2.1 The value of Nordic co-operation
Nordic co-operation is considered one of the most extensive forms of regional collaboration in the world, but the political significance of Nordic co-operation has been continuously debated and reinterpreted over time and place. Nordic-level co-operation includes both formal and informal modes of organisation. Official Nordic co-operation is organised around two organisations: the Nordic parliamentary assembly the Nordic Council, founded in 1952, and the Nordic Council of Ministers, the co-operation forum of Nordic governments founded in 1971, which consists of several individual ministerial councils. Informal co-operation at a Nordic level, in turn, has traditionally built on various networks and other forms of interaction across the region.
From a historical perspective, Nordic relations have been characterised by both disintegration and co-operation through an alternating history of rivalry and unification. The current co-operation around the current regional structure of the five independent nation-states was created in the post-World War II period, when joint Nordic institutions began to emerge. This history, however, has also been characterised by failed attempts to form co-operation schemes, which, on the other hand, have pushed Nordic co-operation forwards, prompting the development of new solutions.
The history of Nordic co-operation can be divided into four key periods that have been formative for the development of Nordic co-operation. These are:
- the first years of the Nordic Council after its establishment in the 1950s;
- the collapsed plans for a Nordic customs union around the 1960s and, a decade later, the establishment of the Nordic Council of Ministers;
- the European Union debates during the first half of the 1990s; and
- the rise of “the Nordic brand” in the new millennium.
A key feature in these formative periods has been the presence of the European Community and European integration, especially from the late 1980s and 1990s onwards, as a competitor and a regional alternative to Nordic co-operation.
Alongside the continuous development of Nordic co-operation, the essential features and historical foundations of “Nordicness” have also been subject to constant deliberation and debate, ranging from its secondary character in relation to the European or wider international economic, political or security framework to positive connotations of the Nordic countries as a cultural, linguistic and historical community. This means that any attempts to examine the concepts of Nordic co-operation must also start from the basic assumption that concepts do not have fixed or objective meanings, but are open and constantly evolving in relation to the prevailing social and political context. Following this premise, the concept of “Nordic added value” has also been argued to be a “floating signifier”, that is, a symbol or a concept that does not have an agreed meaning but is open to different meanings in different contexts.
In order to better understand the concepts of Nordic co-operation in the context of Nordic research co-operation, this chapter provides an overview of the ways in which the political relevance of and need for a joint Nordic effort has been conceptualised in relation to the broader framework of Nordic co-operation at different times. The period from the end of the Cold War to the present day is particularly relevant to this analysis.
Origins of the idea
The end of the Cold War and the acceleration of the integration of the European Union (EU) that followed has been an important juncture in the development of Nordic co-operation, but also in the ways in which Nordic co-operation has been justified and articulated in order to maintain its political legitimacy, credibility and significance. Still in the 1980s, the place and status of Nordic co-operation has been largely taken for granted and joined by the idea of Nordic values as the common democratic foundations of the Nordic societies. The Nordic countries are often seen as having a special relationship because of the similarity of their societies and cultures, as well as their shared values.
In the 1990s, however, the rationale of operating at a Nordic level needed to be reweighed, redefined – some say even reinvented – when Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995. Denmark had joined the EU already in 1973, but the accession of Finland and Sweden put the Nordic region in a new situation, as the region was now divided more clearly into EU and non-EU countries, while Norway and Iceland remained as members of the European Economic Area (EEA). In the light of EU integration, Nordic co-operation was thus placed in a new context and a crisis emerged for the Nordic countries in their image as a distinctive region. In other words, this change constituted a turning point in the ways in which “Nordicness” was articulated as old narratives of Nordic co-operation had lost their foundation.
Already before the mid-1990s, a lively debate on the future of Nordic co-operation had taken place. While some had proposed a strengthened Nordic union as an alternative to the EU, others envisioned reinvigorated Nordic co-operation within the EU framework. The reweighing of Nordic co-operation in this new context also called for a need to articulate Nordic co-operation more clearly in order to evaluate the funding activities of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers and to demonstrate the positive accumulative effect of Nordic effort. This lead to nordisk nytta being introduced as a basic principle of Nordic co-operation in 1995.
The idea of nordisk nytta (“Nordic benefit/advantage/usefulness”) was first introduced as a guiding principle for renewed Nordic co-operation in the report Nordiskt samarbete i en ny tid, published in February 1995. In the report, written by a prestigious joint working group of the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic co-operation was discussed in the aftermath of the EU referenda within the context of the Nordic region. The report contained proposals for the objectives, content and form of Nordic co-operation as a whole in a period of change.
The reform report of 1995 defined the principle of nordisk nytta through activities that
- could otherwise be undertaken at the national level, but where concretely positive effects are generated through common Nordic solutions;
- manifest and develop a sense of Nordic community; and
- increase Nordic competence and competitiveness.
By the definition given in the 1995 reform report, the principle of nordisk nytta was defined as the positive accumulative effect of Nordic co-operation. As a case of target-oriented management, the success of any activity executed at an official Nordic level would thus be assessed by definition by fulfilling the three predetermined goals of Nordic solutions, Nordic solidarity and Nordic capabilities. The three predetermined effects of joint Nordic effort reflected both socio-cultural values (sense of Nordic community, competence) and economic values (competence, competitiveness). Competence was addressed from both an economic and a socio-cultural perspective, the latter through the realisation of competence in such a way that it produces value-based benefits.
The term nytta has roots in the ethical theory of utilitarianism. The term is usually translated into English as utility, but in colloquial language, it is most often discussed in terms of usefulness. The principle of utility refers to an action or property in any object, whereby it produces benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness.
The adoption of nordisk nytta as the principle of official Nordic co-operation in 1995 expresses an ideological reorientation of how Nordic region-building should be planned and operationalised in the context of the EU debate. Furthermore, it echoes the political rhetoric of Nordic co-operation in the 1990s, which was increasingly shaped by demands for results and efficiency, especially through ambitions to improve Nordic competence and competitiveness.
Nordisk nytta was not initially subject to any significant debate but featured prominently on the agenda later that year when it was used as a yardstick to evaluate the relevance of Nordic institutions. Produced by a joint Nordic working group and the PA-Consulting Group, a report titled Nordisk nytte was published in October 1995. The aim of the report was to find areas in which Nordic funding should be prioritised over national alternatives and now also common European action. The need for the evaluation stemmed from the challenges that the EU had created for the Nordic countries by limiting the amount of available funding and forcing cut-backs on forms of co-operation.
In the report, the principle of nordisk nytta was operationalised in the evaluation of activities of the 47 Nordic institutions at the time. The relevance of these institutions was examined on a three-tiered scale of nordisk nytta, assessing whether the Nordic benefit they generated was high, medium or low. As a starting point for the investigation, the working group had chosen three dimensions in which nordisk nytta was evaluated. These were:
- the preconditions for an activity to be regarded as Nordic;
- the identifiable positive effect on cost-efficiency; and
- the quality of the results in terms of both the development of Nordic community and Nordic competence and competitiveness.
The impact of the report was visible already the following year when it led to significant cuts in Nordic activities and the discontinuation of several institutions. Furthermore, based on the report, a greater degree of financing was now directed at specific projects instead of permanent Nordic institutions.
In the aftermath of these substantial changes, the concept of nordisk nytta came under scrutiny and was condemned in particular by the Nordic ministers for culture. The closure of Nordic institutions on the basis of what was deemed a narrow application of the concept provoked reaction, as these institutions were deemed to be central to the formation of the infrastructure for Nordic co-operation. The Nordisk nytte report was criticised for being strongly economy-oriented, as many members of the working group behind the report had links to the Nordic finance ministries. It was also unclear whether all three requirements for an activity to be characterised according to the principle of nordisk nytta should be met simultaneously. At the same time, however, there was support for the de-bureaucratisation and increased efficiency of Nordic co-operation.
Creating a high Nordic profile
In the late 1990s, the term nordiskt mervärde emerges alongside nordisk nytta in steering documents of official Nordic co-operation, and from 1999 onwards it becomes integrated in the basic statutes for Nordic institutions. Although the term nordiskt mervärde translates into English literally as “Nordic added value”, in the 2000s, the term was commonly translated into English as, for example, “Nordic synergy”.
Despite the adoption of a new term to articulate the continuing need for joint Nordic action, attempts to define nordiskt mervärde have been pointed out to often end up in the same points that characterise nordisk nytta. At the same time, however, nytta and mervärde evoke different connotations that should not be overlooked. Unlike nytta, the dictionary definition of the term “added value” is “an improvement or addition to something that makes it worth more”. The concept of “added value” is also more familiar from the field of economics. “Added value”, or alternatively “value added”, derives from Marxian economics referring to the value of the labour created by the worker, which the employer or owner leaves unpaid. Another distinct reference to the term can be found in fiscal theory in the concept of “value added tax”, which means a consumption tax that adds value at each stage of the supply chain. On the other hand, references to “Nordic values” can also be seen as embedded in the idea of nordiskt mervärde, evoking connotations to the values on which Nordic societies are claimed to be based.
At the turn of the millennium, other similar terms were also increasingly in use to describe and justify joint Nordic action. These include concepts such as nordisk dimension (“Nordic dimension”), nordisk bredd (“Nordic breadth”), nordisk nivå (“Nordic level”), nordisk förmedlingspotential (“Nordic mediation potential”), nordiska lösningar (“Nordic solutions”), nordisk samhörighet (“Nordic togetherness”) and nordisk kompetens (“Nordic competence”). The prominent emergence of such concepts can be seen as reflecting a growing importance of finding ways to articulate the meaning of Nordic co-operation.
While in practice it is not often easy to pinpoint differences between nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde, the adoption of the concept nordiskt mervärde links prominently to another recent key juncture of official Nordic co-operation, namely the rise of “the Nordic brand”, as the introduction of the term nordiskt mervärde in official Nordic co-operation has been argued to illustrate a redirection of Nordic co-operation from ideological identity construction towards a more practical type of co-operation. Furthermore, it has been linked with the desire to improve the quality and competitiveness of the Nordic region and the ambition to create a high Nordic profile in the global context.
In the new millennium, Nordic co-operation has been prominently discussed in terms of branding and the rhetoric of “New Nordicness”, which refers to the reinvention of “the Nordic” as a global brand and “as a trademark to be used on global markets.” In recent decades, the Nordic countries have become increasingly successful in terms of their national performance, clustering in the top of numerous global rankings in terms of, for example, economic competitiveness, education, gender equality, prosperity, transparency, quality of life, peace and happiness. As the Nordic countries have emerged as “models” with best practices to share, “Nordicness” has also increasingly become a resource for commercial and cultural branding.
In the 2000s, the Nordic Council of Ministers has also used branding as a way to reclaim visibility for the Nordic region. The 2005 report Norden som global vinderregion, commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers from the Danish think tank Mandag Morgen, has been held as significant in redefining the purpose of the Nordic Council of Ministers towards branding the region based on its set of allegedly distinctive values. This change has contributed to the increased will to present the Nordics as a united front to the outside world. In the 2000s, the Nordic countries also launched a joint Nordic globalisation policy to seek solutions to global challenges, leading to an increasing need to emphasise the Nordic region as an independent collective actor in the global arena.
In this context, the added value of joint Nordic effort has also been further developed, adding an alleged fourth dimension – activities that strengthen the Nordic international influence – to the definition.xlii The principle of “Nordic influence” has been defined as a prominently “outward-looking vision” with a focus on “extra-regional relations and the new desired outcome of Nordic regionalism.”
The outward-looking vision for Nordic co-operation with an emphasis on the Nordic brand and influence in international arenas has not, however, been beyond criticism. The so-called rhetoric of “New Nordicness” has been criticised for focusing too heavily on promoting the region in simplistic, prescriptive and essentialising terms, rather than focusing on regional integration, interaction and the creation of a Nordic community. This means that the global success of the Nordic brand has transformed the rhetoric and ambition of Nordic co-operation from creating a cultural or political community to the creation of attributes or qualities that can be used in global markets. This essentialisation of “the Nordic” has also been pointed out to impact the relationship between Europe and the Nordic region by constructing the Nordic not as an alternative to Europe, but as higher-ranking and superior.
A decline or a renaissance of Nordic co-operation?
In the present day, Nordic co-operation has been argued to be characterised by a tension between “the decline of Nordic co-operation” and the so called “Nordic renaissance”. This has put the Nordic region at a crossroads “where the role of the region is debated against the background of the persistent economic crisis in Europe and an increasingly challenging geopolitical situation.” This also means that the rhetoric of Nordic co-operation continues to evolve and receive a wide range of meanings.
Today, “Nordicness” may invite a reflection on a range of beneficial features such as democracy, welfare, pragmatism and openness. In addition, the positive connotations attached to Nordicness draw from the success of the national performance of the Nordic countries. This success has also translated into new initiatives for Nordic co-operation, especially in the field of foreign policy and defence policy. In the public debate, “the Nordic renaissance” has also been supported by a strengthening of a pan-Nordic discourse, following especially the Swedish historian Gunnar Wetterberg’s proposal for a united Nordic Federation in his 2010 report The United Nordic Federation.
On the other side of the coin, there has also arguably been a continuous decline of Nordic co-operation in the traditional key areas of welfare, law and culture. The adjective “Nordic” may also be associated with negative associations such as arrogance, self-righteousness or xenophobia. Despite continuing political and public support, the political relevance of Nordic co-operation has been questioned, particularly in the 2010s. For example, the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers have struggled to achieve prestige and political and juridical relevance against EU and European integration. The Nordic Council of Ministers has also channelled funds to various programmes rather than to permanent Nordic institutions.
Apart from the political dimension, the lack of common public sphere, including common associations, newspapers and media, has also be identified as a particular challenge that may potentially influence the capacities of ensuring a common Nordic effort. Furthermore, it is often claimed that Nordic citizens understand each other’s languages more poorly today than they did previously, which is also said to be detrimental to the construction of a common Nordic identity and sense of belonging.
This tension is also reflected in official Nordic co-operation, highlighting both its added value and the challenges it faces. Over the last decade, the Nordic countries have faced internal and external challenges that have created tensions between the Nordic countries, but which have also been seen as a signal for a need for more intensive co-operation. Many of these challenges are characteristically global, such as the climate crisis, the refugee crisis, financial crises, pandemics as well as geopolitical tensions and security policy challenges. In particular, increased immigration, the rise of exclusionary nationalism and populism, and the consequent favouring of national priorities have posed challenges for the EU and international co-operation more widely.
The current guideline of official Nordic co-operation follows the Vision 2030 programme, which was adopted by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2019. According to the declaration Our Vision 2030, the Nordic region will be the most sustainable and integrated region in the world by 2030, meaning that all co-operation realised under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers must serve this purpose. The vision is linked to three strategic priorities: “a green Nordic Region”, “a competitive Nordic Region”, and “a socially sustainable Nordic Region”. These three strategic priorities respond to many pressing challenges such as climate change, pollution and threats to biodiversity, and challenges facing democracy, integration and inclusion, but also emphasise the Nordics in a global context. Based on these priorities, the definition of the added value of Nordic co-operation is associated with social sustainability and well-being that are, by their nature, fostered by equality and balance in social, economic and environmental conditions. Consequently, what could be proposed as a novel principle of “Nordic sustainability” strikes a clearer balance between an outward-looking vision for the Nordic region and the more locally impactful added value of Nordic co-operation.
Operationalisation of the concepts today
As discussed above, over the last three decades, the political legitimacy and significance of Nordic co-operation has been articulated through the concepts of nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde, and their various English-language translations. The meanings of these concepts have evolved in parallel with the development and rhetoric of Nordic co-operation. At the same time, it is evident that the conceptual framework of Nordic co-operation is not standardised due to the presence of several similar concepts as well as the increasing use of English as the language of Nordic co-operation.
A cursory look at the ways in which Nordic co-operation is currently articulated reveals that various concepts are in simultaneous use. In the Scandinavian languages, the terms nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde are often used in parallel, almost as synonyms, yet a hierarchy of meaning can be identified between the two concepts. For example, in the statutes of Nordic institutions, contribution to nordisk nytta is represented as the overarching goal of Nordic co-operation whereas nordiskt mervärde is expressed in more practical terms as the outcome of activities, while still maintaining the terms’ sociocultural and economic dimensions. For example, the Swedish-language statutes of NordForsk from 2014, which are very similar to those of other Nordic institutions, state:
All of NordForsk’s activities should aim for a high Nordic profile and contribute to the Nordic benefit [den nordiska nyttan] so that the activities create a Nordic added value [ett nordiskt mervärde] beyond the purely technical results of co-operation.
In English, the term Nordic added value is commonly used as a translation of both nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde, thus blurring the subtle distinction between the two Scandinavian terms. Furthermore, the concept of Nordic added value is not always used in the same format. For example, instead of using Nordic added value as an established concept, the English-language steering documents of official Nordic co-operation state as of February 2023 that the focus of Nordic co-operation is on “areas where a Nordic approach generates added value for the countries and peoples of the Region.” In the Scandinavian language versions of the same webpage, mervärde is used as a translation of “added value”.
In those Nordic organisations that prominently use English, the concept “Nordic added value” is regularly used to state the purpose of joint activities. Aside from NordForsk, which will be discussed later in detail, the concept is visible, for example, in the communication of other Nordic research co-operation organisations such as Nordic Energy Research and the Nordic e-Infrastructure Collaboration (NeIC). For example, in 2021, NeIC developed its own description of Nordic added value in order to better evaluate and communicate the added value provided to the Nordic region through NeIC projects. Another example of the use of the term in English can be found in the context of NordRegio, which is an international research centre for regional development and planning. NordRegio defines the contribution of its activities to the creation of Nordic added value through the facilitation of co-operation between Nordic stakeholders.
European Added Value as a conceptual relative
Taking into consideration the established English translation, Nordic added value cannot be fully considered without looking at it in relation to the European context and the concept of “European Added Value” (EAV), which provides a comparative perspective in efforts to define Nordic added value.
The concept of European Added Value, or alternatively “EU added value”, has been used for decades to justify joint European action and the relevance of European funding in various areas. Although the phrase “European added value” first emerged in the early 1980s, references to the added value of EU action are more prominently linked with the introduction of the subsidiarity principle of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty – the principle that decisions should be dealt at the most immediate or local level. In general, EAV constitutes what the EU stands for: “that the sum of the actions taken together will lead to better overall results for the participants than their individual actions can yield, and the belief that stronger collective action and shared sovereignty will therefore be beneficial for the Member States and their citizens.”
The increasing use of EAV has also been linked more broadly to the value turn of modern governance, which can be traced to:
- the reform movement “New Public Management”;
- modern business economics; and
- intensified search of common moral foundations in pluralistic and increasingly secular societies.
In the European context, the intensified search of common moral foundations refers to the declining importance of official religion as a source of cultural cohesion in Europe and the consequent demand to find other unifying principles, often propagated under the name of values. The broad framework of New Public Management (NPM), on the other hand, refers to the new forms of management that have followed the neoliberal tenet to privatise and convert a national economy into a market economy by transferring market principles to the public sector.
Despite emerging as a fashionable buzzword, especially in this millennium, and remaining an ongoing point of discussion in the 2020s, EAV has also been called out for lacking conceptual clarity. Instead, it has been called a multifaceted term with different meanings for different stakeholders. Within the EU context, attempts to define EAV have linked the concept varyingly to, for example, EU principles of subsidiarity and proportionality or complementarity and additionality, economic theories and economies of scale and political arguments, including the promotion of EU values such as peace, democracy, solidarity, security, or the rule of law.
Discussions around EAV can provide some clarity and tools to understand the concept of Nordic added value, such as through the value-turn of modern governance or the framework of NPM and the international branding of the Nordic region as part of efforts to capitalise the improved global reputation of the Nordic countries. European and Nordic co-operation can also essentially be regarded as manifestations of regionalism, but at the same time it is important to remember that Europe and the Nordic region have their own regional histories, rationales and identities. It is therefore critical to understand some of the key differences between Nordic and European co-operation.
A key difference between Nordic co-operation and the EU is their models of governance. Unlike the EU, the Nordic regional governance model is not supra-national, rather the supreme authority for decision-making remains at the national level to ensure that regional agreements and regulations are not superior to national laws. Nordic co-operation has traditionally been characterised by strong norms of consensus and compromise, and a strong commitment to accommodation. This has been an important element in the continued political support for Nordic co-operation, because the lack of a supra-national element instills a sense of trust at the national level as processes can be withdrawn from without serious political or economic consequences. Moreover, Nordic co-operation has traditionally enjoyed public support in contrast with growing euroscepticism in Europe. In a 2017 survey conducted by the Nordic Council of Ministers, more than 90% of Nordic citizens viewed Nordic co-operation as important.
Nordic regional identity does not compete with national identities either, but has commonly been considered to complement them, making the Nordic dimension an important element in the formation of nation-states and national narratives throughout the region. Alongside official Nordic co-operation, informal regional networks and interaction have been seen as characteristic of the Nordic region. These intra-Nordic contacts have been described as a “cobweb”, in which the numerous delicate threads form a strong net.
One particular difference that has been highlighted between the principles of Nordic added value and EAV is the informal dimension that has been noted as lacking at the European level but being present at the Nordic level. The lack of informal dimension has been noted as constituting a relevant tension at the European level as the European parliament has expressed worries against “excessively economistic interpretations” of the concept and fears it being “hijacked by the advocates of maximum growth”. Highlighting the dynamic and flexible nature of EAV, the European parliament has stressed that the concept should thus not be limited only to advanced co-operation between Member States, but should also contain a certain “visionary” aspect. Furthermore, it has been argued that the notion of “cultural value” added should not be forgotten since any object or initiative that takes place under the auspices of the European Union inevitably contributes to the dynamic, knowledge-based society characterised by economic and social cohesion, competitiveness, high employment, security and stability, and the preservation of common heritage.
2.2 The added value of Nordic research co-operation
Although research co-operation has a long history in the Nordic region, formalised research co-operation that takes place through NordForsk under the Nordic Council of Ministers was not established until the mid-2000s. The debate on the need for formal Nordic research co-operation dates to the 1980s and 1990s, when growing aspirations for more coherent research co-operation began to emerge due to the new role of research as a strategic resource for improving competition and economic growth at the national level. However, the acceleration of European integration is a significant driving force in the development of Nordic research co-operation. As part of the Lisbon Strategy in the early 2000s, the EU presented a vision for a common European Research Area (ERA) aiming to make Europe the world’s leading competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. The introduction of the ERA consequently led to a vision of an established Nordic research and innovation area as a regional contribution to the ERA, which would allow Nordic co-operation to be prioritised, have a better competitive advantage for EU resources, and support the development of the Nordic region as one of the most attractive regions in the world for education, research and business.
In 2004, a joint ministerial declaration by the Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research (MR-U) and the ministers for industry led to the establishment of the Nordic Research and Innovation Area (NORIA). The idea was developed in two reports that the MR-U had commissioned in 2002, the white paper NORIA: White Paper on Nordic Research and Innovation written by the Finnish professor and former Minister of Culture and Science of Finland Gustav Björkstrand, and the report A Nordic Dimension in National Research Environments – Nordic Research Institutions under National Responsibility written by the Swedish professor and Secretary-General of the European Research Council Expert Group Dan Brändström. In parallel with the two papers, a strategy report for Nordic innovation Nordic Strength, National Benefit and Global Excellence: Proposals for a Nordic Innovation Policy Co-operation Programme 2005-2010 was also presented, demonstrating the growing political ambition to make the Nordic region an international leader and, in certain areas, a leading region in research, higher education and innovation. According to the white paper, the establishment of NORIA was driven by both regional competitiveness and economic interdependence.
Following the establishment of NORIA, new regional institutions for research co-operation were also established: the Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe) in 2004, NordForsk in 2005 as well as Nordic Energy Research. With the aim of developing co-operation between research and industry across the Nordic region and engaging with the EU, the establishment of these institutions has been seen as a contribution to the renewal and enhancement of Nordic research and innovation co-operation. The development of Nordic research co-operation has also notably been supported by the globalisation agenda of Nordic co-operation, with its calls for joint Nordic activities in research and innovation, education, climate and energy as well as welfare and health issues. In addition, the development of a global knowledge society, in which economies are moving towards more knowledge-intensive modes of production, has been driving an increased focus on research and development as a key enabler of growth and progress.
NordForsk
NordForsk is a Nordic research funding organisation that operates under the Nordic Council of Ministers within the responsibility of the MR-U. NordForsk funds and facilitates cross-sectoral Nordic co-operation on research and research infrastructures. It supports research in the Nordic region by bringing national research groups together and enhancing the quality, impact and efficiency of Nordic research co-operation. This is seen as supporting the Nordic region in becoming a world leader in research and innovation. NordForsk is located in Oslo together with Nordic Innovation and Nordic Energy Research as well as the Nordic e-Infrastructure Collaboration (NeIC), which is a joint initiative between the Nordic countries and facilitates the development and operation of advanced e-infrastructure solutions in areas of joint Nordic interest.
NordForsk is funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the national research funding organisations of the Nordic countries. NordForsk’s three primary funding instruments are research projects, Nordic Centres of Excellence and University Cooperation. It has regular calls, averaging six per year. NordForsk’s programmes are developed in partnership with national research funding organisations through the so-called open invitation mechanism. Through this mechanism, national research funding organisations can propose new Nordic programmes or the continuation of existing programmes based on jointly identified common Nordic priorities. There needs to be funding from at least three Nordic countries for NordForsk to be able to issue a call for proposals, but ultimately the decision to establish new programmes or calls is made by the NordForsk board. National research funding organisations contribute at least two-thirds of the programme funding. Over the years, NordForsk has also had several programmes involving non-Nordic partner countries such as the Baltic countries, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
NordForsk’s key stakeholders are national research councils, universities, and other research-funding bodies. All of NordForsk’s programmes have a programme committee appointed by NordForsk. A programme committee consists of a chairperson and members representing each partner funding the programme.
To be eligible for funding, researchers applying for NordForsk-funding must always be comprised of partners from at least three countries or two countries and one autonomous area. NordForsk’s funding decisions are based on a scientific evaluation, after which the programme committees draw up the recommendation on the funding proposal. The funding proposal is based on the scientific evaluation, the Nordic added value of the projects and a strategic assessment of which projects will best fulfil the programme objectives.
NordForsk’s current organisational performance has been evaluated as excellent since 2018. NordForsk has been seen to be developing into a relevant and useful platform for initiating Nordic research collaboration. Some of the current challenges noted in reference to NordForsk’s organisational performance are its governance model, portfolio steering, impact assessment, strategic communication and, most relevantly, the use of Nordic added value.
Looking for a direction in Nordic research co-operation
Nordic research co-operation was institutionalised in the mid-2000s through the establishment of Nordic research institutions. As discussed above, this era also constitutes a significant juncture for Nordic co-operation in terms of the rise of the Nordic brand and the new Nordic globalisation agenda. It is therefore not surprising that in the early years of NordForsk, the justification of Nordic research co-operation was guided by the target-oriented principle of nordiskt mervärde, emphasising that Nordic co-operation cannot be prioritised simply because it is Nordic, but only if it increases the quality of the knowledge that is produced without substantial costs.
References to other concepts of Nordic co-operation can also be found in discussions held in the early years of NordForsk. In attempts to find a common vision for the research community, existing concepts were seen as inadequate. Nordisk nytta, for example, was viewed among science experts as “paralysing”, “inward-looking” and “restrictive”. As an alternative, the concept of “Nordic strength” (nordisk styrka) was proposed, constituting a more dynamic and outward-oriented vision for Nordic research co-operation.
Nordic strength, or alternatively the plural “Nordic strengths”, was used sporadically in NordForsk’s operations in the following years. In 2008, for example, the concept was prominently explored in the NordForsk policy brief Branding the Nordic Research and Innovation Area. The purpose of the policy brief was to create a branding strategy to profile the Nordic region in the global market and attract foreign investment in research and innovation. The strategy outlined in the report was heavily based on the idea of Nordic strengths, which were seen as providing the basis for the dimensions of the brand identity. Through a consultation of Nordic experts and international research and innovation professionals, the specific “Nordic Strengths” (NB capitalised) that were identified in the policy brief were a highly qualified workforce, technologically advanced user communities and a Nordic tradition of inventiveness and collaboration based on the values of reliability and trust in people, companies and public institutions. In the branding strategy, the idea of Nordic strengths can thus be argued to build on both sociocultural and economic values in a similar manner as the principles of nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde by covering both “the general level that ties the region together and the concrete and specific that attracts investors.”
Nordic added value is established as the polestar of Nordic research co-operation
In a closer examination of NordForsk’s conceptual framework, it is important to note that NordForsk is one of the few Nordic institutions whose official language is English instead of the Scandinavian languages. This decision was made because of the key involvement of Baltic observers in NordForsk’s activities from the outset, as well as because English is the natural language of communication in research co-operation.
The English-language term “Nordic added value” becomes central to the agenda of Nordic research co-operation at the turn of the 2010s. Although it can be considered as a direct translation of the nordiskt mervärde, the novel way of translating the concept is worth noting because it appears in a context where Nordic co-operation is analysed in relation to European research co-operation. Furthermore, the translation seems to appear for the first time in official Nordic co-operation in the context of the research policy area, making research and innovation an important area for conceptual change.
The new way of translating the principle can be found in the 2008 report The Nordic Research and Innovation Area (NORIA) and synergies with the European Research Area (ERA). In the report, however, the concept does not appear in a similar format as it does today, as the idea is expressed through constructs such as “added value”, “added value by Nordic research co-operation” and that research co-operation “adds value”. Similar constructions can also be found in the NordForsk strategy for 2011–2014 and NordForsk’s call texts for programmes until the mid-2010s. Professor Gunnel Gustafsson, who was the director of NordForsk from 2010 to 2018 and has been a board member since 2005, confirms that during her time at NordForsk, Nordic added value or other concepts were never really discussed, but terms such as nytta, mervärde and styrka were considered more as synonyms with each other with natural and self-evident meanings.
Nordic added value appears as an established concept for the first time in the 2011 policy brief Rethinking Nordic Added Value in Research. The report, conducted by the science consultancy firm Technopolis and Erik Arnold, was part of a series of three policy briefs that described and analysed Nordic research co-operation in a European context at the research policy, strategy and research-performing levels. The report was preceded by the new strategy for Nordic research co-operation presented by the MR-U in 2011. Driven by the new globalisation agenda of the Nordic Council of Ministers and the need to address major societal challenges by way of research and innovation, its aim was to intensify research co-operation, as the improvement of research-based knowledge was seen as an important basis both for the stimulation of development and growth through various objectives, including the further refinement of NORIA, as well as to support the central role of NordForsk.
Arnold’s report analysed the concept of “Nordic Added Value” (NB capitalisation) in light of the development of the ERA in which Nordic added value also became closely discussed in relation to the concept of European Added Value (EAV), which has also been used as the primary policy justification within the ERA. Therefore, it is evident that what had previously been translated alternatingly as “benefit” or “synergy” had now become translated as “added value” in relation to the corresponding European concept rather than relying on the previously used translations. The establishment of Nordic Added Value as a specific concept was also enhanced by the capitalisation of each of the three words (“Nordic Added Value”) and the novel use of the abbreviation “NAV”. Furthermore, the report uses “Nordic added value” somewhat anachronistically as a translation of the 1995-term nordisk nytta despite the fact that other sources have held EAV and nordisk nytta as different types of concepts because they do not contain the same words in their formulations. Nevertheless, the report signifies harmonisation in the way in which the rationales for joint Nordic and European efforts are expressed.
Apart from the divergent translations, Arnold’s report also draws attention to the fluidity of concepts and the changes in their definition over time and in different contexts. For example, the report defines “Nordic Added Value” in the 1995 context as more ideologically characterised by referring to the more traditional aim of maintaining a common Nordic cultural identity. In contrast, the report mentions the innovation report Hele Norden som base: Utredning om nordisk erhvervs/naeringsrettet innovationssamarbejde from 1998 as an example of a more economically oriented context of discussing Nordic added value. Due to the new MR-U strategy of 2010, the Rethinking Nordic Added Value report saw Nordic Added Value as having acquired a new definition in the context of research co-operation, emphasising above all competence and competitiveness by creating critical mass for success and expertise, developing platforms for international co-operation, creating the profile of a leading knowledge-based region, enhancing the ability of the region to attract talent and investments, strengthening the Nordic region and its efforts in EU programmes and initiatives, and creating a model for Europe in transnational research co-operation. At the same time, the report underlines that Nordic added value had an informal dimension as well, based on trust, experience, shared history, geography and to some degree on cultural similarity.
The informal dimension was highlighted in the report as a particular difference in relation to European added value, which in the field of European research co-operation was emphasised as lacking. In contrast to EAV, Nordic added value was also noted to be expressed through variable geometry, with thematic priorities coming from the Nordic countries. Nordic co-operation was also seen as focusing on creating good framework conditions for research rather than using research as a tool to achieve security policy, economic or other strategic objectives. Whereas European research programmes have traditionally been thematically broad and industry-oriented, Nordic co-operation has also tended to focus on research-oriented projects, strategic programmes, research training and promoting mobility.
Despite extensively discussing the idea of Nordic added value, the definition of the principle in the 2011 report does not notably differ from the existing definitions of the concept or its Scandinavian counterparts. While the report emphasises the notions of competence and competitiveness, it also positions the informal aspects of co-operation and good research conditions as offering particular Nordic added value instead of only highlighting research as means to achieve specific strategic objectives.
The operationalisation of Nordic added value today
The concept of Nordic added value has been notably integrated into NordForsk’s activities since 2015. It has become incorporated in strategy papers and call texts for research programmes laying emphasis on research that has a focus on areas where joint Nordic action adds value to national initiatives. Since 2018, the concept has been further integrated into the ways in which Nordic research co-operation is articulated. The same year, the MR-U adopted six principles for future Nordic research co-operation, one of which calls for a clearer focus on Nordic added value based on the priorities of the Nordic countries. The effect can be seen in the definition of Nordic added value in NordForsk’s call texts in which Nordic added value becomes more comprehensively defined on a programme-by-programme basis and through various examples. As examples of added value, a typical call text mentions the building of critical mass, networking, sharing data, infrastructures and resources, and enhancing scientific excellence as well as creating societal impact and contributing to research-based policymaking. In more recent call texts, the definition of Nordic added value has been further extended to cover Nordic added value as a precondition for research, building on unique Nordic phenomena such as geographical, climatic, cultural, linguistic or social phenomenon, or on uniquely Nordic data or collections.
Today, Nordic added value is used as the key justification and evaluation criteria in Nordic research co-operation, and Nordic added value created through NordForsk is also increasingly communicated. As stated in the most recent strategy for 2019 to 2022, NordForsk’s primary goal is to facilitate effective and trustful co-operation in the Nordic region that is of the highest international quality, and to deliver Nordic added value. This mission is reflected in all activities, from the development of new programmes to the design of calls for proposals, the assessment of grant applications and impact reports. Elaborating on how research co-operation leads to Nordic added value, the NordForsk website states:
The entire framework for Nordic cooperation is rooted in the idea that together we are stronger, that we can achieve more by working together, and that what we achieve will be better for the inhabitants of the Nordic countries and the rest of the world.
In order to clarify how NordForsk-funded projects create Nordic added value, NordForsk has devised its own definition of Nordic added value, which is the most comprehensive definition of the concept that can be currently found in the context of official Nordic co-operation. NordForsk defines two main categories of Nordic added value, which are
- added value generated because the research collaboration is taking place in the Nordic region; and
- added value generated because the research can only be carried out in the Nordic region.
Under these two categories, research activities that generate added value are defined shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Definition of the Nordic added value in Nordic research co-operation.
| Added value generated because the research collaboration is taking place in the Nordic region | Added value generated because the research can only be carried out in the Nordic region |
| Added value is produced when research activities: help to build critical mass and/or expertise at the Nordic level in important disciplines or research areas; enhance cost-effectiveness by sharing infrastructure or data or harmonising systems for utilising data and other resources in the Nordic region; lead to regional mobility and networking among the Nordic countries; enhance scientific quality and expand the number of high-quality scientific publications through Nordic co-operation; increase the chances of success for Nordic researchers in EU research activities or other international research co-operation; lead to more results and stronger, quality-assured conclusions as a basis for shaping the statutory framework or rationalising and improving the public administration;promote the creation of innovations, patents or other solutions that help to enhance industrial development and co-operation in the Nordic region. | Added value is produced when research activities: build on particular strengths of Nordic researchers, and when the research is carried out by groups with unique expertise; address needs that are unique to the Nordic countries in light of our similar social structures, institutions and institutional culture, and shared cultural heritage; focus on e.g., geographical, climatic, cultural, linguistic or social phenomena in the Nordic region; utilise data from uniquely Nordic registries. |
Since 2022, calls for project proposals have included a hyperlink to NordForsk’s website with a definition of Nordic added value, in similar way as defined in Table 1. In this way, although a more standardised definition of Nordic added value has been integrated into the programme calls, some continue to provide a detailed description of Nordic added value in relation to the thematic focuses of the programmes.
As part of its monitoring activities of research impact, NordForsk follows the results and effects of NordForsk-funded research including Nordic added value. NordForsk defines research impact as both academic impact and societal impact. Academic impact refers to the enhancement of scientific quality and the building of critical expertise, among others. Societal impact refers to the contribution of research to society and the economy, benefitting individuals, organisations and nations. In addition, as part of project monitoring and reporting activities, NordForsk assesses how the research projects have created Nordic added value. NordForsk currently gathers data about research impact from the reporting system Researchfish, in which NordForsk-funded projects are expected to report at least once per year. The Nordic added value that the NordForsk-funded projects create is currently evaluated quantitatively based on the categories presented in Table 1.
Although NordForsk has devised its own definition of Nordic added value, the most recent evaluation of NordForsk from 2022 highlights that the concept lacks an established definition and poses a particular challenge, which makes the concept somewhat unclear and anecdotal. The concept has also been noted not to be widely known among researchers and therefore not easily addressed in applications. Moreover, researchers allegedly do not find it easy to report Nordic added value created in the projects. Based on interviews conducted as part of the evaluation, one of the most important forms of Nordic added value for researchers was networks, referring to both new partnerships among researchers and institutions as well as to the fortification of existing networks. Similar results have also been presented in previous NordForsk user surveys. Nevertheless, more systematic studies and evaluations of research programmes and projects have been proposed as a solution to gain a deeper understanding of the concept.
On this basis, the evaluation proposes a redefinition of the concept, in which Nordic added value would be more clearly divided into preconditions and results, outcomes and benefits. As a precondition, Nordic added value would refer, for example, to the research team or the topics to be addressed, while results, outcomes and benefits would refer to the highest international quality and the development of the Nordic research environment and the Nordic countries.
2.3 Towards a definition of Nordic added value – Challenges and solutions
Historical and present-day usage of concepts of Nordic co-operation from the end of the Cold War period to the present day have been discussed above. Although these concepts have often been used without difficulty as the guiding principle and political justification for Nordic co-operation, it is clear that they have sparked debate and reflection on their definition and use from time to time. Furthermore, when put into practice in various policy areas, such as research co-operation, they give rise to further deliberations. How, then, should we try to understand and define Nordic added value in the crossroads between policy and practice? Examples from other policy areas and regional contexts shed light on this challenge.
The enigma of value-based concepts
Looking at the definition of the various concepts and translations of Nordic co-operation, one can conclude that they are fundamentally value-based concepts as they enduringly manifest both sociocultural and economic values. However, value-based concepts are typically described as being ambivalent and enigmatic. Discussions of values also often end up at a very abstract level and the ambiguity of values is commonly present in efforts to define or articulate them for various purposes. In a similar manner, concepts used to justify Nordic co-operation have been called out as vague, weak and lacking unified definitions.cxxii For example, despite their self-evident role in Nordic co-operation, the question of what makes Nordic values exactly “Nordic” is often considered difficult due to the challenges of defining a “real” difference between Nordic, European and Western values.
Another key reason for the enigmatic character of value-based concepts is the evident tension between policy and practice. Although the idea of Nordic added value may be defined as the rationale for joint action in political speeches and steering documents, when such concepts become defined as the target of activities, they enter the realm of concrete action. The attainment of such target-oriented action requires the operationalisation of concepts in different organisations and among different stakeholders, which often reveals rather than clarifies the ambiguities involved. This issue has been discussed in the context of Nordic cultural co-operation, where the same concepts have also been prominently operationalised in the assessment of funding applications, and in the context of higher education regionalism, where Nordic added value has been defined as a “floating signifier” – an open and evolving concept with multiple meanings.
Clear directives and mandates are often demanded from those who are subject to governance, but at the same time, it should not be forgotten that unclear objectives also have many advantages and provide a high degree of flexibility for operational activities. This is a common dilemma and paradox in any discussion of target-oriented management. For example, in reference to the EU, it has been noted that EAV has been used to justify almost every kind of objective.
Limited available strategies
Nordic institutions have been noted to have limited options to navigate this complex web of concepts. As a result, most Nordic institutions are often satisfied with a relatively simple understanding of concepts and what they entail. Nordic institutions have been argued to have two strategies at their disposal when trying to interpret concepts of co-operation. These are:
- restructuring of the conceptual hierarchy; and
- broadening of meaning.
Restructuring of the conceptual hierarchy refers to attempts to create hierarchies between different concepts, such as in statutes, in which concepts receive their meaning in relation to each other. This is evident, for example, in the statutes of Nordic institutions in which nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde are articulated in reference to each other. In Nordic research co-operation, the prominent emergence of the English-language term “Nordic added value” at the turn of the 2010s, in turn, blurs this distinction. Furthermore, the adoption of the English-language formulation “Nordic added value” demonstrates how concepts of Nordic co-operation can also take shape in reference to conceptual relatives outside the Nordic region, in this case EAV.
The broadening of meaning, in turn, relates to the relative freedom of Nordic institutions to define and operationalise Nordic added value. In the context of research co-operation, this strategy can be seen in the creation of sector-specific examples of activities that generate added value. In addition, this strategy can be seen as being employed in attempts to categorise or rearrange categories that are defined as generating Nordic added value as in the recent NordForsk evaluation.
Challenges in the practical application of concepts
The presence of several similar concepts makes it difficult for various actors and stakeholders to understand their meaning and communicate them with each other. The interpretation of concepts may vary from person to person and also over time. This leads to a certain asymmetry in the ways in which the idea of Nordic added value is communicated to different stakeholders, such as national funding organisations, science advisors and researchers. In practice, this may lead to situations where the information provided to applicants is based on a broad definition of a concept, while the experts assessing applications may rely on a narrower definition of the same concept, leading to a situation in which the applicants and the experts interpret the concepts differently. Consequently, it has been considered important to strike a balance between clear guidelines and criteria, and a degree of flexibility in interpretation.
The lack of a normative definition raises questions as to how the need for funding or the Nordic added value created through various activities should be assessed or evaluated in the absence of comparable indicators. While nordisk nytta, nordiskt mervärde and Nordic added value are ways to articulate and demonstrate the positive accumulative effect of Nordic effort, it has been commonly noted that in practice, it is not easy to measure the extent of this effect. In the 1990s, for example, debates around nordisk nytta highlighted the difficulty in quantifying or measuring the criteria for nordisk nytta given the lack of hard data and quantitative evidence. Consequently, it was stressed that initiatives should primarily be based on qualitative considerations, making nordisk nytta above all a qualitative concept.
In the European context, the use of EAV as an operative measuring instrument has also been deemed challenging, as the concept can be used to justify almost any kind of objective. In order to use it as an operative measuring instrument, the formulation must however be subject to constraints, making it more quality-conscious and exacting. Several European attempts within various policy areas to establish rigorous interpretations of the concept of EAV have been informed by the same ambition between the ambiguous character of the concept and the exacting needs linked with its operationalisation.
Mutual complexity of concepts
An additional challenge related to the issue of defining Nordic added value is the evident presence of many different concepts and translations that have been used to describe the rationale of Nordic co-operation. Concepts such as nordisk nytta, nordiskt mervärde and Nordic added value have emerged at different times and in different contexts to articulate the positive accumulative effect of joint Nordic effort. While the content of these concepts has changed over time and the concepts do not necessarily mean the same as what they did decades ago, they continue to be used concurrently and may carry different meanings and connotations for different people.
This means that the concepts inevitably overlap to some extent and there may even be attempts to put them into a hierarchical order. For example, when looking at the contemporary use of the Scandinavian concepts nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde, it is evident that a hierarchy of meaning exists between them although they have emerged in different times and contexts. Whereas nordisk nytta refers more readily to the broader benefit or usefulness of operating at a Nordic level, nordiskt mervärde is articulated in more practical terms as the outcome of joint Nordic effort. In a similar vein, it has been noted that one meaning or use of a concept does not exclude the other, but that different interpretations can be laid on top of each other.
It is also evident that these concepts have been translated differently in different times as English has gained prominence as a language of Nordic co-operation. While Nordic added value has become the somewhat established English-language translation for the guiding principle of Nordic co-operation, a similar hierarchy of meaning that exists between nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde is missing in this translation. Instead, the composition of the concept directs attention to the conceptual relative of EAV, which, however, receives its meaning in its own unique regional context of EU. In addition, the presence of different concepts and their translations often lead to the anachronistic use of concepts, further contributing to their enigmatic character.
2.4 Summary
This chapter has examined the origins of the idea of Nordic added value and its contemporary use in both official Nordic co-operation and Nordic research co-operation. The chapter has shown that several concepts and translations of them have been used in formal Nordic co-operation since the 1990s to articulate the positive accumulative effect of joint Nordic effort. Despite the changing rhetoric of Nordic co-operation, these concepts have always been fundamentally intertwined with both socio-cultural and economic values, and have negotiated the Nordic region in relation to both the national level and the outside world in both official Nordic co-operation and its various policy areas. In essence, the concepts of Nordic co-operation are an integral part of target-oriented region-building, where Nordic co-operation does not have an intrinsic value in itself, but where success is weighed in relation to predetermined goals. The chapter has further pointed out that that while the concepts of Nordic co-operation are not widely debated in official Nordic co-operation, there are enduring challenges relating to their operationalisation, revealing a tension between the simultaneous role of concepts as both political visions and practical instruments. In the following chapter, the findings from the interviews conducted with science advisors and other experts working in NordForsk’s programme committees are presented in order to link the theoretical discussion on Nordic added value to a practical context.