Stine Hesstvedt

• Bergh, Johannes & Hesstvedt, Stine (2026). Kjønnsgap i stemmegivning: En tredje bølge? In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The modern gender gap in voting, in which men are more likely to vote for center-right parties than women and women tend to vote more for center-left parties, reached a new high in Norway in the 2025-election. The gender gap has never been larger in the close to 70-year history of the Norwegian National Election Study. The gap is especially large among young, Generation Z voters. We find that generational replacement contributes to a rise in the gender gap over time. This suggests that the gap may keep rising in the years to come. Though there are differences between men and women in their views on gender roles and gender equality, these attitudes are not the main drives of gender differences in voting. Rather, attitudinal differences regarding economic issues such as taxes and public spending, as well as immigration policy, accounts for much of the gender gap in voting.

• Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine; Karlsen, Rune & Lunde, Therese (2026). Dagsorden og sakseierskap. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 133–154. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This chapter is about political issues in the 2025 election. The most important issues for Norwegian voters in the election, staring with the most important, were taxes, health care, foreign and defense policy, other economic issues, climate/environmental issues, immigration and education. Foreign policy and defense policy rose dramatically in importance since the last election in 2021. The last time these issues were high on the agenda was in the 1980s. Climate change and environmental issues have dramatically declined in importance, whereas economic issues were top of mind for voters in 2025. The two winners in the election, the Progress Party and the Labor Party, have high levels of issue ownership of economic issues. The Progress Party has gained in issue ownership on a number of issues since the last election, while the Conservative Party has lost.

• Aardal, Bernt; Bergh, Johannes & Hesstvedt, Stine (2026). Ideologi og polarisering. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 71–108. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The chapter studies the ideological positions of Norwegian voters in connection with the 2025-election. The analyses build on several previous studies from the Norwegian National Election Study that map the ideological political landscape in Norway over time. Norwegian politics is multidimensional. A factor analysis reveals 6 ideological dimensions on which voters hold relatively consistent opinions. They are 1) an economic left-right scale, 2) a climate/ environmental policy scale, 3) an immigration policy scale, 4) a global-national orientation scale, 5) a religious-secular scale and 6) a center-periphery scale. We find evidence of an ideological rightwing shift in the Norwegian electorate from 2021 to 2025; voters are on average moving in the direction of parties on the right on several of these dimensions. We also see evidence of increased ideological polarization in the electorate.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Langsæther, Peter Egge (2026). Hvem stemte hva? Sosial bakgrunn og stemmegivning ved valget 2025. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 57–70. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This chapter analyses how social background shaped voting in Norway’s 2025 parliamentary election, examining cleavages of centre-periphery, urban-rural, class, education, age, and gender, with historical comparisons back to 1957. Drawing on Statistics Norway register data (N = 10,747) and the Norwegian Election Study (N = 1,800), the authors find growing polarization along social lines. The most striking finding is a historic gender gap among young voters: roughly 38% of men under 30 voted for The Progress Party (FrP), nearly doubling from 2021, while young women gravitated toward The Socialist Left Party (SV) and The Green Party (MDG). The Labour Party (Ap) has shifted toward an older electorate, drawing 53% of women over 70, but struggles to mobilize youth. The Conservative Party (H) have returned to their upper-middle-class roots, losing young men to FrP. Geographically, The Centre Party (Sp) remains dominant in rural areas while The Conservative Party and smaller liberal/green parties concentrate in the Oslo area. FrP broadened its appeal across regions, age groups, and educational levels, combining gains in core constituencies (young men, lower-educated voters) with

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2026). Penger i politikk: Holdninger til pengedonasjoner blant stortingskandidater ved valget i 2025. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 423–447. doi: https:/cdforskning.no/cdf/catalog/book/296. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Norwegian party finance has traditionally rested on the principle that parties should be funded primarily through generous public subsidies rather than private contributions, limiting the role of external money in politics. The 2025 parliamentary election may mark a break with this model: private donations reached a historic high, and for the first time the right-wing bloc received more than the left. Drawing on the 2025 Storting Candidate Survey, party accounting data, and the 2025 Election Survey, this chapter examines how parliamentary candidates view party donations, regulation, and donor influence. We find pronounced differences along partisan and ideological lines, but also within parties: candidates from parties receiving large contributions – and top candidates in particular – regard donations as beneficial and are less inclined to see them as a democratic problem or to favor stricter regulation. Attitudes thus reflect not only ideology but also position and self-interest. Comparing candidates with voters, we find that right-wing top candidates are notably less concerned about large donations than their own voters. The findings suggest the Norwegian party finance model may be changing, raising new questions about money’s role in Norwegian democracy.

• Bergh, Johannes; Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum; Hesstvedt, Stine; Karlsen, Rune & Magin, Melanie (2026). Konflikt og mobilisering: En ny fase i norsk politikk? In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 511–524. doi: 10.23865/cdf.296. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This concluding chapter summarizes the main findings of the book and discusses what explains the outcome of the 2025 Norwegian parliamentary election. The chapter highlights five central explanations: i) an ideological shift to the right, ii) increased voter turnout with partisan consequences, iii) the growing importance of economic concerns, iv) the role of foreign and security policy, and v) the media’s influence on voter’s political priorities. The chapter concludes by discussing what the 2025 election tells us about broader trends in Norwegian politics in the 2020s.

• Geiss, Stefan; Tønnesen, Hedvig; Karlsen, Rune; Magin, Melanie; Aalberg, Toril & Hesstvedt, Stine (2026). Medieeffekter og stemmegivning: Hvordan påvirket mediene velgerne? In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Konflikt og mobilisering. En studie av stortingsvalget 2025. Cappelen Damm AS. ISSN 9788202923822. p. 303–323. doi: 10.23865/cdf.296. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This chapter examines whether the media influenced which issues voters considered important in the 2025 Norwegian parliamentary election, and whether this mattered for vote choice. Drawing on theories of agenda-setting, issue ownership, and priming, the analysis combines panel survey data from the first four waves of the Election Campaign Study with an automated content analysis of approximately 3.5 million sentences from over 200 news outlets, debate programs, social media platforms, search engines, and AI chatbots. The analysis proceeds in two steps. At the aggregate level, the media agenda and the voter agenda show only a moderate correspondence: media emphasized foreign policy issues such as Gaza and Ukraine, while voters prioritized taxation, health, and climate. At the individual level, we construct personalized news diets for each respondent and track the same voters across the campaign. We find clear agenda-setting effects for less obtrusive issues such as the economy, defence, taxation, and foreign policy. A path model further demonstrates a priming effect: media exposure shifts voters’ issue priorities, which in turn shifts vote intention toward parties associated with those issues. Even in a fragmented media landscape, media content meaningfully shaped electoral choice.

• Stubager, Rune; Langsæther, Peter Egge & Hesstvedt, Stine (2026). Still Going Strong? The Social and Political Relevance of Class Identification Over Time in Four Countries. Comparative Political Studies. ISSN 0010-4140. doi: 10.1177/00104140251414034. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  According to influential theories of modernization and individualization, social class has ceased to be relevant to citizens and their political behaviour in Western countries; class has been proclaimed ‘dead’. The argument is particularly strong at the subjective level where people are thought to no longer identify with social classes let alone relate this identification to politics. Using time-series election study data covering many decades combined with manifesto data from the US, Britain, Denmark, and Norway, we challenge this view and show that levels of class identification have been stable. The relationship between class identification, attitudes to redistribution and vote choice has, however, changed but this appears to result more from political parties’ varying polarization on economic and social issues than from the demise of class in voters’ minds.

• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2025). The Role of Experts in Policymaking. In Kolltveit, Kristoffer; Allern, Elin Haugsgjerd; Braut-Hegghammer, Målfrid & Rasch, Bjørn Erik (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Norwegian Politics. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780198888581. p. 497–517. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198888581.013.0026. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This handbook provides a comprehensive examination of Norway’s political institutions, electoral politics, public policymaking, and international relations. As the introductory chapter highlights, Norway is a highly consolidated, homogeneous, corporatist, and consensus-orientated democracy having faced rapid economic growth, significant government access to massive oil revenues, deindustrialization, public-sector expansion, increasing cultural pluralism, and economic inequality, as well as growing party system fragmentation and the decline of the once dominant Social Democratic Party. Each chapter offers foundational knowledge about the present Norwegian system while presenting state-of-the-art overviews of key issues and findings drawn from the most relevant research in their respective fields. Additionally, the chapters provide original analyses of more specialized topics or trace historical developments and overarching trends. The handbook is designed primarily for scholars and students specializing in the covered topics, but it is also intended to serve a secondary readership that includes politicians, journalists, and other individuals interested in gaining a deeper understanding of Norwegian politics. The authors, selected for their in-depth knowledge and expertise as well as their proven track record of publishing research in highly ranked international outlets, offer valuable insights into the different aspects of Norwegian politics. Although the primary focus is on research within political science, contributions from disciplines such as public law, history, and education science are also included. This diverse set of authors brings extensive expertise and presents the chapters in an accessible manner, making this handbook an indispensable resource for understanding Norwegian politics.

• Christensen, Johan; Hesstvedt, Stine; Pronin, Kira; Holst, Cathrine; Christiansen, Peter Munk & Holli, Anne Maria (2025). Experts in Governance: A Comparative Analysis of the Nordic Countries. Policy & Politics. ISSN 0305-5736. doi: 10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000079. Full text in Research Archive
• Bach, Tobias; Forum, Bjørn Mo & Hesstvedt, Stine (2025). Norway: formal and informal politicization in a merit bureaucracy. In Peters, B. Guy; Knox, Colin; Francisco, Panizza; Larraburu, Conrado Ramos & Staroňová, Katarína (Ed.), Handbook of Politicization and Political Patronage. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781035326235. p. 78–96. doi: 10.4337/9781035326242.00012. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The chapter focuses on formal and informal politicization in Norway, particularly examining positions within the state administration for which the cabinet or ministers have the power to make appointments. Additionally, it investigates the selection process for expert commissions, which play a significant role in policy development. We show that the civil service in Norway has experienced a gradual increase in formal politicization, as evidenced by the growing number of political appointees. However, informal politicization is largely absent, except for the appointment of former ministers to the position of county governors. The chapter also shows that civil servants are functionally politicized and face dilemmas between political responsiveness and other civil service values. Finally, the chapter demonstrates that the merit-based civil service was able to accommodate a populist party in government.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Saglie, Jo (2025). The urban-rural cleavage: Analysing more than 40 years of Norwegian survey data. Electoral Studies: an international journal on voting and electoral systems and strategy. ISSN 0261-3794. 96. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2025.102954. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In recent years, the political divide between urban and rural dwellers seems to have increased. Current literature has described the rise of a green, progressive and left-leaning urban electorate and a nationalist and conservative rural population. However, research usually lacks historical data on these developments outside of majoritarian systems. We provide new insights into the urban-rural divide's evolution in a European multi-party welfare state by analysing more than four decades of data from Norway and asking: How has the urban-rural divide over political issues evolved from a long-term perspective? Using unique election survey data, we analyse how both attitudes and most important issues among rural and urban voters in Norway have changed between 1977 and 2021. We also assess whether urban-rural differences are driven by sociodemographic change. Our results indicate both stability and change. On one hand, we find attitude polarisation in Norway on some issues: Divisions over environmental policy have increased, as the urban population displays more progressive attitudes than rural citizens over time. Rural citizens have become more concerned with centre and periphery issues. However, in other areas, we find stability and a relatively low degree of polarisation. For example, the rural population in Norway has become more similar to urban citizens regarding moral and religious issues. Furthermore, rural citizens have not become more right-leaning on economic questions, which has been a finding in more adversarial systems.

• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2024). Comparing ministerial evidence cultures: a quantitative analysis. Policy and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Policy Research. ISSN 1449-4035. 43(4), p. 494–520. doi: 10.1093/polsoc/puae033. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Evidence-informed policy-making is seen by many as crucial for formulating effective solutions to the complex challenges facing societies today. However, scholarship on evidence and policy-making has repeatedly noted that the use of evidence in government policy-making is highly uneven across policy areas and organizations. Still, we have surprisingly little systematic empirical knowledge about how government organizations actually differ in the use of evidence in policy formulation, and we lack a solid understanding of what accounts for differences across organizations in evidence use. The article seeks to address these knowledge gaps through an analysis of ministerial evidence cultures. Arguing that the government bureaucracy is not a unified entity but rather a collection of organizations with distinct world views and ways of doing things, we expect to find distinct evidence cultures in different government ministries. Moreover, we contend that the informal norms and practices of evidence use leave empirically traceable marks that can be examined quantitatively across ministries. The article maps evidence cultures across all Norwegian government ministries in the period 2000–2020 based on data on ministries’ commissioning of research reports, appointment of experts to advisory commissions, and references to knowledge sources in white papers, revealing striking and systematic differences in evidence cultures across ministries. It also empirically investigates how different evidence cultures are related to institutional differences in task environment, analytical capacity, and personnel. The article contributes both to literature on evidence and policy-making and to public administration scholarship.

• Hesstvedt, Stine; Bergh, Johannes & Aardal, Bernt Olav (2023). Ideologi og polarisering ved stortingsvalget 2021. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Politikk i urolige tider. En studie av stortingsvalget 2021. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. ISSN 9788202793708. p. 142–179. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Langsæther, Peter Egge (2023). Klassekonfliktlinjen fra 1950-årene til i dag. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Politikk i urolige tider. En studie av stortingsvalget 2021. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. ISSN 9788202793708. p. 204–228. Full text in Research Archive
• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). The influence of expert groups: a citation analysis. Journal of European Public Policy. ISSN 1350-1763. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2174168. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Decision-makers rely extensively on expert groups and commissions for policy advice. Many see in this a growing technocracy or expertization of decision-making. Yet, we know little about the actual influence of these expert bodies in policy-making. When does expert group advice shape policy-making rather than being brushed aside? The article goes beyond existing research by measuring and explaining variation in expert group influence. Using the number of citations to expert group reports in government white papers and later expert group reports as measures of influence, the article analyzes citations to 1545 Norwegian advisory commission reports published 1972–2017. It concentrates on three dimensions of the organization of expert groups as potential determinants of influence: member composition, appointing ministry and resources. The results suggest that expert groups have greater influence when they include more politicians and have a bigger secretariat. The article contributes empirically and methodologically to research on expertise and policy-making.

• Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2023). Sakseierskap og dagsorden ved stortingsvalget 2021. In Bergh, Johannes & Haugsgjerd, Atle Hennum (Ed.), Politikk i urolige tider. En studie av stortingsvalget 2021. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. ISSN 9788202793708. p. 45–74. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2022). Partisanship and science advice: Do the right prefer economists and the left social scientists? Party Politics. ISSN 1354-0688. p. 1–14. doi: 10.1177/13540688221122330. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christensen, Johan (2021). Political and administrative control of expert groups—A mixed‐methods study. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions. ISSN 0952-1895. doi: 10.1111/gove.12599. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christiansen, Peter Munk (2021). The politics of policy inquiry commissions: Denmark and Norway, 1971-2017. West European Politics. ISSN 0140-2382. 45(2), p. 430–454. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1858597. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Policy inquiry commissions are widely used in policy-preparation processes across Europe and beyond. While previous research has primarily focused on commissions as expert bodies and corporatist arrangements, this study investigates whether political factors affect a political incumbent's decision to establish commissions. The hypothesis is that incumbent parties are more likely to appoint commissions under certain political conditions – i.e. depending on parliamentary strength, government colour and government composition – and when certain policy issues are salient on the policy agenda of the government and the opposition. The study uses a novel dataset that combines more than 2000 commission appointments in Norway and Denmark between 1971 and 2017 with party manifesto and electoral study data to test the expectations. The agenda perspective is partly sustained, and the study shows that minority governments, left-leaning governments, and coalition governments appoint commissions more extensively than their counterparts, although the results differ slightly in the two countries.

• Haugsgjerd, Atle; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2021). Increased media choice and political knowledge gaps: A comparative longitudinal study of 18 established democracies 1995-2015. Political Communication. ISSN 1058-4609. 38(6), p. 731–750. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1868633. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine; Bergh, Johannes & Karlsen, Rune (2021). Kampen om dagsorden: et historisk tilbakeblikk på stortingsvalgene 1957–2017. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning (TfS). ISSN 0040-716X. 62(3), p. 273–292. doi: 10.18261/ISSN.1504-291X-2021-03-04. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Finseraas, Henning & Hesstvedt, Stine (2020). Sosial ulikhet i valgdeltakelse før og nå. In Bergh, Johannes; Haugsgjerd, Atle & Karlsen, Rune (Ed.), Valg og politikk siden 1945. Velgere, institusjoner og kritiske hendelser i norsk politisk historie. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. ISSN 9788202664602. p. 110–123. Full text in Research Archive
• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2019). Expertisation or greater representation? Evidence from Norwegian advisory commissions. In Krick, Eva & Holst, Cathrine (Ed.), Experts and Democratic Legitimacy. Tracing the Social Ties of Expert Bodies in Europe. Routledge. ISSN 9780367427535. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1515861. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). 'Ekspertifisering' av offentlige utvalg? En studie av akademikeres deltakelse i NOU-utvalg fra 1972 og til i dag. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift. 2(5), p. 381–400. doi: 10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2018-05-03. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Denne artikkelen ser nærmere på forskeres deltakelse i politikkutforming ved å ta utgangspunkt i en sentral del av den norske politikkutformingsprosessen: NOU-utvalgene (Norges Offentlige Utredninger). Den undersøker hvorvidt «ekspertifisering» kjennetegner utviklingen i utvalgssystemet over tid, ved hjelp av et datasett med informasjon om alle offentlige utvalg nedsatt mellom 1972 og 2016. To hovedspørsmål stilles: Deltar forskere oftere som medlemmer, ledere og sekretærer av offentlige utvalg over tid? Hvilke disipliner er representert, og hvordan har dette endret seg? Funnene viser at andelen forskermedlemmer i NOU-utvalg har vært sterkt økende siden 1970-tallet, og at forskere innenfor samfunnsøkonomi og øvrige samfunnsvitenskaper står for en stor del av denne økningen. Til sammenlikning er naturvitenskapene, medisin og teknologi- og ingeniørfag relativt mindre representert i utvalg i dag enn for førti år siden.

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Redistributing Knowledge? How Institutions Affect Citizens’ Political Knowledge Levels: The Scandinavian Case Compared. In Engelstad, Fredrik; Holst, Cathrine & Aakvaag, Gunnar C. (Ed.), Democratic State and Democratic Society. De Gruyter Open. ISSN 9783110634075. p. 94–117. doi: 10.1515/9783110634082-006. Full text in Research Archive
• Christensen, Johan & Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Expertisation or greater representation? Evidence from Norwegian advisory commissions. European Politics and Society. ISSN 2374-5118. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1515861. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Policy-making in democratic systems involves the consultation of affected interests as well as relevant expertise. Yet, who provides decision-makers with input and how this has changed over time is a matter of contention. Whereas society-centred accounts point to the involvement of interest groups in policy formulation, epistemic accounts emphasise the participation of academic experts in the analysis and design of policy. Yet, there are few systematic empirical analyses of the developments over time in the participation of these two groups of actors in the policy formulation process. The article attempts to fill this gap by examining participation patterns in Norwegian temporary advisory commissions. Analysing a newly compiled database covering more than 1500 commissions from the period 1972–2016, the article finds a marked rise in the participation of academics over time and a stable or declining representation of interest groups. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/.

View all works in NVA

• Forum, Bjørn Mo & Hesstvedt, Stine (2024). Partisan Appointees to Government Commissions in Norway 1972-2018. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Skorge, Øyvind Søraas (2024). NOUer og kvinners representasjon. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). Tilgjengelighet for personer med funksjonsnedsettelse i norske valglokaler. Resultater fra et forskningsprosjekt i forbindelse med Stortingsvalget 2021. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Saglie, Jo (2023). Cross-cutting or overlapping? The urban-rural cleavage in a historical perspective. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In the literature of electoral politics, geography has been rediscovered as a political cleavage. Traditionally, the work of Lipset and Rokkan (1967) described the urban-rural cleavage as a power struggle over economic resources and the centre–periphery cleavage as a struggle over national identity. Both of these cut across other cleavages. Current research, however, finds increased overlap in attitudes, depicting the rise of a green, progressive and left-leaning urban electorate and a nationalist and conservative rural population that contributes to elevated levels of polarization. This paper provides new knowledge about the development of the urban-rural cleavage in European multi-party systems over time, by analysing six decades of unique survey data from Norway. We ask: How and to what extent has the urban-rural cleavage become more overlapping or cross-cutting since the 1950s and until today? Specifically, we study changes in the attitudes of rural and urban populations towards new and old politics issues between 1977 and 2021. We also assess the changing content and saliency of the urban-rural cleavage by making use of Most Important Issue (MIP) survey questions. Overall, the paper contributes with novel insights of the development of a century-old cleavage that has again come to the fore in electoral politics.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Skorge, Øyvind Søraas (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Full text in Research Archive
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Full text in Research Archive
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine; Thau, Mads & Thesen, Gunnar (2023).  Blessing or curse? Issue ownership and green party performance in a climate change election. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). Mellom fag og politikk i 50 år: NOU-ene 1972-2023. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). NOU-enes historie (1972-2022): Hvilken rolle spiller interessegruppene? Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine; Christensen, Peter Munk; Lundberg, Erik & Pronin, Kira (2023). Still the century of corporatism? A policy area perspective (Conference presentation). Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). NOU-enes historie (1972-2023). Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). Comparing evidence use across ministries in Norway - A quantitative analysis. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). NOU-enes historie (1972-2022). Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). Commissions in the Nordic countries: Trends and dilemmas. Full text in Research Archive
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2023). When Are Women Used as Policy Experts? Theory and Evidence from Norway. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Saglie, Jo (2023). Centre and periphery: a changing cleavage in Norwegian politics? Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  In the literature of electoral politics, geography has been rediscovered as a political cleavage. Traditionally, the work of Lipset and Rokkan (1967) described the urban-rural cleavage as a power struggle over economic resources and national identity that cut across other cleavages. Current research, however, finds increased overlap in attitudes, depicting the rise of a green, progressive and left-leaning urban electorate and a nationalist and conservative rural population that contributes to elevated levels of polarization. This paper provides new knowledge about the development of the urban-rural cleavage in European multi-party systems over time, by analysing six decades of unique survey data from Norway, where the cleavage have been persistently vital to electoral politics. Specifically, we study changes in the attitudes of rural and urban populations towards new and old politics issues between 1957 and 2021. We also assess the changing content and saliency of the urban-rural cleavage by making use of Most Important Issue (MIP) survey questions. Overall, the paper contributes with novel insights of the development of a century-old cleavage that has again come to the fore in electoral politics.

• Hesstvedt, Stine & Skorge, Øyvind Søraas (2022). The gendered politics of policy experts: Do governments appoint women to expert groups as much as men? Full text in Research Archive
• Skorge, Øyvind Søraas & Hesstvedt, Stine (2022). The Gendered Politics of Policy Expertise. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2020). Populistene inn i embetsverket? Stat & Styring. ISSN 0803-0103. 30(1). Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2019). Politicization of expert advice? Tracing political control with academic experts on policy inquiry commissions in Norway, 1973-2017. Conference paper. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Christiansen, Peter Munk (2019). The Politics of Technocratic Policy-Making. Conference paper. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Controlling the Experts? A Study of Norwegian Public Advisory Commissions 1972-2016. Conference paper. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine (2018). Controlling the Experts? A Study of Norwegian Public Inquiry Commissions 1972-2016 (ECPR). Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2017). Expertization of Policy Advice: A Cross-Sectoral Analysis. Full text in Research Archive
• Aardal, Bernt; Bergh, Johannes & Hesstvedt, Stine (2015). Vinner man valget hvis man vinner flytvelgerne? Full text in Research Archive
• Brekke, Jan-Paul; Fladmoe, Audun; Hesstvedt, Stine & Wollebæk, Dag (2026). Holdninger til innvandring, integrering og mangfold. Integreringsbarometeret 2026. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277638867. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Integreringsbarometeret er den mest omfattende undersøkelsen av holdninger til innvandring og integrering i Norge. I rapporten ser vi på utviklingen fra 2005 og frem til i dag. Samtidig gir vi helt nye innsikter om blant annet holdninger til flyktninger og arbeidsinnvandrere, om hva befolkningen mener fungerer i integreringen, samt i hvordan synet på innvandringspolitikk henger sammen med synet på andre politikkområder.

• Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2025). Dagsorden og sakseierskap: Stortingsvalget 2025. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277638782. Full text in Research Archive
• Hesstvedt, Stine & Seehuus, Sara (2025). Kjønnsgapet i stemmegivning og unge menn. Et notat basert på Valgundersøkelsen 1957–2021 og CORE SURVEY 2022. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277638577. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Har kjønn og likestilling blitt viktigere for stemmegivningen? De siste årene har mange opphetede diskusjoner om kjønn tatt stor plass i offentligheten, med diskusjoner knyttet til «wokeness», «tradwives», kjønnsidentitet, metoo og konservative influenseres innflytelse på unge menn. I dette notatet ønsker vi å kaste lys over dagens debatt fra et historisk perspektiv ved å studere likestillingsholdninger og stemmegivning ved hjelp av CORE SURVEY 2022 og Valgundersøkelsens tidsserier (1957–2021). Ser vi tegn til et økende kjønnsgap i stemmegivningen i Norge, og i hvilken grad henger dette sammen med holdninger til likestilling? Utgiver

• Brekke, Jan-Paul; Fladmoe, Audun; Hesstvedt, Stine & Wollebæk, Dag (2024). Holdninger til innvandring, integrering og mangfold. Integreringsbarometeret 2024. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277638287. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Integreringsbarometeret følger utviklingen i befolkningens holdninger til innvandring, integrering og mangfold og er basert på en spørreundersøkelse med et representativt befolkningsutvalg på 3 000 respondenter. I tillegg til å vise trendene presenterer årets rapport blant annet hvilken effekt krigen og flyktningene fra Ukraina har hatt, forteller hva befolkningen mener skal til for å regnes som integrert, og analyserer hvordan man ser på meningsmotstandere på dette ladede politiske feltet.

• Fladmoe, Audun; Brekke, Jan-Paul; Hesstvedt, Stine & Wollebæk, Dag (2024). Holdninger til innvandring og integrering før og etter Russlands fullskalainvasjon av Ukraina i februar 2022. Oppdaterte tall desember 2023. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277638133. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  27 prosent av respondentene i undersøkelsen mente at integreringen fungerer bra eller ganske bra ved utgangen av 2023. Tilsvarende andel lå på 22 prosent høsten 2021. På den annen side mener 40 prosent at integreringen fungerer dårlig, mot 44 prosent høsten 2021. Holdninger til bosetting av flyktninger i egen kommune er tilbake til nivået som var observert før starten av krigen i Ukraina. 44 prosent av befolkningen mente i desember 2023 at deres kommune bør bosette flere flyktninger. I mars 2022 lå denne andelen på 59 prosent. Det er klar nedgang siden mars 2023 i andelen som mener at Norge bør ta imot flere flyktninger. Støtten til å ta imot flere arbeidsinnvandrere er stabil.

• Saglie, Jo; Christensen, Dag Arne; Ervik, Rune; Hesstvedt, Stine & Segaard, Signe Bock (2022). Tilgjengelighet og tilrettelegging for funksjonshemmede ved stortingsvalget 2021. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277637228. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Et formål med valgloven er at alle personer med stemmerett skal kunne stemme uavhengig av funksjonsevne. Selv om tilgjengeligheten og tilretteleggingen er god for velgerne i norske valg, kan enkelte oppleve at praktiske forhold gjør det vanskelig å bruke stemmeretten. Med det som utgangspunkt undersøker denne rapporten tilgjengeligheten for velgere med funksjonsnedsettelser i stortingsvalget 2021. Kommunene har ansvaret for at formålet i valgloven blir realisert i landets i overkant av 2800 valglokaler. Måten kommunene løser denne oppgaven på, er dermed avgjørende for tilretteleggingen i og utenfor valglokalene. Rapporten konsentreres om kommunenes arbeid med tilrettelegging for velgerne under forberedelsene til valget, og i hvilken grad de oppfyller kravene til tilgjengelighet og tilrettelegging i og rundt valglokalene. Datamaterialet består av tre kilder: en elektronisk spørreundersøkelse til alle landets kommuner, kvalitative intervjuer med valgansvarlige i ni kommuner, og faktiske observasjoner i 27 valglokaler fordelt på de sistnevnte ni kommunene. Med hensyn til valgforberedelsene viser analysen at kun et mindretall av kommunene involverer representanter for velgere med funksjonsnedsettelser når valget planlegges. Det gjelder med hensyn til valg av valglokaler og i utformingen av informasjonsmateriell. Med hensyn til selve stemmegivningen mener hele 90 prosent av kommunene at den aktuelle velgergruppen vil kunne avgi stemme i samtlige valglokaler i kommunen. Likevel viser observasjonene i valglokalene at det er rom for forbedring når det gjelder blant annet framkommelighet og merking/skilting. Avslutningsvis diskuterer rapporten enkelte konkrete forslag til hvordan tilretteleggingen kan forbedres ytterligere for velgere med funksjonsnedsettelser.

• Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Karlsen, Rune (2022). Dagsorden og sakseierskap ved stortingsvalget 2021. Institutt for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 9788277637334. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

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

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

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

• Hesstvedt, Stine (2016). Ideology, Knowledge and Context. A multilevel study of "Political Sophistication" across 21 countries. Master thesis. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive
• Kleven, Øyvin; Aardal, Bernt; Bergh, Johannes; Hesstvedt, Stine & Hindenes, Ådne (2015). Valgundersøkelsen 2013. Dokumentasjons- og tabellrapport. Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB). ISSN 9788253791913. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB) og Institutt for samfunnsforskning (ISF) gjennomførte i 2013 Den norske valgundersøkelsen i forbindelse med stortingsvalget samme år. Undersøkelsen omfattet spørsmål om valgkampen, politikerne, hvilke saker som var viktig for velgerne og valg av politisk parti. Denne rapporten dokumenter valgundersøkelsen 2013, og inneholder spørreskjema og svarfordeling for de fleste spørsmålene som ble stilt i undersøkelsen. Det er også tatt med tabeller som viser sammenhengen mellom partivalg og bakgrunnsvariabler som kjønn, alder, utdanning, yrke og region. Rapporten dokumenterer også gjennomføringen av undersøkelsen, og tar opp en del metodiske spørsmål knyttet til datakvalitet. Hoveddelen av undersøkelsen har vært finansiert av Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet (tidligere Kommunal- og Regionaldepartementet).

View all works in NVA