundet med valgresultatet. I et demokratisk perspektiv er det også avgjørende at partiene evner å presentere politiske løsninger på saksfelt som velgerne opplever som viktige for deres ve og vel (Dahl, 2000). Mens valgene i etterkrigsårene handlet om gjenreising etter krigen og utbygging av velferdsstaten, har store samfunnsendringer som velstandsvekst, utdanningseksplosjon, globalisering og innvandring presset frem nye stridsspørsmål og endret velgernes prioriteringer. Når vi på sensommeren i 2021 går inn i årets valgkamp, er bakteppet en lang periode med pandemi og unntakstilstand samt stor oppmerksomhet om distriktspolitikk og sentraliseringsreformer. Hvordan vil den se ut i forhold til andre valg? I denne forskningskommentaren setter vi årets valgkamp i en historisk kontekst ved å spørre: Hva har vært viktige saker for norske velgere siden andre verdenskrig? Kjennetegnes den norske dagsorden av stabilitet eller endringer fra valg til valg? Hvilke partier nyter tillit på saker som figurerer høyt på den politiske dagsorden, og hvordan endrer dette seg over tid? Det finnes få studier som har undersøkt velgernes dagsorden i norsk etterkrigstid sett under ett (men se Bjørklund, 2020). Ved hjelp av data fra stortingsvalgundersøkelsene identifiserer og diskuterer vi fire hovedtyper av saker som har opptatt velgere i Norge. Vi peker på de «glemte» sakene som har forsvunnet fra dagsorden over tid – som boligpolitikk og forsvarspolitikk; de «nye» sakene som har blitt viktigere i valgkampene i den senere tid, som innvandring og klima; og de «tidløse sakene» som har stått på dagsorden i mer eller mindre hele 60-årsperioden, som skattepolitikk og eldreomsorg. Vi tar også for oss en sak som har vært svært viktig for utviklingen i norsk politikk, men som er i en kategori for seg selv: spørsmålet om norsk medlemskap i Den europeiske union (EU). Til slutt undersøker vi velgernes tillit til partiene i disse sakene og studerer sakseierskap i de senere periodene (1997–2017), da spørsmål om best politikk på ulike politikkområder ble inkludert i valgundersøkelsen. Underveis diskuterer vi hva slags betydning dagsorden og sakseierskap har hatt for partienes oppslutning og stemmegivning. Til grunn for gjennomgangen ligger tverrsnittsdata fra stortingsvalgundersøkelsene for perioden 1957 til 2017. Helt siden 1957 har Valgforskningsprogrammet ved Institutt for samfunnsforskning, først i samarbeid med Norsk Gallup og siden 1977 i samarbeid med Statistisk sentralbyrå, stilt et landsrepresentativt utvalg av norske velgere spørsmål om hva som var de viktigste sakene for deres stemmegivning. I tillegg har prosjektet siden 1997 stilt spørsmål om sakseierskap – nemlig om hvilke partier velgerne mener har best politikk på enkelte saksfelt.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christensen, Johan (2021). Political and administrative control of expert groups—A mixed‐methods study. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions. doi: 10.1111/gove.12599. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Governments face a fundamental dilemma when asking expert groups for advice. Experts possess knowledge that can help governments design effective and legitimate policies. However, they can also propose different policies than those preferred by government. How do governments solve this conundrum? Through a mixed‐methods study, the article examines politico‐administrative control with expert advisory commissions in Norway. Arguing that both politicians and bureaucrats can take interest in limiting the gap between political/administrative policy preferences and expert group output, the article examines by what means they seek to control expert groups and how control varies across policy portfolios. It finds that while politicians rely on control by design, bureaucrats use both design and interventions. Moreover, political and bureaucratic controls are stronger in the area of financial/economic policy than elsewhere. The article makes a novel contribution to scholarship at the intersection of public administration and knowledge and policymaking.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christiansen, Peter Munk (2021). The politics of policy inquiry commissions: Denmark and Norway, 1971-2017. West European Politics. 45(2), p. 430–454. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1858597.
• Haugsgjerd, Atle; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2021). Increased media choice and political knowledge gaps: A comparative longitudinal study of 18 established democracies 1995-2015. Political Communication. 38(6), p. 731–750. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1868633. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  We investigate the often-stated, but disputed claim in the political science and political communication literature that increasing media choice widens inequalities in political knowledge. The assumption is that in a high-choice media environment, the politically interested will consume more news while the uninterested will avoid such content, leading, in turn, to widening differences in political knowledge. Although previous studies show that high media choice increases political knowledge gaps in the United States, comparative longitudinal evidence is currently lacking. To fill this gap, we draw on data from four rounds of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Overall, we do not find general support for the high-choice knowledge gap thesis. In most countries, there is no indication that inequality in political knowledge has increased over time. Building on recent insights from political communication research, we question key assumptions of the high choice knowledge gap thesis.

• Finseraas, Henning & Hesstvedt, Stine (2020). Sosial ulikhet i valgdeltakelse før og nå. In Bergh, Johannes; Haugsgjerd, Atle & Karlsen, Rune (Ed.), Valg og politikk siden 1945. Velgere, institusjoner og kritiske hendelser i norsk politisk historie. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. p. 110–123.
• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2019). Expertisation or greater representation? Evidence from Norwegian advisory commissions. In Krick, Eva & Holst, Cathrine (Ed.), Experts and Democratic Legitimacy. Tracing the Social Ties of Expert Bodies in Europe. Routledge. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1515861. Show summary

  Experts and Democratic Legitimacy challenges the technocratic reading of expert bodies, such as central banks, advisory committees and regulatory agencies. Expert contributors ask in what way expert bodies are subject to some of the key pressures in contemporary governance, such as democratisation, politicisation and expertisation. Based on empirical studies, the book traces the multiple social ties of expert bodies and refines the common perception of expert bodies as ‘de-politicised’ institutions that are detached from political interference and societal input. It further theorises the tension and reconcilability between reliable, independent expert knowledge on the one hand and the need for accountability and legitimacy in modern policy-making on the other hand. Refining the detached, de-politicised image of non-majoritarian institutions, Experts and Democratic Legitimacy will be of great interest to scholars of European studies, political and social theory, modern governance and policy-making. This book was originally published as a special issue of European Politics and Society.

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Redistributing Knowledge? How Institutions Affect Citizens’ Political Knowledge Levels: The Scandinavian Case Compared. In Engelstad, Fredrik; Holst, Cathrine & Aakvaag, Gunnar C. (Ed.), Democratic State and Democratic Society. De Gruyter Open. p. 94–117. doi: 10.1515/9783110634082-006.
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). 'Ekspertifisering' av offentlige utvalg? En studie av akademikeres deltakelse i NOU-utvalg fra 1972 og til i dag. . Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift. 2(5), p. 381–400. doi: 10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2018-05-03. Full text in Research Archive
• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Expertisation or greater representation? Evidence from Norwegian advisory commissions. European Politics and Society. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1515861. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in Cristin

• Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2022). Dagsorden og sakseierskap ved stortingsvalget 2021. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Den politiske dagsorden og partienes troverdighet på de saksområdene som er på dagsorden er viktig for å forstå utfallet av et valg. Velgernes dagsorden referer til de sakene velgerne er opptatt av og som de mener er viktige for deres stemmegivning. Hvilke saker som dominerer velgernes dagsorden er sentralt fordi politiske partier har varierende troverdighet hos velgere på ulike saker. Dette refereres til, både i faglitteraturen og offentligheten, som partienes sakseierskap. Formålet med dette notatet er å presentere nye tall for dagsorden og sakseierskap ved stortingsvalget 2021.

• Saglie, Jo; Christensen, Dag Arne; Ervik, Rune; Hesstvedt, Stine & Segaard, Signe Bock (2022). Accessibility for disabled persons at the 2021 parliamentary election. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Rapport(2022:2). Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  A key aim of the Election Act is to ensure that everyone eligible to vote can cast their vote regardless of disability. Although accessibility in Norwegian elections generally is good, there might be variation in availability for certain groups of voters, and some citizens might experience practical obstacles that create barriers against voting. This report analyzes the accessibility of voting for disabled persons in the parliamentary election of 2021. Norwegian municipalities are responsible for conducting elections in more than 2800 polling stations throughout the country. How the municipalities solve this task is decisive for ensuring that polling stations are accessible for everyone. This study therefore focuses on how the municipalities work to ensure accessibility when preparing the election, and to what extent they fulfill requirements of accessibility inside and outside the polling stations. We use data from three sources: an online survey of all Norwegian municipalities, qualitative interviews with local electoral administrators in nine municipalities, as well as factual observation of 27 polling stations in these nine municipalities. When preparing for the election, only a minority of the municipalities involves representatives for persons with disabilities in the planning of the election. This concerns both decisions on the selection of polling stations and the design of informational material. During the voting period, 90 percent of the municipalities report that voters with disabilities are able to cast their vote in all of their polling stations. However, our observations of selected polling stations reveal a potential for improvements, regarding both traversability and signposting. Finally, the report discusses concrete suggestions for further improvements to increase accessibility.

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2020). The Politics of Expert Advice. A Study of Government's Use of Policy Advisory Commissions in Norway, 1972-2018. Doctoral thesis. Universitetet i Oslo.
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2017). Stortingskandidater : rapport fra stortingskandidatundersøkelsen 2013. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Denne rapporten gir en beskrivelse av kandidater som stiller til norske stortingsvalg med utgangspunkt i stortingskandidatundersøkelsen 2013. Rapporten beskriver kandidatene langs fire hovedakser: bakgrunn, valgkamp, representasjon, og politisk avstand. Hvem er stortingskandidatene? Hvordan driver de valgkamp? Hvem eller hva mener de selv de skal representere? Hvilke partier mener de står nærmest deres eget parti? Resultatene viser at norske stortingskandidater litt oftere er menn enn kvinner, er 45 år i gjennomsnitt, og har høy utdanning og mye partipolitisk erfaring. I valgkampen er fokuset på partiet. Sosiale medier har blitt en viktig kommunikasjonskanal for kandidatene, men lokalaviser er viktigst. Norske stortingskandidater mener at en stortingsrepresentant først og fremst bør representere partiet, men kandidatene har et sammensatt representasjonsfokus, og velgere i valgkretsen er også et viktig fokus. I tillegg er det godt samsvar mellom de ulike partienes kandidater og velgere på sentrale politikkområder.

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2016). Ideology, Knowledge and Context. A multilevel study of "Political Sophistication" across 21 countries. Master thesis. Universitetet i Oslo.
• Kleven, Øyvin; Aardal, Bernt; Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Hindenes, Ådne (2015). Valgundersøkelsen 2013. Dokumentasjons- og tabellrapport. Statistisk sentralbyrå.

View all works in Cristin

• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2022). The Gendered Politics of Policy Expertise.
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Skorge, Øyvind Søraas (2022). The gendered politics of policy experts: Do governments appoint women to expert groups as much as men? .
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2020). Populistene inn i embetsverket? Stat og styring. 30(1).
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2019). Politicization of expert advice? Tracing political control with academic experts on policy inquiry commissions in Norway, 1973-2017. Conference paper.
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christiansen, Peter Munk (2019). The Politics of Technocratic Policy-Making. Conference paper.
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Controlling the Experts? A Study of Norwegian Public Advisory Commissions 1972-2016. Conference paper.
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Controlling the Experts? A Study of Norwegian Public Inquiry Commissions 1972-2016 (ECPR). Show summary

  Policymakers do not merely have problem solving and knowledge-production in mind when they invite experts to participate in expert groups, inquiry commissions and other policy-advisory bodies. Rather, a growing literature on experts’ role in policymaking suggests that politicians are likely to seek advice that fulfills governmental and partisan aims and ambitions. However, this paper argues that present scholarship does not explicitly theorize how experts involved in policymaking can be subject to political control. It asks: How do political-administrative actors retain control over policy formulation when it involves external experts? Theoretically, it suggests that insights from the ‘politics of delegation’ literature within public administration scholarship can help us to understand and conceptualize the question of political control. Empirically, it attempts to identify control patterns by studying Norwegian public advisory commissions and applying a dataset on commissions appointed between 1972 and 2017.

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2017). Expertization of Policy Advice: A Cross-Sectoral Analysis. .
• Aardal, Bernt; Bergh, Johannes & Hesstvedt, Stine (2015). Vinner man valget hvis man vinner flytvelgerne? Dagsavisen.

View all works in Cristin