The Illusion of Impartiality: How Norway’s Elite Network Undermines True Accountability
When a minister or top bureaucrat declares a conflict of interest, the intention is to ensure neutrality and trust. But in practice, the effect can be the opposite. What signal is sent down the line when the boss recuses themselves from a decision – while everyone knows their preference?
Conflict of interest rules are based on the simple assumption that the problem lies primarily in the formal decision. Removing the potentially biased individual from the final vote should, in theory, lead to a neutral outcome. However, in hierarchical systems, power rarely functions so mechanically. Influence is exerted not just through signatures, but through expectations, loyalty, and career considerations.
A Tight-Knit Circle
A striking example comes from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. As Foreign Minister (2017-2021), Ine Eriksen Søreide declared a conflict of interest in appointments involving Mona Juul, whom she described as a close friend. Simultaneously, Søreide maintained she barely knew Juul’s husband, Terje Rød-Larsen.
Within the same ministry, Geir O. Pedersen served as Director-General, overseeing significant grants to the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York, led by Rød-Larsen. Between 2005 and 2018, IPI received approximately 130 million kroner. In 2021, the Office of the Auditor General criticized Pedersen’s involvement, citing his close friendship with Rød-Larsen.
Jonas Gahr Støre similarly served as Foreign Minister (2005-2012) during a period of substantial funding to IPI. He stated he had no personal relationship with Rød-Larsen. The network extends further: Jens Stoltenberg’s wife, Ingrid Schulerud, is also friends with Mona Juul.
When Everyone Knows Who Knows Whom
The point isn’t to determine formal conflicts of interest in these cases. It’s to illustrate how small and interconnected the Norwegian elite is. In such an environment, everyone knows who is connected to whom, and what outcomes will be perceived as desirable – or undesirable – by powerful individuals.
The Norwegian elite is small and tightly woven. Missteps can have lasting consequences.
The Shifting of Responsibility, Not Power
In practice, when a conflict of interest arises, the formal decision-making authority is often delegated to a peer. In the Foreign Ministry, this might mean another Director-General makes the decision, or, if the minister is conflicted, the matter is passed to another minister – a “substitute minister.”
However, the preparatory operate and recommendations are still typically handled by the same department where the leader has declared a conflict. It’s the formal decision that’s transferred.
Preferences Remain Unspoken
Conflict of interest rules are based on the idea of temptation. The decision-maker might be influenced to favor a close connection. But when the top leader recuses themselves, the preferences don’t disappear. they simply grow unstated.
Consider the appointment of a UN Ambassador to New York – a prestigious position. If everyone understands that a particular candidate is favored by the recused minister, this will be obvious to those tasked with making the recommendation.
Søreide declared a conflict of interest in the 2019 UN Ambassador appointment, and her friend Mona Juul was subsequently appointed.
Subordinates Read the Signals
For those subordinates, the calculation is simple. Recommending a candidate other than the one everyone assumes the boss prefers can be seen as a direct challenge. Disappointing those at the top can have repercussions. Following the assumed will, is safe.
The Future of Accountability in Close-Knit Systems
The question is whether a situation where a powerful person declares a conflict of interest actually results in a neutral process. The answer is, in practice, often no. The mechanism doesn’t guarantee that a close connection won’t benefit. In fact, the declaration of conflict can reinforce the system’s incentive to reach the outcome the conflicted individual is assumed to want.
Conflict of interest declarations thus shift responsibility, but not necessarily influence. In a system where the elite is small and interconnected, there’s no easy solution to this problem. And that’s precisely why the elite understands it better than most.
FAQ
Q: What is the purpose of conflict of interest rules?
A: To ensure decisions are made neutrally and to maintain public trust in the impartiality of government and public officials.
Q: Can declaring a conflict of interest actually backfire?
A: Yes, in hierarchical systems, it can reinforce existing power dynamics and lead to outcomes that align with the preferences of the recused individual.
Q: Is this a problem unique to Norway?
A: While the examples cited are from Norway, the challenges of maintaining impartiality in close-knit elite networks are relevant in many countries.
Did you understand? The Office of the Auditor General plays a crucial role in scrutinizing government spending and identifying potential conflicts of interest.
Pro Tip: Transparency is key. Publicly disclosing potential conflicts of interest, even if not legally required, can help build trust and demonstrate accountability.
What are your thoughts on the challenges of maintaining impartiality in government? Share your comments below!
Related reading