Institute for Social Research, Oslo

Students of comparative politics have convincingly demonstrated that the character of political leadership varies greatly from one nation to another. This has been demonstrated in several studies, each one dealing however with only one nation. In recent years a few brave attempts' have been made in compiling data on leadership from various nations. Comparative problems have been suggested, but so far little has been done in terms of systematic comparative research.

A notable example of a study of one nation is L. G. Seligman's on the recruitment of nominees for state office in America.² He is concerned with the impact of party structure upon the recruitment process, and he has demonstrated that internal group processes within the political parties are of great significance for the selection of candidates. One may wonder to what extent the findings of that study are due to the specific character of American political institutions. As a contrast, it may be useful to study the recruitment of leaders in a society with a widely different political system.

In the present paper we will be concerned with the recruitment of parliamentary nominees in Norway. Before specifying the problems it is necessary to give a brief account of the institutional arrangements which constitute a framework for the selection of leaders.³

Political Institutions

Norway is a unitary state with a parliamentary form of government. The
parliament (Storting) consists of 150 members elected for four-year terms. During
the period between two elections the Storting cannot be dissolved. Furthermore,

---

* I am indebted to my colleagues Mr. Stein Rokkan and Mr. Per Torsvik, who have read an earlier draft of this paper and made valuable suggestions, and to Mr. Svennik Høyer who has designed the charts. Mr. David Johnson has also been of great help in editing the manuscript. But the responsibility for the contents rests exclusively with me.

* I am indebted to my colleagues Mr. Stein Rokkan and Mr. Per Torsvik, who have read an earlier draft of this paper and made valuable suggestions, and to Mr. Svennik Høyer who has designed the charts. Mr. David Johnson has also been of great help in editing the manuscript. But the responsibility for the contents rests exclusively with me.

the four-year interval is not interrupted by any by-elections because a system of "alternates" has been established. If a member dies, his alternate will take his seat. And if a member becomes ill or is appointed to some other office, an alternate will take his seat during the absence.

Norway has a system of seven political parties: the Communist Party (founded 1923), the Socialist People's Party (1961), the Labor Party (1887), the Liberal Party (1884), the Christian People's Party (1933), the Center Party (Agrarians 1921), and the Conservative Party (1884).

Norway uses a system of proportional representation. The electoral system and nomination procedures are of particular importance for the selection of nominees. The country is divided into 20 parliamentary constituencies, each one comprising a province (fylke). The two largest cities, Oslo and Bergen, constitute separate constituencies, whereas all other towns and cities are in provinces which also include rural areas. Each province elects a fixed number of representatives, varying from four to thirteen, depending upon the size of the population. The mandates are distributed among the parties according to their number of votes.⁴ Those not elected on a party list obtain the position of "alternate" (varamann). They automatically move up, in due order, in case of death or illness of a representative.

The lists run by the political parties consist of a number of candidates corresponding to the total number of representatives to be elected from the respective constituencies; in addition there is a maximum of six "reserve" candidates. Thus only a few top candidates on a given list have any chance of being elected. The voters have a right to change the rank-order of the candidates, to omit one or more candidates and even to split the ticket by including candidates from other lists. However, according to the legal provisions, a very high proportion of the voters would have to change the lists in order to override the parties' rankings and this has never happened. In practice, the voters only have a choice among different party lists; the question of which candidates are going to represent them is decided exclusively by the parties.

Nominations for Storting elections are generally made at provincial conventions. Under this system, nominations constitute sequences of procedures internal to each party. The convention is composed of delegates from the individual cities, towns and rural communes⁵ in the constituency, and the number of delegates from, each local unit is allocated according to the number of votes for that party at the preceding Storting election. In the local party meetings which elect delegates only dues-paying party members are permitted to participate. In addition to electing the delegates the local meetings usually discuss which candidates should be proposed for nominations. The delegates are in general inclined to follow the proposals from their respective communes, but they are not legally bound to do so. The decisions made by the nominating provincial convention are final. Thus the national party headquarters has neither access to the meeting nor any right to veto the list.

The Problems

In summary, the recruitment of nominees is decided exclusively by the respective political parties. The number of nominees is considerably higher than the number actually elected, and the nominating conventions rank the candidates on the lists in the sequence they want to see them elected.

Seligman⁶ distinguishes between two stages in the recruitment process: "certification" and "selection". Certification includes the social screening and political channeling that results in eligibility for candidacy, whereas selection includes the actual choice of candidates to represent parties in the general election." Following this distinction we may formulate four problems:

1) Which qualities are required of a person in order to be nominated at
Storting elections?

2) Which factors or considerations determine the actual choice of candidates?
3) Who are actually recruited as nominees, i.e. what characterizes nominees

as compared to the rest of the electorate?

4) What characterizes people who obtain the more favorable positions on the
list as compared to the rest of the nominees?

For each one of these problems we will be concerned with differences among
the various parties. We may expect that variations in leadership characteristics
may reveal differences in the character of the parties.

CERTIFICATION OF NOMINEES

"Certification" was defined above as a social process including "the social screening and political channeling" that makes a person eligible for candidacy. A study of this process would call for a design taking into account the dynamic interactions between social environments and individual characteristics of people who might become candidates for nominations. However, in this screening process the considerations of "eligibility" must be based upon some norms and values which are characteristic of the political culture of a given society or, rather, of a given party. In an attempt to approach the problem of "certification", we have asked party leaders to evaluate the personal characteristics of people whom they would like to see nominated. Presumably the evaluations by party leaders should reveal norms and values which are characteristic of Norwegian political culture.

The data are drawn from a community study in the Stavanger area in Southwestern Norway before the 1957 Storting election.⁷ A sample of 149 local party leaders were interviewed,⁸ and we may safely assume that our leaders were well informed about the nomination process.⁹

The sample was asked the following question: "Which are the principal qualities
you require of the person you would nominate to the electoral list?" The
responses are reported in Table 1.

Even though we take into account the low number of respondents, the differences among the parties are smaller than one would expect. The most reasonable explanation is that the norms and values upon which the leaders base their evaluations are by-and-large common for all parties. For the total sample, "competence and political experience" is the one category that has been most frequently mentioned. Next come moral qualities, then party loyalty, platform abilities, and finally, the need for the candidate to belong to some specific social groups,¹⁰ a response which has been given by less than one out of five.

In an additional question the leaders were asked if there were some qualities they would consider unfortunate for a candidate.¹¹ Three out of four mentioned some moral weaknesses: dishonesty, irresponsibility, non-dependability, drunkenness, "over-striving". One-fourth mentioned failure of the candidate to maintain rapport with voters. But surprisingly few leaders mentioned as negative qualities lack of competence, lack of party loyalty, and lack of support from some specific social groups. Again we find that leaders from different parties tend to respond in very much the same manner.

Table 1 shows, however, some interesting party differences:

1. Labor leaders are more inclined than others to stress that the nominee must be strongly attached to his party. This finding is consistent with the strong tendency of the Labor Party to emphasize "class solidarity" and "solidarity with the Labor movement".¹² The demand for "solidarity" might be interpreted as a stronger concern with ideological matters in the Labor Party than in the non parties. But a more reasonable explanation is that the observed attitudes reflect more profound differences among the parties in organizational structure and philosophy. Available data indicate that the Labor Party has a more articulated and more active membership organization than have the non-Socialist parties.¹³ Further, Labor is more inclined to emphasize the role of the membership organization in formulating the policies of the party.¹⁴ The Labor leaders are more

inclined than leaders of other parties to express the need for party discipline and to emphasize the principle that the membership organization should not only decide the party programs but it should also take a stand on current issues, and that the;representatives of the party in public office should be bound by the decisions of the membership organization. In the non-Socialist parties the membership organizations are seen to be more restricted to the tasks of waging the party's election campaigns and recruiting leaders for public office.¹⁵ Apparently in all parties it is a basic condition for nomination that the candidate has served the party as a worker and officer and thus has demonstrated that he is a sincere and loyal supporter of its policies and ideas. However, when the background of the structural differences among the parties is considered, it is natural that this norm must be more important in the Labor Party than in the non-Socialist parties.

2. Qualities referring to education, competence and experience in public office are less frequently mentioned by Labor leaders than by bourgeois leaders. Most extreme in this respect are the leaders of the Conservative and Center Parties, practically all of whom have mentioned these qualities. Again, the differences in attitudes probably reflect differences in the character of the parties. The Labor Party is not likely to ignore the competence or skill of its candidates, but formal education tends to be evaluated lower than training obtained through experience in organizational work in the party and in the trade union movement, with which the party has rather close ties.¹⁶ The non-Socialist parties, as we have seen, place less emphasis upon the candidate's attachment to his party. These parties are mainly run by middle-class people and farmers (the Center Party),¹⁷ and they rely heavily upon the support of voters who belong to similar social groups.¹⁸ Because of their "middle-class" character, the non parties are strongly inclined to nominate candidates who enjoy high social status in the community. Having a good education, holding an important occupational position, and being known in public office are components which may contribute to giving a person a strong public standing. Of course, it is not incompatible for a prospective candidate both to enjoy high social prestige and to be strongly attached to his party. However, the data suggests that if candidates cannot be found who combine these two sets of qualities, the Labor Party would prefer candidates with a strong background in the party, whereas the non parties would look for candidates who enjoy high social prestige with the electorate.

3. The Liberals are far more inclined than other leaders to mention the "moral qualities" of candidates. The emphasis upon moral values reflects an old tradition in the ideology of the Liberal Party. The picture of a Liberal candidate that emerges from Table 1 is a rather unique one: the requirements for platform abilities and party loyalty are lower than in other parties, whereas political and professional competence and, above all, moral qualities are highly evaluated.

4. Finally, the category "group representation" shows some interesting party
differences; the Center and the Christian People's Parties are more inclined than
other parties to demand that the candidates should belong to some specific

group. This difference apparently reflects the narrow social basis of the two former parties. Whereas Labor, Liberals, and the Conservatives claim to be "people's parties", representing all major groups in society, the Center Party depends heavily upon the support of farm interests, and the Christian People's Party obtains most of its votes from people belonging to the lay religious and temperance movements, although this party certainly represents a variety of occupational groups. It may be asserted that the Center and the Christian People's Parties to some extent have the character of being a combination of a political party and an interest organization.¹⁹ In our study the leaders of the Christian People's Party tended to say that the candidate must be a devout Christian.²⁰ The leaders of the Center Party tended to claim that the candidate should express the rural interests. At the time this study was made, this party was called "the Agrarian Party". By changing its name in 1959, the narrow group basis of the party became less visible.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

During the first stages of the nomination process, a number of people are proposed as candidates, a large proportion of whom would probably be considered eligible by a majority of party members and leaders. In the final stage, the nominating convention is faced with the task of choosing the proper number of candidates among those who are eligible. At this stage the main problem is to determine the criteria and considerations upon which the selection should be based. As will be discussed later, we may assume that to some extent the criteria mentioned will reveal the power structure within the various parties. In other words, the selection of candidates may be looked upon as a struggle between competing intra-party groups.²¹

In our leadership sample, respondents who had participated in the 1957

nominating convention were presented with the lists of their respective parties,
and they were asked to explain why each one of the five top candidates had
been selected. The responses are reported in Table 2.

By comparing Tables 1 and 2 we observe a striking difference between criteria for eligibility of candidates and criteria for selection. In the first case the respondents almost exclusively emphasized personality characteristics, and less than one out of five mentioned that the candidate ought to belong to certain groups. When the leaders are asked why specific candidates were nominated, group background was mentioned with approximately the same frequency as other characteristics. When party differences in evaluating personality qualities are analyzed the pattern is consistent in the two tables: the non-Socialist leaders are most inclined to emphasize the competence, education and public experience of the candidates, whereas the Labor leaders are more inclined to mention party loyalty and firmness of conviction. Very few leaders have mentioned "moral qualities" as a reason for nominating candidates. The explanation may be that moral qualities of aspiring candidates are not discussed in the nominating convention.

The problem of group representation deserves a more detailed discussion. In all parties territorial representation is important. The province of Rogaland is separated into four geographical areas which compete for nominations: Jæren, Ryfylke, Dalane, and the Karmsund-district. All parties have nominated representatives for youth and women. Representation of occupational interests has frequently been mentioned: on the Labor Party's list these are trade union workers, whereas on the Liberal and Conservative lists, they are agriculture and business. Surprisingly few have mentioned the representation for temperance and religious groups. It should be kept in mind, however, that we have asked about only five out of a total of sixteen candidates on the list for each individual party. An investigation of the total number of candidates would have given a far more detailed picture of group representation.

The respondents emphasized that the list is usually composed in such a way that it covers a great variety of social interests in the constituency. Each individual candidate frequently represents several interests, e.g. a geographical area, an occupational group, and the temperance movement. Consequently, an aspiring candidate who has a standing within several social groups has the greatest chances of being selected.

As a supplement to our leadership study, a questionnaire was sent to all candidates nominated on the lists in the province of Rogaland in 1957, inquiring about memberships in social organizations outside the political parties. The results strongly confirmed our previous findings: the number of memberships is much higher for the nominees than it is for the average citizen. In a large proportion of the organizations to which the nominee belongs he holds a leadership position. By and large, the several nominees of each individual party covered a wide range of organizations, but there were some striking differences among the parties, which might be expected since Norwegian parties have a rather distinct social composition.²² In the Labor, Liberal, Center and Conservative

Parties, a great majority of the candidates held memberships in occupational organizations: The Laborites in trade unions, white collar unions and a few in farm organizations; the Agrarians predominantly in farm organizations; Liberals and Conservatives in white collar unions, management organizations and a few in farm organizations. Only one third of the candidates of the Christian People's Party were attached to occupational groups (white collar unions, and management organizations), but all of them held positions in one or more temperance or religious organizations. Except for the Liberals, only a few candidates from other parties were affiliated with temperance and religious organizations.

Candidates of all parties reported that they were affiliated with a variety of
other social groups: humanitarian, sport and hobby, cultural, defense, etc.

By nominating people who hold positions in specific social organizations, the parties make group representation on their lists visible, and apparently this is of great importance. Four out of five leaders held the conviction that the composition of the list had an impact on the behavior of the voters. The reasons they gave for believing that the list was more or less sucessful were mainly in terms of its ability to represent various groups, e.g., "the list would attract many farm votes", "the women had obtained a favorable position", "the party had failed to nominate a typical representative for the white collar workers".

The findings from the community study in the Stavanger area are consistent with the results of a previous study of nominations.²³: both studies indicate that group considerations constitute an important mechanism for selecting nominees in the Norwegian system. In fact, group representation has been institutionalized as a dominant pattern for the selection of candidates. The groups which are being represented may be classified in four categories:

1. Territorial groups. These are groups expressing the interests of some geographical areas within the constituency. All constituencies (i.e. provinces) except Oslo and Bergen are divided into a few relatively stable and relatively clearly defined sub-areas which are discernible in the nomination process. The local interests expressed through territorial groups may be potential or active: development of industry, development of electric power, construction of roads and railroads, construction of schools and hospitals, etc. As distinguished from territorial groups, no other groups (i.e. "functional" groups) are restricted to geographical areas of the constituency.

2. Occupational groups. These are based upon economic interests shared by members and voters of a given party. The main occupational groups to which attention is given at nominations are manual workers (trade unions), white collar workers, farmers, fishermen, and private business people in industry and commerce.

3. Cultural groups are based upon particular social and cultural values. The
most important groups of this character are religious, temperance, and linguistic
(i.e. the people favoring New Norwegian in the nation's language conflict).24

4. Demographic groups are based upon age and sex differences; these are
restricted to youth and women.

The electoral list gives information about the occupation and commune of residence for each individual candidate. Furthermore, the sex of the candidate is easily observed, since practically all Norwegian first names clearly designate the person's sex. Thus territorial, occupational, and feminine representation can be made more easily visible than can representation of other groups. It should be noted, however, that even though a candidate possesses a certain characteristic, i.e., belongs to a specific occupation, does not necessarily imply that he is intended to be a representative for a corresponding social group.

The term "group representation" refers to some specific interests articulated within the various parties. Each "group" represented corresponds to a similar category of voters which constitute an electoral potential for the party. Further, with the notable exception of territorial groups, each group represented corresponds to one or more associations outside the party. Therefore, it is natural to ask whether interest representation is a result of influences or demands by concerned organizations. Although the question has never been systematically investigated, examples can be found showing that social organizations have tried to influence nominations.²⁵ But the main reasons for the existence of the system of group representation must be found within the parties themselves. And the parties have several reasons for maintaining such a system:

1. The parties believe that the composition of the list has an impact upon the
behavior of the voters and, in particular, that candidates who are identified with
specific groups make the list attractive to the corresponding categories of voters.

2. The members and leaders of a single party are very heterogenous with respect to social background, and they are affiliated with a number of different social organizations. Members with approximately similar social background will naturally prefer to nominate candidates who share their interests and attitudes. On the basis of similarities in social background and political outlook, a number of more or less formalized subgroups operate within the political parties during the process of nominations.²⁶ By satisfying the demands of intraparty subgroups, the system of group representation contributes in integrating the various sections of the party and thus provides for a greater amount of party unity.

3. The system of group representation may also be looked upon as a vehicle for establishing good relationships between political parties and social organizations ²⁷ When a party nominates a person who also holds a strong position in a specific organization, the party may be justified in expecting support from the same organization. However, in order to maximize its votes, the party must avoid the stigma of being an instrument for a narrow set of social interests. Therefore, the party has to include on its list representatives for a number of

different social groups. Thus the system of group representation serves the
function of aggregating a variety of different social interests in the party's
decision-making bodies.

For a further study of the selection of nominees, two problems are crucial:

1. To what extent and in what ways is the actual choice of candidates
determined by group competition within the parties? And to what extent is
it determined by calculations of gains at the polls?

2. In what ways do the parties differ with regard to intraparty group structure?

Nominees at the 1957 Election

We do not have at hand the appropriate interview data for analyzing these problems. But an initial analysis of the background of candidates nominated in 1957 may help to clarify the question. This analysis will be our main concern throughout the rest of this paper.

At the 1957 Storting election, a total of 1620 candidates were nominated. For these candidates we have collected a few background variables: age, sex, socioeconomic position, involvement in local politics, and political and social structure of their home communes. In this analysis we will be concerned with the last two of our four problems: "What characterizes nominees as compared to the rest of the electorate?" and "What characterizes people who obtain the more favorable positions on the list as compared to the rest of the nominees?"

In order to measure position on the list we have introduced a distinction between "top candidates" vs. "lower candidates". The "top candidates" include: a) all those who were actually elected to the Storting, b) those who rank as first and second "alternate" on each list, and c) those who were number one on lists of parties which did not obtain a single seat at the election in that particular province. Those not in these categories are hereafter called "lower" candidates.

Demographic Background of Candidates

Sex

Of the 1620 nominees only 287 (or nearly 18 per cent) were women. In the same election the female part of the electorate amounted to 51 per cent. The weak position of women in political leadership is certainly not a particular Norwegian problem.²⁸ We will not try to explain this general phenomenon. Our main concern will be with an analysis of party differences in the representation of women, and the problem of the extent to which the recruitment of female nominees is determined by social structure.

At the outset it should be recalled that the political rights of women are
relatively recent. In the first period after female suffrage had been introduced

women were not strongly motivated to vote. Norwegian women were for the first time permitted to participate in a local election in 1901. In the rural districts only 9.5 per cent of them did vote, whereas the corresponding figure for men was 41.2 per cent. Gradually the vote participation of women increased; in 1957 it was only 1.2 per cent units lower than the participation of men in urban areas and 6.0 units lower in rural areas.²⁹ However, the participation of women is far more impressive at the polls than at higher levels in the political system. The proportion of politically-active persons is much higher among men than among women. On the basis of a cross-sectional voter survey in 1957, which was part of our program of electoral studies (see footnote 7), an index was established for measuring political activity. According to this index, 30 per cent of the men but only 14 per cent of the women could be classified as politically active.³⁰ The relative number of women in political office is even smaller, although it has increased gradually. In 1901 women were elected to local councils in urban areas in a ratio of 43 out of 1000 representatives; in 1959 the corresponding figure was 139 out of 1000.³¹ In 1921 the first woman was elected to the Storting; in 1957 ten women were elected (or less than seven per cent of the assembly).

The relatively few women who are nominated tend to obtain an unfavorable
ranking on the lists/Of all the 1620 nominees 18 per cent were women, but in
the three sub-groups the corresponding percentage varied as follows:

The proportion of women is definitely lowest among the elected representatives and it reaches its maximum among the alternates. In other words, the parties are not inclined to rank women among their "safe" candidates, but they tend to put them in the marginal places on lists, i.e. for seats which they hope to win.³² Apparently this is due to tactical considerations. During the election campaigns, "marginal" candidates are mentioned more often than other candidates, and politicians seem to believe that these marginal candidates may have an especially strong impact upon the outcome of the election. Women are nominated in the marginal places in order to make the list more attractive to female voters.

The variations among the parties in the proportions of women nominated are surprisingly small: The Communists are lowest (12 per cent), next come the Center and Labor Parties (17—18 per cent), whereas the three other parties vary between 20 and 23 per cent. To some extent relatively small variations are likely to be a result of tactical considerations. In several constituencies the parties have been slow in nominating women, but when one party nominates a woman all other parties react by following the example. This has been a tendency over a

long series of elections. Again we notice that the nomination of women is being
used as a method for appealing to the female part of the electorate.

Concerning the ranking of women on the lists, Labor and the Conservatives
are most inclined to place them among their top candidates, next follow the
Liberals. (Figure 1)

Although the variations between parties in the recruitment of female nominees are small, they may reflect differences in the impact of structural variables. First of all, we may consider the impact of the suborganizations for women within the political parties.³³ It is a reasonable hypothesis that the stronger the women's organization, the greater will be the number of women on the list. The demands for representation of women are mainly articulated by these suborganizations during the process of nominations. Through activities in these organizations, the women may acquire political and organizational skills and thus obtain a platform for gaining a position in the leadership of the main party organization.

All parties except the Communists have established sub-organizations for
women, and these organizations vary in strength from one party to another.
(Table 3)

To some extent the figures for organizational strength correspond to the
proportion of women nominated by the various parties. In particular this is true
for the Communists and the Conservatives, who have nominated the lowest and

the highest number of women, respectively. There is a similar tendency for the Labor Party: there is a very high proportion of women among the top candidates and a large number of local women's organizations. The correspondence is less clear for the Liberal and the Christian People's Parties, which have weak women's organizations but have nominated substantial proportions of women. We may conclude that the proportion of women nominated correlates with the strength of women's organizations, although the correlation is significant only for the proportion of women nominated among the top candidates.³⁴ But when the great varviations among the parties in the strength of women's organizations are considered, greater differences in the representation of women would be expected. In particular, it is surprising that the Labor Party with its large number of local women's organization did not nominate more women. Organizational strength cannot be the only variable that accounts for the representation of women.

Social composition of the various parties is another structural variable which ought to be considered. Women in middle class positions have a much higher frequency of political activity than working class and farm women. According to the index for political activity in the 1957 nationwide voter survey 34 per cent of the male manual workers were classified as "actives" as compared to 15 per cent of female manual workers and only 10 per cent of housewives in working class families.³⁵ In farm families 34 per cent of the men but only 15 per cent of the women were actives. Among salaried employees the percentage of actives

was 24 for women and 25 for men. This tendency is consistent for education; for people who had only elementary school, 28 per cent of the men but only 10 per cent of the women were classified as actives, and for people with high school education or more the figures were 22 per cent for men compared to 25 per cent for women. Thus, in the middle classes the differences between men and women in political activity tend to disappear. Therefore, the conditions for recruiting female nominees are better in the middle classes than in the working class and in the farm community. Consequently, in parties which have their predominant basis in the middle classes, i.e. Conservatives, Liberals and to less extent, the Christian People's Party, there is presumably a larger number of eligible women than in parties which draw their main support from farmers and the manual working class.³⁶

As already suggested, the differences in political activity between men and women are greater in rural than in urban communities. According to the 1957 voter survey, 34 per cent of the men but only 6 per cent of the women in the primary economy areas could be classified as actives. In the four largest cities the percentages were 22 for men and 20 for women.³⁷ The same tendency is apparent in the recruitment of candidates.³⁸ Classifying the candiates according to their communes of residence, we find that the proportion of women is much lower in the primary economy areas than in more urbanized areas and cities. But this does not apply to nominations to "alternate" positions; here women are recruited at roughly the same rate, whatever the structure of the commune. The only consistent differences between types of communes appear in the recruitment to the lower positions on the lists. An explanation which may be suggested is that the nominating bodies are more concerned with combining several group interests in recruiting top candidates. Consequently, the representation of functional groups such as women is more consistent among lower than among top candidates.

Finally, activities by men and women in organizations outside the parties should be considered. It will be recalled that nominees tend to hold a high number of organizational memberships (p. 127), and that activity in social organizations contributes greatly to facilitating the access of the individual citizen to political leadership positions. An exploration of sex differences in the involvement of voters in social organizations may give a picture of the basis of recruitment for political office. It should be noted, however, that the number of memberships held by an individual does not necessarily coincide with his level of political activity. The data reported in Table 4 are drawn from the nationwide survey in 1957.

Without going into detailed analysis of this table, two main conclusions may
be drawn:

1. Men and women tend to belong to widely different types of organizations;
men are far more inclined than women to be members of occupational
organizations. An exception to this is the farmer's organization, in which

whole families and not only the men become members. Furthermore, men are more inclined than women to be members of sport and hobby groups. The frequency of membership is higher for women than for men in religious and humanitarian organizations. Approximately the same proportion of both sexes belong to temperance organizations and to cultural and humanitarian organizations.

2. The number of reported members is greater for men than for women. On the average men hold 1.3 memberships whereas women hold 1.0. This difference was even more striking when the respondents reportedon the number of organizations in which they held office (i.e. being a member of the local board or holding a position at some higher level in the organization); on the average, the number was .48 for men compared to .27 for women.

However, by comparing the parties we find that the sex differences are much greater in the Labor Party than in the four non-Socialist parties. In the Labor Party, only 55 per cent of the women but 81 per cent of the men reported that they belong to at least one organization, whereas in the other parties the differences on this item are slight. And in the Labor Party men hold on the average 1.3 memberships, whereas women hold .8; for the other parties combined, the average is 1.5 for men and 1.4 for women.

According to a general sociological finding, memberships in social groups is a function of socio-economic status and education, with relatively fewer joiners in the lower income brackets.³⁹ Therefore, we may expect that part of the sex differences displayed in Table 4 are due to differences in educational level between men and women, and that the inter-party differences for both men and women reflect variations in socio-economic status and education. But whatever is the impact of socio-economic variables, the observed differences between men

and women in organizational involvement are likely to be of great significance for the recruitment process. In particular, the interests of occupational groups are seriously considered when the parties nominate their candidates (p. 126) and the number of memberships in occupational organizations is much lower for women than for men (Table 4). Secondly, sex differences in the number of memberships may indicate that men tend to be supported by a greater variety of group interests within their respective parties. However, the lower number of memberships for women is largely a phenomenon which pertains to the Labor Party, and this fact may contribute to explaining why Labor has nominated a relatively low number of women in spite of the strength of the women's organization of this party.

In summary, we may conclude that the relatively higher number of women nominated by the Christian People's, Liberal and Conservative Parties may be accounted for by a number of factors; women preferring these parties are more strongly involved in social organizations, and they enjoy on the average a higher socio-economic position and a higher educational level than women in the Labor and Communist Parties. For similar reasons it is not surprising that the Center Party has nominated few women. The women supporting this party hold a relatively high number of memberships in social organizations, and they probably enjoy higher social standing in their communities than working class women, but they have on the average a lower education and they all live in rural areas where the likelihood of being nominated for a woman is far lower than in an urban area. Middle class women apparently are in the best position for being nominated. Because of their socio-economic status, education, occupational position, and social activities they have greater chances than working class women to obtain a standing in the community and to be considered eligible for nominations. Working class women are restricted to fewer channels for political office; mainly activity in their party and in their party's women's organization.

Like women, young people are strongly underrepresented on the lists. Only five per cent of the candidates are less than 30 years old, whereas the age bracket 21-30 constitutes 18 per cent of the electorate. Further, the age category 31—40 is slightly underrepresented, whereas the categories 41—50 and 51—65 are heavily overrepresented. Of candidates in the oldest bracket only six candidates (or less than 0.5 per cent) were more than 70 years old. Compared to the Age

proportion of the electorate, people over 65 are underrepresented on the lists.

When the candidates are compared according to list position, this tendency is even clearer; only seven per cent of the elected representatives are less than 40 years old. Among the alternates the number of younger people is considerably higher, which suggests that young candidates are nominated into marginal places in order to make the ticket more attractive (see p. 131). But the highest proportion of young candidates is found on the lower places.

More than one half of the candidates in 1957 had been nominated at one or more previous elections. An exploration of the data indicates that the parties tend to nominate young candidates on the lower places when they are nominated the first time. In later elections they tend to be promoted to more prominent places.

A comparison of the parties indicates that the differences in age are surprisingly small, with the notable exception of the Christian People's Party, which has the oldest candidates. However, the differences are greater if we consider only the fop candidates: The average age is 52.5 years for the Liberal and Christian People's Parties, 52 years for the Center Party, 49 for Labor and the Conservative Party, and 46.5 years for the Communists.

However, the age distribution of the candidates is affected by the rate of renomination of candidates. In all parties there is a more or less stable core of leaders who are renominated in a number of subsequent elections. Therefore, it seems justified to ask about the age of new candidates. In order to answer this question, we may consider the age of the 1957 candidates when they were nominated the first time. The data are reported in Table 7.

Again the candidates of the Christian People's Party show the highest average
age, closely followed by the Liberals. Labor and the Communists have the lowest
average, whereas the Center and Conservative Parties are in a middle position.

The average age differences are however so small that a more detailed analysis would be superfluous. But one factor ought to be considered, the impact on the age distribution of candidates by the strength of the parties' youth organizations. In every election the youth organizations repeat their demands for nominations of young people. Further, these organizations serve as agencies for recruitment and training of members and leaders to their respective parties. Therefore, it

should be expected that the stronger the party's youth organization the lower
the average age of the candidate.
According to Table 8, the number of local units, which is probably the most
reliable index of the strength of youth organizations, varies greatly between the
parties. This number ranges from 396 in the Labor Party to 80 in the Liberal Party
and only 2 in the Christian People's Party.
By ranking the parties according to average age of candidates and strength
of youth organizations, the association between these variables can be directly
measured.40 There is a clear relationship in the expected direction: this relationship
is not very strong when we consider the average age of the total number
of 1957 candidates, but the correlations are significant for the average age of top
candidates and for average age of all candidates at their first nominations. However,
when the great variations between the parties in the strength of the youth
organizations are taken into account, greater differences of the nominees might
have been expected.
The age distribution of Norwegian nominees is rather consistent with the pattern
of parliaments of most other countries. In particular this is true if we consider
only those nominees who were elected representatives to the Storting." Our data
suggest that the stronger the youth organization of a given party, the lower the

average age of nominees. But this is certainly nöt the only factor that influences the age distribution of nominees and it is hardly the most important one. The phenomenon that people in younger age brackets are strongly underrepresented in political leadership would be a challenging topic for future research.

Socio-economic Background

In measuring the socio-economic position of the nominees the following criteria will be applied: occupation, income and property. The data on occupation are taken directly from the lists,⁴² whereas information on income and property has been collected from the public register.⁴³

Occupation

By comparing occupational status for the nominees and the electorate we observe some striking differences: farmers and salaried employees are strongly overrepresented, manual workers are underrepresented, and fishermen and independents appear on the lists in about the same proportion as in the population. These tendencies are more marked for elected representatives than for other candidates. (Figure 2)

The very heterogenous category "white collar" is of great interest. The overrepresentation of white collar may be partly explained by the skill of this category; the educational level is relatively high, and a great number of them, particularly those who are in public employ, are experienced in handling public matters. But partly this överrepresentation must be due to tactical considerations. Modern society is characterized by an increasing proportion of the active population in various technical and clerical positions.⁴⁴ Politically this group is less stable than most other occupational groups. Almost all parties are justified in claiming that they draw substantial support from the salaried employees,⁴⁵ and all appeal for their vote.

Strategically farmers are in a similar position. It is true that the Center Party recruits most of its votes from the farm population, but at the same time heavy proportions of the farm vote go to the Labor, Liberal and Christian People's Parties.⁴⁶ And all parties are inclined to nominate some candidates with a background in farming (see pp. 126—130).

The phenomenon that manual workers are underrepresented on the lists is not exclusively Norwegian, it seems to be the normal pattern in all Western societies.⁴⁷ This problem will be discussed later. However, at this point is should be noted that working class interests may also be represented by trade union officials ("sekretærer") who are here classified as salaried employees.

The detailed data in Figure 2 indicate that the chances of obtaining a favorable
position on the list varies greatly from one occupational category to another.

1. Low status people tend to be located in the lower positions on the lists. The proportions of workers and lower salaried employees add to only 15 per cent of elected representatives, whereas they amount to 37 per cent of the lower candidates. On the other hand, higher salaried employees in

zations, newspapers and political parties tend to obtain favorable positions. This category is very heterogenous; it icludes journalists, lay preachers, administrative and educational personnel of political parties, trade unions, other economic organizations, religious organizations, etc. According to the respondents of our leadership study,⁴⁸ a substantial number of these candidates have been nominated with the clear intention of representing some specific group interests.

2. Two high status groups, owners and higher salaried employees in private employment, are represented in approximately the same proportion at all levels on the lists. The same is true for fishermen, whereas farmers are slightly more numerous among top than lower candidates.

The subcategory "independent professionals" lawyers, architects, doctors, dentists, etc., deserves some further comments. Very few people from this category are being nominated in Norway, whereas in several other countries, e.g. the United States, France and Italy, professionals constitute a great proportion of the parliamentarians.⁴⁹ Most important in this respect is the legal profession. The percentage of lawyers is particularly high in the U.S. and France; approximately half of the U.S. senators are lawyers,⁵⁰ and about one third of the French Deputies have received a law degree.⁵¹ Data on education for Norwegian nominees are available only for those who have been elected to the Storting. Forty-one members (or 27 per cent of the assembly in 1957) had received a university degree. Of these, 16 (or less than 11 per cent) held a law degree; six of whom were lawyers and ten were employed in civil service or in business.

We may compare the occupational background of voters52 and nominees for
each individual party. The data are reported in Table 9. Some striking tendencies
are apparent in these data.

1. Manual workers have been nominated almost exclusively by the Labor and
Communist Parties, but even in these parties they appear in much smaller
proportions on the lists than at the polls.

2. In all parties people in "middle class" occupations are relatively more numerous among the nominees than at the polls. This överrepresentation is particularly marked for salaried employees in private employ in the Labor and Conservative Parties, for public employees in the Labor, Liberal and Christian People's Parties, and for proprietors in the Christian People's Party.

3. The farmers constitute the bulk of both voters and nominees of the Center Party. Although all parties have nominated a sizeable number of farmers, it is only in the Labor and Conservative Parties that this category is substantially overrepresented on the lists as compared to composition of the vote.

In Figure 3 the occupational background of the candidates has been compared according to list position within the various parties. These data again demonstrate the weak position of manual workers in the selection of nominees; the proportion of workers is greater among lower than top candidates, and this

tendency is consistent for all parties which have nominated some workers. For candidates with a salaried employees background the tendency is the reverse; with the exception of the Center Party, all parties have nominated a higher proportion of this category among top than among lower candidates. For proprietors, farmers, and fishermen the proportions nominated tend to be about equal in different list positions.

The occupational categories used here are very broad and heterogenous; this is particularly true of the "white collar" categories. A more detailed analysis would require refined classifications. 53 A further exploration of the data shows some interesting party differences in the character of salaried employees; the Labor and Communist Parties are more inclined to nominate lower than higher salaried employees, whereas the non-Socialist parties tend to nominate higher salaried employees, and this is particularly true for the Conservative Party.

As might be expected, there is to some extent a consistency in social background between voters and nominees of the various parties. Although the parties tend to nominate candidates from a variety of occupational categories, a heavy majority is recruited from categories where the respective parties draw most of their supporters. This tendency is demonstrated by the middle class character of the nominees of the Liberal, Conservative and Christian People's Parties, while the Labor and Communist Parties constitute noteable exceptions to this pattern. In both parties manual workers represent a heavy majority of the voters, but the relative number of workers on the lists is surprisingly small: in the Communist Party every second nominee is a worker, and in the Labor Party the ratio is less than one out of four.

The social background of nominees is consistent with the patterns of leadership found in the party organizations in the Stavanger area in 1957. 54 It was found that in the non-Socialist parties the higher we move in the hierarchy, the more distinct is the social character of the respective parties. Thus in the Liberal, Conservative and Christian People's Parties, the proportion of working class people is sizeable among ordinary voters, but as we move to the strong "party identifiers" (i.e. the loyal and stable core of party supporters) the number of middle class people increases, and it reaches its peak among party leaders. Again the Labor Party deviates; the proportion of manual workers is much smaller among party leaders than among ordinary voters and party identifiers.

The background of leaders apparently reflects important power relationships within political parties. Social strata which contribute a majority of votes to a given party will obtain a dominating position in the selection of party leaders, whereas categories that are more marginal at the polls have a weaker access to the leadership. However, in order to broaden its appeal, a party must nominate some candidates belonging to marginal groups. Whereas farmers and the middle classes profit at the nominations from being important vote potentials for almost all parties, the manual working class is in a different position. Although an overwhelming majority of the working class vote traditionally goes to the Labor and Communist Parties, the workers also make up sizeable proportions of the total vote of the non-Socialist parties. (Table 9)

Income and Property

The average income level is much higher for nominees than it is for ordinary citizens; in 1957 the average personal income for all taxpayers was 8838 Kroner,⁵⁵ whereas for the nominees it was 19518 Kroner. Some differences in this direction might be expected since a relatively high proportion of middle class people have been nominated, but the difference is surprisingly great. The average income level of nominees is heavily influenced by the fact that a few candidates have very high incomes. For our purpose the median will presumably be a better index than the mean for the central tendency of income and property distributions, and the quartile range will serve as a measure of dispersion. Unfortunately, we are not able to include data for the electorate, and therefore the analysis will be confined to the nominees.

The median income level is higher for top candidates than it is for lower candidates (Table 10). Of the elected representatives and alternates, 50 per cent have an income of approximately 19000 Kroner or more, whereas the median point for lower candidates is slightly above 14000. Further, the variations within the categories tend to be greater for top candidates. The differences are best illustrated by comparing elected representatives, who have the greatest variations, and the lower candidates. Of the former category, 25 per cent have an income of 32000 Kroner or more, 25 per cent have less than 14300 Kroner, whereas the remaining 50 per cent are located within the range (Qa-Qi) of 14300 and 32000 Kroner. For the lower candidates, the 50 per cent in the middle have an income ranging from 10200 (Qi) to 20500 Kroner (Qa).

Next we turn to taxable property distributions (Table 11). By and large, the tendencies are similar to those for income. The exception is that for property the main difference in median levels is between elected representatives and all other candidates.

The tendencies we observe in Tables 10 and 11 are consistent with our previous
findings, i.e. that candidates with increasing age tend to obtain the more favorable
list positions, and that people with higher occupational status are relatively more

numerous among the top candidates. Since income and property are likely to be positively correlated with both age and occupational status, it may be questioned whether the differences between top and lower candidates in income and property levels are an artifact of the differences for age and occupation.

In Table 12 income and property has been related separately to age for top and lower candidates. The data indicate that for each age bracket, income and property is substantially higher for top candidates than for lower candidates, and almost without exceptions the differences are consistent for both median and quartile values. However, the differences between top and lower candidates are greater for older candidates than for the younger. Thus the difference in median income is 5300 Kroner for candidates under 45 years, but it is 8800 Kroner for candidates over 60. When the property level is considered the tendency is even more striking. For candidates under 45 the median level is in fact slightly higher for lower than for top candidates, for those who are over 60 the median for top candidates is nearly 22000 Kroner higher than for the lower. The quartile range (Qa—Qi) is greater for top than for lower candidates, and this is consistent for all age brackets. Further, there is a tendency for an increase in the quartile range with increasing age, but, again, this tendency is far more marked for property than for income.

The fact that on the average top candidates have a higher level and greater variations of income and property than lower candiates may partly be explained by the relatively greater frequency of young candidates on the lower places. But even within the same age brackets there are marked difference between lower and higher candidates, and these differences are greater for property than for income.

In a similar way we may control for occupation (Table 13). When we compare income and property of candidates with a similar occupational background, we find higher median and quartile values for top than for lower candidates. This tendency is consistent for all occupational categories. The differences in mean values of property between top and lower candidates are about 20000 Kroner for proprietors, farmers and fishermen, but less than 1000 Kroner for workers, whereas salaried employees are in a middle position. When median income is considered, the differences by list position vary only slightly from one occupational category to another. Within each occupational group the quartile range for income is practically the same for top and lower candidates, but the range for property tends to be greater for top than for lower candidates, and this tendency is most marked for farmers, proprietors, and salaried employees.

Our data suggest that the differences in property level between top and lower candidates may to some extent be affected by differences in age and occupational distribution. Income differences may to some degree reflect variations in age but not in occupational background for candidates of different list positions. Although the data do not permit us to control simultaneously for age and occupation, the analysis could be carried much further, and it might possibly give a more detailed picture of the relationships. However, our tables demonstrate that disregarding age and occupational differences, top candidates tend to hold a higher level of income and property than lower candidates. Further, top candidates tend to show greater variations in income and property, irrespective of age and occupation, although these differences tend to disappear for income when we control for occupation.

Next we turn to the question of party differences in income and property of the
nominees. First we may compare mean income of voters and candidates. The
data are reported in Table 14.

In all parties the average income is substantially higher for nominees than for
voters. In fact, if the data had been directly comparable, the discrepancies between
voters and nominees would have been much greater.

Figures 4 and 5 show party differences among the nominees according to list
position. The contents of these figures may be briefly summarized as follows:

1. There are great differences among the various parties in income and property of the nominees. The Conservatives, Liberals and Christians tend to be on the highest level, Laborites and Communists on the lowest, whereas Center Party candidates are low on income but very high on property.

2. In all parties top candidates tend to have a higher income and property level (median level) than lower candidates. And the differences between top and lower candidates tend to increase as the general level of the respective parties increases. Thus for income the difference between top and lower candidates is smallest in the Communist Party and largest in the Conservative Party. For property the difference is again smallest in the Communist Party but largest in the Center Party.

3. The variations in income and property of candidates (Qs—Qi) tend to increase as the general level of the party increases. For income the quartile range is greatest in the Conservative Party and smallest in the Communist Party. For property the quartile ranges are greatest in the Center and Conservative Parties and smallest in the Communist and Labor Parties.

The observed differences are not unexpected since we have found that the parties differ greatly in the occupational background of the nominees, and that top candidates tend to have a higher occupational status than lower candidates (pp. 139—144). Again, we may ask whether the variations in income and property within and between the parties are due to differences in occupational distribution. In order to answer this question we have related income and property to party for candidates of the same occupational background. Such a control could not be done for "fishermen", since very few candidates belong to this category, nor for "manual workers" since almost only the Labor and Communist Parties have nominated people from this category. For the other categories, farmers, salaried employees, and proprietors and independent professionals the data do not permit us to control for list position. But by comparing the parties we find within each of these occupational categories striking differences concerning both income and property, and the rank order of the parties is approximately the same as we found in Table 14 and in Figures 4 and 5. It suffices to present two such comparisons: the property distributions of farmers and the income distributions of salaried employees. It should be noted that the tendencies demonstrated in Tables 15 and 16 do not deviate substantially from the other distributions investigated.

In the heterogenous category of salaried employees the income level is highest for the Conservatives, closely followed by the Liberals, whereas the Communists are lowest. (Table 15) Again we notice that the nominees of the Center Party are relatively low on income; most of these candidates come from rural areas where the average income level is lower than in urban areas.

The differences between parties in property of farmers and forest owners (Table 16) clearly demonstrate the variations in farm size in Norwegian agriculture. A great number of small-holders tend to support the Labor and Communist Parties, whereas the larger farmers are more inclined to support the non parties, in particular the Center Party.⁵⁶

The data demonstrate that although candidates may belong to the same occupational category, the various parties tend to recruit people from different strata within the respective categories. The non-Socialist parties, and particularly the Conservatives, tend to draw their candidates from the upper income and property brackets, whereas Labor and the Communist Party draw most of their nominees from the lower strata. This tendency is further demonstrated if we compare parties with respect to education of the representatives (in 1957). Table 17 only reports the number of representatives who have received a university degree.

The Conservatives hold by far the highest educational level, followed by the
Liberals and the Christian People's Party, whereas Labor and the Communists
have the lowest proportion of representatives with a university education.

In summary, we may state that the political parties tend to recruit their nominees from the social groups from which they draw their main support at the polls. Farmers and salaried employees, who are considered an important vote potential for several parties are heavily overrepresented on the lists, whereas manual workers are underrepresented. All parties tend to recruit nominees who

hold a higher social status than the average voter of the respective parties.
And the higher the status, the more likely is the candidate to obtain a prominent
position on the list.

However, the status of the nominees differs considerably from one party to another. Our four indicators of socio-economic status, occupation, income, property, and education, demonstrate independently of one another that the nominees of the Labor and Communist Parties have on the average a far lower status than the nominees of the non-Socialist parties, and of these the Conservatives have the highest status.

"Turnover" at Nominations

Finally, we ought to consider "turnover" at nominations. For a large proportion of the nominees it would be considered an advance in social status to become a member of the Storting, and we may assume that the more deeply this is felt by the individual candidate, the more interested he will be in being nominated. Therefore, the proportion of nominees who retain their candidacy from one election to the next is likely to reflect status differences between the various parties. In Table 18 the 1957 nominees have been classified according to their career in previous elections.

If we look at the total number of candidates there are some striking differences between the parties. Labor and Communists have the highest proportion of candidates who have been nominated in one or more previous elections, next come the Christian People's Party, whereas the Conservatives have the lowest proportion. Top candidates are far more inclined to have been nominated before than other candidates. And if we consider only the top candidates the party

differences become even greater: in the Conservative Party one third of the top candidates were new in 1957, whereas in the other parties the corresponding figure varies from 10 per cent in the Communist Party to 28 per cent in the Liberal Party. The rate of "turnover" at nominations has been investigated in a different way, by computing the proportion of the total number of nominees who were renominated from one election to the next over a long series of elections.⁵⁷ By and large, this method gives the same pattern of party differences as does Table 18. In this paper we do not intend to go into the complexity of factors that may have an impact upon the turnover rate.⁵⁸ However, an exploration of the data suggests that for the total number of candidates the proportion who are renominated increases with increasing social status. For top candidates, the tendency is slightly different: people of lower and middle status tend to have high retention, whereas high status peoples are less inclined to be renominated. If this tendency is confirmed by a more detailed analysis, it would support an hypothesis proposed by S. M. Lipset:⁵⁹the higher the social status of a representative, the less likely he is to be renominated in several elections. The rationale is simply that a person of low status would suffer a loss in social prestige and economic wellbeing if he failed to be renominated, whereas a person of high status is not likely to seek nomination in order to increase his social prestige, and if he is in business, he might even suffer economic losses from being a member of the Storting. The suggested tendency is consistent with the high retention of nominees in the Labor and Communist Parties and the low retention in the Conservative Party. The situation of the Conservative nominees is of particular interest because they tend to be high status people and several career lines are open to them; going into politics is only one of these lines, and perhaps not the most tempting one.

Involvement in Local Politics

Attachment to local interests apparently is an important requirement in the selection of nominees. For one thing, this is demonstrated by the fact that except for unusual cases people must be residents of a given constituency in order to be nominated on its lists. The residence rule was stipulated in the Constitution until 1952, although an exception was made for present and previous cabinet ministers.

The residency rule was abolished by a constitutional amendment of 1952 but apparently this did not change the practices of the political parties to any noticeable extent. In 1957 only 23 (or only one per cent) of the nominees were residents of some other constituency than the one in which they were nominated. Seven of these candidates belonged to the minor parties. Of the remaining sixteen, the majority were temporarily staying in the capital in the capacity of cabinet minister or in some other government position. Moreover, these sixteen had all lived most of their lives in the provinces where they were nominated, and they obviously maintained close contacts with politicians and social groups in their respective constituencies.

Another way in which local interests are expressed, is through territorial representation on the lists (see pp. 126-128). These "territorial groups" tend to consist of several adjoining communes, and presumably represent competing local interests within a given constituency.

Available data suggest that local politicians play a dominant role in the nomination process.⁶⁰ Therefore, it is not surprising that local interests are of great importance for the selection of nominees. In this section we will study the role of local politics from two different perspectives: a) to what extent do the nominees hold office in local politics? and b) to what extent do the parties recruit their candidates from communes in which they put up separate lists at communal elections? - Data on communal office of the candidates are reported in Table 19.⁶¹

Evidently a great majority of the nominees hold local office.

W. J. M. Mackenzie62 has demonstrated that a similar pattern occurs in a
number of societies about which he has collected data.

Table 19 indicates that involvement in local politics tends to increase with increasing list position of the nominees. It may be asked whether people are nominated because they hold a position in local politics, or whether they are elected to local office because they hold a position in national politics. We are not in a position to answer this question because no data are available on the previous career of the nominees in local office. But one implication of this relationship is obvious; by nominating local politicians at parliamentary elections, the parties contribute to the integration of the local and national levels of the political system.

Differences between parties in local involvement of the nominees are reported in Table 20. There is a striking difference between the Labor Party, on the one hand, and all other parties, on the other; Labor nominates a far higher proportion of local politicians. It is interesting to note that in the minor parties, which have not been permanently established in the system, only one out of ten nominees hold local office.

To some extent the differences between the parties may be due to variations in the recruitment potentials. In the 1955 local election Labor obtained 6735 representatives in local councils (42 per cent of the total number) and 333 mayors (45 per cent); the Communists obtained only 519 representatives (3,2 per cent), and the non-Socialist parties varied between 1063 (the Christian People's Party) to 1618 representatives (the Center Party). In addition, some 3500 representatives were elected partly on non-partisan lists, and partly on joint lists between non parties. Thus in the 1957 election the probability that local politicians would be nominated was greater in the Labor Party than in other parties.

It is a question, however, whether this larger recruitment base was the only reason that Labor was more inclined to nominate local politicians. In the following pages we will try to show that the observed variations in candidate recruitment reflect some basic differences in the character of the parties. It is interesting to note that similar differences have been found between the British parties;⁶³ in the 1951 general election 47 per cent of the Labor nominees had some experience from local government, whereas the corresponding figure for the Conservatives was 28 per cent.

Another measure of local involvement is the extent to which the candidates are recruited from communes in which the respective parties put up lists in the preceding local elections. In Table 21 the candidates have been classified according to party activity in their commune of residence in the 1955 communal election.

A great majority of the candidates are recruited from communes in which the respective parties put up separate lists at local elections. This tendency is stronger among top than among lower candidates; 94 per cent of elected representatives come from communes where their respective parties have put up local lists, whereas for lower candidates the figure is 80 per cent.

The differences among the parties are far more impressive: of Labor nominees only 2 (less than one per cent) came from communes where the party did not put up a list in 1955; the corresponding percentage for the Communist Party was 11, the Liberal Party 20, the Christian People's and Conservative Parties 22, and the Center Party 35.

As another measure of the extent to which the parties have established themselves in local politics, we may consider the number of separate party lists in the three preceding local elections: 1947, 1951 and 1955. The candidates have been classified according to the number of party lists in their commune of residence. Again we find that top candidates are more likely than lower ones to come from highly politicized communes. Table 22 presents data for the different parties.

The party differences are indeed striking. The Labor Party represents one extreme, with nearly all candidates coming from communes where the party did put up lists in all the three preceding elections. At the other extreme we find the Conservative and Center Parties, less than one half of whose candidates come from such communes. A further analysis of the data shows that the stronger tendency for top than for lower candidates to come from highly politicized communes is consistent for all parties except the Christian People's Party. Thus in the Communist Party 95 per cent of the top candidates come from communes where the party put up lists in all three preceding elections, whereas only 80 per cent of lower candidates came from such communes. In the Liberal Party the corresponding figures are 80 vs. 64 per cent and in the Conservative Party 52 vs. 41 per cent.

To some extent the party differences coincide with variations in the number of communes in which parties put up separate lists in local elections. In 1955 Labor ran lists in 91 per cent of the communes, the Liberal and Christian People's Parties in about 50 per cent, the Conservative and Center Parties in 44 per cent, and the Communists in only 28 per cent of the communes. Thus the

probability that candidates might be recruited from communes where their
respective parties have presented local lists is greater in Labor than in other
parties.

The character of the relationship between candidate recruitment and party activity in communal elections needs to be further investigated. However, we may expect that this correlation expresses a causal relationship: by establishing itself in local politics the party branch can more easily promote local candidates for nomination.*⁴ The fact that the correlation tends to be higher for top than for lower candidates supports this hypothesis. Another case in point is the fact that the Communist Party, which put up lists in only 28 per cent of the communes, draws most of its candidates from communes in which it is firmly established in local politics.

By comparing Tables 22 and 20 we find by and large the same pattern in the differences between the parties: The Labor Party, which is more likely than the non-Socialist parties to nominate candidates who hold local office, is also more inclined to draw its candidates from communes in which it puts up lists in local elections. The Communists are the only party for which there is an inconsistency between the two tables; the party nominates a relatively low proportion of local politicians, but in the recruitment of nominees it is strongly dependent upon participation of the party in communal elections. In Table 23 our two measures of local involvement have been related to each other.

If we compare candidates who are from communes in which their respective parties did put up a separate list in 1955, we notice that in the Labor Party eight out of ten candidates held some local office, whereas in the other parties the corresponding ratio varied from six to seven out of ten. It is equally interesting to observe candidates who came from communes in which their respective parties did not put up a separate list. In all the non-Socialist parties a sizeable proportion of these candidates held local office. Either they have been elected to local office on some non-partisan lists, or they represent joint lists between non-Socialist parties. Again this indicates that the political profile of the non

parties is less partisan in character than that of the Labor Party. Not only do these parties avoid running straight partisan lists in local elections in a great number of communes, but they also tend to recruit nominees from a local elite which is essentially non-partisan.

Next we will consider the background of nominees in local party organizations.
In Table 24 the candidates have been classified according to the number of local
party chapters in their commune of residence.

Table 24 shows some striking party differences: in the Labor Party a majority of the candidates come from communes in which the party has two or more local chapters, whereas in the non-Socialist parties local organizations are less developed,⁶⁵ and local party strength apparently is less of a requirement in the selection of nominees. In all parties top candidates are more inclined than lower candidates to come from communes with one or more local chapters, but the discrepancy between top and lower candidates is more marked in Labor than in other parties. The differences among parties in the background of candidates in local party organizations follow the same pattern as we found for background in local government. And this is not surprising since a local organization is a necessary condition for a party in order to put up a list in communal elections.

We may summarize the findings of this section

(1) In all parties top candidates differ substantialy from lower candidates ir
their attachment to local politics; top candidates are more likely to:

a) hold local office

b) be residents of communes in which their respective parties run lists at loca
election«

c) be residents of communes in which their party has one or more loca
chapters

(2) The Labor nominees show a greater attachment to local politics than do the nominees of the non-Socialist parties with respect to all these items. Furthermore, local office-holders recruited as nominees by the Labor Party almost exclusively belong to this party, whereas in the non-Socialist parties a sizeable proportion of the nominees are elected to local office on non-partisan or joint bourgeois lists.

(3) The Communist nominees are less inclined than Laborites to hold local
office, but they arealmost exclusively recruited from communes where the party
runs local lists.

This analysis could be carried much further. For example, it would be of great interest to go into greater detail about the character of the communes from which the parties recruit their nominees: size of population, vote distribution in preceding election, extent of urbanization and modernization would be important variables.

Furthermore, we might examine the social background of the candidates involved in local politics. It would seem a reasonable hypothesis that experience in local politics would be particularly important as a stepping-stone for nomination for people with low formal education. Consequently, we might expect that candidates of low status and a low level of education would be more likely to be involved in local politics than those of higher status. However, an initial analysis⁶⁴ suggests that nominees with a farm background are most inclined to hold local office, whereas the propodtion is not higher for manual workers than for candidates in middle class occupations. By and large, candidates within each occupational category reflect proportionally the same party differences with regard to holding local office as we found when occupational background was not controlled (Table 20).

Our initial analysis suggests that even if we control for occupation, community
background and other variables, the findings of this section remain valid.

From these findings it seems justified to conclude that the impact of local
politics upon candidate recruitment is greater among top than among lower
candidates, and it is greater in the Labor Party than in the non-Socialist parties.

The Profile of a Norwegian Nominee

From the data presented in this paper a rather detailed picture emerges of the Norwegian nominee. Although great variations occur, some traits are fairly consistent. The "average" nominee is a man, and he is between forty and sixtyfive years old. His socio-economic status lies well above the level of the average voter. He tends to belong to the elite of local politics. All these criteria become increasingly apparent as we move up on the electoral list.

Marginal people, i.e. women, young people, people of lower status, and people with no attachment to local politics, have easier access to the lower list positions. However, a few of these marginal types are nominated in more prominent places, and partly this seems to be dictated by calculations of possible gains at the polls. A notable example is the relatively high frequency of women among the alternates, who tend to occupy the "marginal" places on the lists.

With regard to the demographic background of the nominees the parties differ only slightly, but the differences are substantial in socio-economic status. Within each party the average socio-economic status of nominees is higher than that of the voters, and it is higher for top than or lower candidates. To some extent the party differences in socio-economic background of nominees reflect corresponding variations in the electorate. An occupational category which makes up a majority of a party's votes also tends to be dominant among the nominees of that party. There are, however, notable exceptions: the manual working class, which is heavily underrepresented on the lists, and farmers and the white collar middle class, wr^ich are overrepresented. Apparently, the överrepresentation of farmers may be explained by tactical considerations, and to some extent the same is true for white collar; both categories constitute large proportions of the electorate, and they are considered an important vote potential by almost all parties.

By a classification according to the average social status of nominees, the parties may be ranked with the Conservatives highest and the Communists lowest, but the main dividing line is between the Communist and Labor on the one side and the four non-Socialist parties on the other. Some differences in this direction might be expected, but variations in the social basis of the parties cannot be the only explanation. For example, it is strange that manual workers were practically excluded from the lists of the non-Socialist parties, despite the fact that the workers made up sizeable proportions of the vote in all these parties.

Another important difference has been found in the extent to which nominees are involved in local politics. Nominees of the Labor Party are far more inclined than nominees of non-Socialist parties to hold local office and to be residents of communes in which their party has established local organizations and put up separate lists in local elections.

In trying to explain the party differences in the backgrounds of nominees with respect to socio-economic status and local involvement, we will follow three lines of reasoning: the differences in the character of the parties, the overlapping between different types of elites, and the ability of pople in different occupations to be recognized as persons eligible for political office.

(1) Differences in the character of the parties

Our respondents in the Stavanger area study displayed some interesting differences in attitudes towards the selection of candidates, (pp. 123-126). The non-Socialist respondents tended to look for candidates with a standing in the community: the candidate should be well educated, he should have demonstrated his competence through his occupational role and through experience in public office, and he should be known and respected among the voters. The Laborites were more inclined to emphasize the standing of the candidate in the labor movement (i.e. the Labor Party and the trade union movement): experience in party work was required, and the candidate should have demonstrated that he was a loyal and convinced supporter of the party's platform and ideas.

The attitudes toward the recruitment of nominees are consistent with the operating philosophy of the various parties on the relationship between the party and its representatives in public office. Laborites tend to prefer an active party organization that cooperates with and controls the representatives: the representatives, on the other hand, should loyally follow the majority decisions of the party. In the non-Socialist parties there is a widespread opinion in favor of granting the representatives a more independent position. The party should not control the representatives: within the framework of the party's program they should be permitted to follow their own conviction.*⁷

The idea that the non-Socialist parties tend to look for candidates with a social standing, whereas Labor is more inclined to require experience and background in the party, is clearly supported by the data showing higher socio-economic status of the non-Socialist nominees and by the stronger involvement in local politics of Labor nominees.

Apparently, all parties are in favor of recruiting nominees among the local political elite, but their motivations may be somewhat different. For Laborites, activity in local politics is a way whereby they can demonstrate both their skill and their devotion to the party. Of course, experience in local office may serve the same function in non-Socialist parties, but here the tie of the candidate to his party does not seem to be the most important consideration. This is demonstrated by the fact that a sizable number of the non-Socialist nominees are elected to local office on some non-partisan list. However, the fact that a person holds local office may be another indication of his prestige in the community, and this should make him more attractive for nomination in the non-Socialist parties.

Our findings about party differences in local involvement are consistent with data from the British system; Labor nominees are far more inclined than Tories to have experience in local office. Mackenzie⁶⁸ has proposed the hypothesis that this finding reflects a basic difference in the character of the two main parties in Britain. Our data support this hypothesis with regard to Norwegian parties. Perhaps we are faced with a general pattern that would hold for a number of western societies? The relationship between patterns of candidate recruitment and the character of political parties would be a stimulating topic for comparative research.

(2) Overlapping between different types of elites

Students of stratification and power have given wide attention to the problem of overlapping between different types of elites.⁶⁹ Our study demonstrates that in Norway the political and other forms of elites tend to overlap greatly with one another. For one thing, this is demonstrated by the fact that nominees are strongly inclined to hold leadership positions in voluntary associations outside the parties. Furthermore, the notion of "group representation" on the lists, which is a dominant pattern in the recruitment process may be considered a vehicle for such an overlapping. "Territorial" representation implements overlap between

the national and local political elite. "Occupational" representation is a vehicle for overlap between the political elite and the major hierarchies in the economic sector of society. "Cultural" representation secures overlap between the political elite and religious, moral, and other cultural hierarchies. Finally, "demographic" representation constitute a bridge between politics and the organized interests of youth and women, although the corresponding hierarchies in these sectors apparently are less successful than other elites in getting a foothold in political leadership.

Our empirical data on the background of candidates do not provide a direct test of the hypotheses about group representation, but in several respects the findings are consistent with this notion. One aspect of occupational representation deserves some further comments: This is the fact that the manual working class is almost exclusively represented on the lists of the Labor and Communist Parties.

Of our respondents in the Stavanger area study, only Laborites mentioned thai their party did nominate representatives for the workers and trade union interests (it will be recalled that the Communists refused to participate in the study). Only nominees of the Labor and Communist Parties in the province of Rogaland reported that they belong to the trade union movement.

The notion of overlapping between the elites of political parties and various occupational groups may help in explaining the underrepresentation on the lists of the manual workers. All parties are presumably able to attract people who have standing in both the salaried employees and farm hierarchies, but the trade union movement has more the character of a closed system. Its main ties go to the Labor Party and, to less extent, the Communist Party.⁷⁰

Workers who support the non-Socialist parties are not inclined to hold leadership positions in the trade union movement. In a study of political attitudes of workers, S. Lysgaard⁷¹ has demonstrated that unorganized workers are more inclined to support non-Socialist parties than those who belong to the unions. Furthermore, shop stewards in the trade union movement are strongly inclined to identify with some Socialist party. According to this study, less than six per cent of the male shop stewards supported the non-Socialist parties as compared to nearly ten per cent of the ordinary male trade unionists.⁷² E. Fivelsdal⁷³ has demonstrated similar tendencies for salaried employees who are members of trade unions. But the proportion of unorganized people is much higher for salaried employees than for workers, and, contrary to manual workers, salaried employees may join a number of organizations outside the trade union movement which tend to lean in a non-Socialist direction although officially they claim to be politically neutral. In a similar fashion, there are two competing organizations in agriculture, one for smallholders ("Norsk Bonde og Smaabrukarlag"), and an other for the bigger farmers ("Norges Bondelag"); in terms of overlapping leadership, the first is rather close to the Labor Party, whereas the second is closer to the non-Socialist parties, in particular the Center-Party.⁷⁴

(3) Social backgound and eligibility for political office

Students of political leadership have been concerned with the problem of determining which factors facilitate the access of specific social categories to positions of political importance.⁷⁵ High education has always been seen as an important steppingstone to political office. Max Weber⁷⁶ emphasized that a legal education is the most proper training required for a politician.

We have found that among the Norwegian nominees, the upper strata of the white collar middle class tend to be strongly overrepresented, particularly in top positions on the lists. We may safely assume further that people in these strata tend to have a high educational level. But the importance of education as a factor in the recruitment of nominees should not be exaggerated. We have seen that of the elected representatives, only one out of five have received a university degree, and the number of lawyers in the Storting is surprisingly low. In this respect the Norwegian nominee clearly deviates from his colleagues in most other countries. Political development in Norway through the last hundred years has been characterized by a strong growth of the farmers' movement, and, later of the Labor movement.⁷⁷ Through these developments new strata of the population have gained access to political leadership. Consequently, the traditional political elite of civil servants that dominated the system until the introduction of parliamentary rule in 1884⁷⁸ has been strongly reduced in importance. In future research it will be a challenging task to study the changes in political leadership in relation to social and political change.⁷⁹

In the present situation it is tempting to compare manual workers and farmers. Why is the former category strongly underrepresented among the nominees whereas the latter is overrepresented? Differences in education cannot be the explanation, both categories tend to have a low average educational level, and in this respect they hardly differ significantly from one another. For a moment let us return to two factors that have previously been pointed out.

First, differences in social status. Presumably farmers can more easily obtain a social standing in the community, which is a requirement for being nominated in the non-Socialist parties. Secondly, the farmers' associations overlap in leadership with almost all parties, whereas the trade unions overlap mainly with the Labor and Communist Parties. But even in the latter parties, the manual working class is strongly underrepresented, particularly among top candidates. This raises a more general problem about the access of people in the lower socio-economic strata to political office.

For one thing, farmers and middle class people tend to be more independent in their occupational roles than manual workers. Presumably, they can more easily devote time to political activities, and they are thus in a better position for acquiring and demonstrating the political experience which is a condition for being nominated. Secondly, people in several occupational categories may acquire political skill from handling public matters in their daily work. This is particularly true for a great proportion of salaried employees in public employ, for journalists and for leaders of voluntary associations.

Finally, we may speculate about the importance in the recruitment process of having a wide range of social contacts. The more people are willing to move behind an aspiring candidate, the more likely he is to be nominated. But a condition for obtaining support is that the candidate is known within the powerholding groups of his party. Social prestige is an important factor in establishing interpersonal contacts. We may assume that even in Socialist parties lack of social prestige is a handicap for manual workers in the recruitment process.

---

NOTES

11n particular three publications deserve to be mentioned: J. Meynaud (ed) "The Parliamentary Profession", International Social Science Journal, 13(4), 1961, D. Marvick (ed), Political Decision-makers, New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, (International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, vol II.) and H. D. Lasswell and D. Lerner (eds), World Revolutionary Elites, Gambridge Mass, The M.I.T. Press, 1965.

2 L. G. Seligman, "Political Recruitment and Party Structure", American Political Science Review, 55(1), 1961: 77—86.

3 For a more detailed description of the political institutions see H. Storing, Norwegian Democracy. Boston, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1963, or H. Valen and D. Katz, Political Parties in Norway. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1964 and London, Tavistock Publications, 1965.

4 The method of representation is a modified version of the Sainte-Lagué method. Concerning this method see S. Rokkan and T. Hjellum "Norway: The Storting Election of September 1965" in the present volume, pp. 237—238.

5 "Commune" is the smallest geographical unit in the Norwegian political system. It is a publicly constituted community with its own institutions and administrative organs. The term "commune" is used for both cities, towns and rural communities. See Valen and Katz, op. cit. pp. 17—19.

6 Seligman, op. cit. p. 77.

7 For a report of this study see Valen and Katz, op. cit. The community study was part of a broader program of electoral studies carried out jointly by the Institute for Social Research and the Chr. Michelsen Institute. For an outline of this program see S. Rokkan and H. Valen: "Parties, elections and political behavior in the Northern countries" in O. Stammer (ed), Politische Forschung, Cologne, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1960, also S. Rokkan, "Political Research in Norway" in the present volume.

8 The sample represents three levels of the party organizations: province board, commune board, and ward organizations. The leaders were drawn from all parties except the Communists who refused to cooperate. Notice that the Socialist People's Party had not been founded in 1957 when this study was made.

9 Practically all our leaders did participate at some stage in the process of nominations before the election of 1957, one half of them attended some nomination meeting (convention) in the province of Rogaland, and a heavy majority of the sample had participated in nomination meetings at earlier elections.

10 Concerning the use of the term "group representation" see p. 129.

11 This question had the following wording: "Which qualities in a candidate would you consider to be particularly unfortunate for the party's reputation amongst the voters?"

12 The demand for "solidarity" in the Labor Party has been elaborated by Valen and Katz op. cit., Chapter 8.

13 In the Stavanger area study it was found that the Labor Party is ahead of other parties in the number of membership meetings being arranged in the local organizations and in the proportion of the membership attending such meetings. Valen and Katz, op. cit., pp. 71—80. Further, the Labor Party is far ahead of other parties in the number of lists run at local elections and in the number of communes in which it has established local chapters. See pages 154—158 of the present paper. For further informations see S. Rokkan and H. Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery" in S. Rokkan (ed) Approaches to the Study of Political Participation. Bergen, Chr. Michelsens Institute, 1962 and S. Rokkan and H. Valen, "Regional Contrasts in Norwegian Politics" in E. Allardt and Y. Littunen (eds.) Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems. Helsinki, Westermarck Society, 1964.

---

13 In the Stavanger area study it was found that the Labor Party is ahead of other parties in the number of membership meetings being arranged in the local organizations and in the proportion of the membership attending such meetings. Valen and Katz, op. cit., pp. 71—80. Further, the Labor Party is far ahead of other parties in the number of lists run at local elections and in the number of communes in which it has established local chapters. See pages 154—158 of the present paper. For further informations see S. Rokkan and H. Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery" in S. Rokkan (ed) Approaches to the Study of Political Participation. Bergen, Chr. Michelsens Institute, 1962 and S. Rokkan and H. Valen, "Regional Contrasts in Norwegian Politics" in E. Allardt and Y. Littunen (eds.) Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems. Helsinki, Westermarck Society, 1964.

14 See Valen and Katz, op. cit., pp. 80—82 and 220—225.

15 Although the differences should not be exaggerated, the bourgeois parties have more the character of being "Honoratioren-parties" whereas Labor comes closer to a "mass party". Concerning these concepts, see S. Neumann (ed), Modern Political Parties. Chicago Press, 1956. 395—421.

16 See Valen and Katz, op. cit. Ch. 10.

17 See Valen and Katz, op. cit. Ch. 9.

18 See Valen and Katz, op. cit. Ch. 6, and Rokkan and Valen, "Regional Contrasts ...", op. cit.

19 See Valen and Katz, op. cit., Ch. 10

20 This answer corresponds to a provision in the statutes of the Christian People's Party: "All those who shall represent the party in public office must be devout Christians" ("vedkjennande kristne").

21 Seligman has applied a similar perspective in his study of nominations for state office in the U. S. op. cit. From a comparative point of view it would be of great interest to investigate in which ways the character of intraparty group conflicts varies from one political system to another. In the present paper, however, we will not be concerned with comparative analysis.

22 See Rokkan and Valen, "Regional Contrasts...", op. cit.

23 This study focused upon the nomination process of 1949. Reported in H. Valen, "Nominasjon ved Stortingsvalg i Det Norske Arbeiderparti" (Nominations at Storting elections in the Norwegian Labor Party"), Master's thesis, University of Oslo, 1954.

24 On the language conflict in Norwegian politcs, see S. Rokkan "Geography, religion and social class: crosscutting cleavages in Norwegian politics" in S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan (eds), Party System and Voter Alignments, New York, The Free Press, forthcoming, 1966.

25 From newspapers and reports from nomination meetings it is evident that religious, temperance, and women's organizations once in a while have advised political parties to nominate people who are expressing the organization's specific interests.

26 On the problem of intraparty group activites, see H. Valen, "Factional Activities and Nominations in Political Parties", Acta Socialogica, 3(4), 1958/1959: 183— 199. In this article a distinction has been made between "ideological factions" and "interest factions".

27 This problem has been elaborated by Valen and Katz, op. cit., Ch. 10.

28 For a comparative analysis of this problem see M. Duverger, The Political Role of Women, Paris, Unesco, 1955.

29 See Rokkan and Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery", op. cit.

30 See S. Rokkan and A. Campbell, "Citizen Participation in Political Life: Norway and United States of America", International Social Science Journal. 12(1), 1960: 9-39.

31 Rokkan and Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery", op. cit.

32 Because of the great stability in voting behavior in Norway, each party may feel rather sure that it will win a certain number of seats in a given constituency. In addition it may win one more seat. This we call the "marginal" seat.

33 Concerning sub-organizations in the Norwegian parties, see Valen and Katz, op. cit., pp. 54—55.

---

34 A computation of rank correlation between strength of the women's organizations (measured by number of local units) and proportion of female nominees in the various parties gives a coefficient s= .6. .10 >p> .05. But if we compare the parties with regard to number of local units and proportion of female nominees among the top candidates the rank correlation s= .93. p< .02.

35 See Rokkan and Cambell, op. cit., pp. 24—28.

36 The distinct social basis of Norwegian parties is described by Rokkan and Valen, "Regional Contrasts...", op. cit. p. 212. See also Valen and Katz, op. cit. Ch. 6.

37 See Rokkan and Campbell, op. cit. p. 23,

38 Detailed data for the recruitment of local as well as national leaders have been presented by Rokkan and Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery", op. cit. pp. 134-141.

39 B. Berelson and G. A. Steiner, Human Behavior, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964: p. 379.

40 Rank correlations have been computed for three pairs of variables: a) average age of all candidates in 1957 and number of local units of youth organizations: r_s = .68, .10 >p> .05 b) average age of top candidates in 1957 and number of local units: r_s = .90, p< .05 c) average age of all candidates in 1957 at their first nomination and number of local units: r_s = .90, p< .05. In these computations the Communists have been omitted since no informations are available concerning the Communist youth organization.

41 See Meynaud (ed), The Parliamentary Profession, op. cit.

42 Information on occupation has been checked against other sources. For a few :andidates the title given was "stortingsmann" (member of the Storting) or "statsråd" member of the Cabinet). In these cases we have followed the candidate back to his irst nomination and used the title he had before he entered his present position. In nost of our tables and charts the category "housewives" has been omitted.

43 This information has been given in "Adressebøker for fylkene" (Address books for the provinces). For 97 candidates (i.e. five per cent of the total number) information on income and property was not available. These candidates have been omitted in our tables. For housewives not having an occupation we have used income and property of husband.

44 As to the Norwegian case this development has been described by G. S. Lettenstrøm and G. Skancke, De yrkesagtive i Norge 1875—1960 og prognoser for utviklingen frem til 1970. ("The economically active population in Norway 1875—1960 and forecasts up to 1970"). Oslo. Statistisk Sentralbyrå, 1964.

45 Rokkan & Valen, "Regional Contrasts...", cit. p. 212.

46 See Rokkan & Valen, "Regional Contrasts...", op. cit., p. 212.

47 Meynaud, "The parliamentary profession", op. cit. See particularly chapters on Italy, France and the United States.

48 Valen & Katz, op. cit. The present author observed the same phenomenon in his previous study of nominations. H. Valen, Nominasjon av stortingskandidater i Det Norske Arbeiderparti, op. cit.

49 For outstanding accounts of this phenomenon, see D. R. Matthews, The Social Background of Political Decision-Makers, Garden City, Doubleday, 1951; Heinz Eulau and J. D. Sprague, Lawyers in Politics, Indianopolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1964; G. Sartori (ed.), II portamento italiano 1946—1963, Napoli, Ed. Sciantif. Ital., 1963.

50 Meynaud, "The parliamentary profession, op. cit. pp. 628—629.

51 Meynaud, "The parliamentary profession", op. cit. p. 550.

---

51 a The professionals constitute a relatively low proportion of the parliamentarians in all Scandinavian countries. Noponen and Pesonen report that one third of the members of the Finnish Riksdag has received a University degree. M. Noponen and P. Pesonen, "The Legislative Career in Finland", in E. Allardt and Y. Littunen (eds.), Cleavages, Ideologies, and Party Systems, Helsinki, the Westernmarck Society, 1964: 453.

52 Data for the voters are drawn from the 1957 voter survey.

53 A report in Norwegian gives a more detailed analysis of the occupational background of nominees. See H. Valen, Nominasjonene, forthcoming volume in the series Valg i Norge.

54 See Valen & Katz, op. cit. pp. 270-275.

55 According to Statistisk Arbok /or Norge 1958 (Statistical Yearbook of Norway 1958), Oslo; Norges offisielle Statistikk, 1958, 77. R. XI. 309: p. 265. Notice that the figure given is average income per tax-payer, not the national average per capita. One Krone is about the same as one shilling; an American dollar is about seven Norwegian Kroner.

56 Valen & Katz, op. cit. p. 164, and Rokkan & Valen, "Regional Contrasts ...", op. cit. pp. 182-183.

57 H. Valen, Turnover in the Recruitment of Nominees at Norwegian Parliamentary Elections. Paper prepared for the Second Conference on Comparative Political Sociology, Gambridge, December 1965.

58 An inital analysis of this problem has been presented by the present author in Nominasjonene op. cit.

59 S. M. Lipset, "Organizational Democracy in a Trade Union" in H. Eulau, S. J. Elders veld and Janowitz (eds), Political Behavior, Clencoe 111.: The Free Press 1956, 375. Notice that Lipset's hypothesis refers to leadership in trade unions.

60 It was found that local politicians constituted a large proportion of the delegates to the nomination meetings of the Labor Party in 1949. See H. Valen, Nominasjon av stortingskandidater i Det Norske Arbeiderparti, op. cit.

61 This information has been given in Norske Kommunalpolitikere (Norwegian Local Politicians), Oslo, Bokdepotets Forlag, 1957—1958, and is used with kind permission of the publisher. This work presents a list of all representatives of local councils elected in 1955 for a four year period. Also listed are mayors and altemate mayors who are both elected by the local council arid must be members of that body.

We have found certain discrepancies in this list: a few of the nominees who were listed as members of local councils were not actually elected in 1955, but it is important to note that these were people who had been in local office in the preceding period. In our tables they have been classified as "members".

62 W. J. M. Mackenzie, "Local Government Experience of Legislators", in J. C. Wahlke and H. Eulau, Legislative Behavior, Clencoe, 111: The Free Press, 1959, 272-280.

63 See Mackenzie, op. cit. p. 273.

64 It has been demonstrated that the activity of parties in local politics has a great impact upon several aspects of the political system. See Rokkan & Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery", op. cit. and Rokkan & Valen, "Regional Contrasts . ..", op. cit.

65 See Rokkan & Valen, "The Mobilization of the Periphery", op. cit.

66 H. Valen, "Nominasjonene", op. cit.

67 Valen & Katz, op. cit. pp. 220—226.

68 Mackenzie, op. cit.

69 For an interesting discussion of this problem see W. L. Guttsman, The British Political Elite, London; Macgibbon & Kee, 1963: 319-367 and S. Rokkan, "The Comparative Study of Political Participation" in A. Ranney (ed) Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics, Urbana 111, University of Illinois Press, 1962.

---

70 Concerning the relationships between parties and occupational associations, see Valen & Katz, op. cit. pp. 303—322.

71 Sverre Lysgaard, Arbeidernes syn på faglige og politiske spörsmål. (Attitudes of workers on unions and political matters). Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1965: 58. The figures are basedon a recomputation of Lysgaard's data. (Table 4.3) p. 81.

72 A similar tendency has been demonstrated in a study of the Union of Swedish municipal workers: the national leaders of the union are exclusively Social Democrats, of the district leaders very few prefer the non-Socialist parties, but the proportion of non-Socialists increases as we move down in the organization hierarchy, and nearly one third of the ordinary members reports that they vote for the non-Socialist parties. See Ingemar Lindblad, Svenska kommunalarbetarförbundet 1910—60 (The Union of Swedish Municipal Workers 1910—60), Stockholm, Tiden, 1960: 484.

73 Egil Fivelsdal, Funksjonærenes syn på faglige og politiske spørsmål. (Attitudes of white collar employees on unions and political matters). Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1964: 116.

74 Valen & Katz, op. cit. pp. 306-320.

75 For an interesting elaboration of this problem in modern literature, see Guttsman, op. cit. pp. 368—388 and T. B. Bottomore, Elites and Society, London, Watts & Co., 1964.

76 Max Politik alsDuncker &1919.

75 On this development, see S. Rokkan, "Geography, Religion and Social Class", op. cit.

78 See Rokkan, "Geography, Religion and Social Class", op. cit.

79 Within the current program of electoral research at the Institute for Social Research and the Chr. Michelsens Institute, an archive of political personnel is in the process of being established. As a first step it will include biographical data for all cabinet members and all members of the Storting since 1814.