Votes Count but the Number of Seats Decides: A comparative historical case study of 20th century Danish, Swedish and Norwegian road policy

Abstract

This dissertation about Danish, Swedish and Norwegian 20th century road policy is an attempt of elucidating some puzzles: Why did Norwegian authorities pursue a road policy contrary to most other West European industrialized countries? Why were highly noticeable congestion, accident and environmental problems within and near Norway’s major population clusters overlooked or ignored for decades? The theoretical and analytical framework is based on historical institutionalism supplemented with theories about collective goods, distributions of burdens and benefits and institutional change and development. The theoretical discussions led to development of four working hypotheses: The main hypothesis or benchmark was roads perceived as national collective goods with road policy and road construction governed by politicians pursuing the common good. The second hypothesis was roads perceived as local collective or private goods with road policy and road construction governed by the constituencies’ resource struggles. The third hypothesis was roads perceived as local collective or private goods with road policy and road construction governed by the political parties’ rivalry. The final hypothesis was road policy and road construction governed by path dependence.