Discrete lobbying firms and a new class of ’policy professionals’ have, over the past two decades, fought their way into the political process as a new ’rockwool layer.’
Some of this rockwool layer do not have a popular mandate and represent no particular political interests. Others are employed by interest organizations, but the rockwool layer has grown to be a significant power factor in the political process because it operates »outside the media’s spotlight during early legislative preparations and political negotiations.«
»The complexity of the lobbying landscape and the opacity of large portions of the political process make it quite difficult for citizens to understand who ultimately influences political agendas and solutions,« states the opening volume of the Democracy and Power Study 2.0 research project.
On the opening day of Folkemødet in Allinge, the head of the research project, Professor of Political Science Michael Bang Petersen from Aarhus University, will present a series of challenges to Danish democracy that have arisen since the first Democracy and Power Study was completed in October 2003.
One point of concern is the growth and influence of the lobbying sector on decision-making processes. According to Michael Bang Petersen, this is a significant issue because policy professionals work discreetly and out of the limelight in the established, classical political system of the Danish Parliament and central administration.
»There has been a fundamental change in the way politics and policies are made,« says Michael Bang Petersen.
In 2023, the Danish Parliament allocated 41.6 million kroner to shed light on shifts in power over the past 20 years, and the opening volume summarizes 27 different challenges.
PA and Lobbying
One notable trend is the »rockwool layer of policy professionals,« characterized by having similar educational backgrounds and often experience as advisors or civil servants in the central administration or political parties. Today, they operate in public affairs agencies, large companies’ public affairs departments, or strategic departments of major interest organizations.
»When the first Democracy and Power Study was published, there were also political interests outside the political system involved in policy development processes. But back then, it was still within the framework of relatively well-organized institutions. You had a corporatist model where the government, trade unions, and employer organizations negotiated things. That model was already changing, and now we see a much more complex landscape of policy professionals,« says Michael Bang Petersen.
The new Democracy and Power Study concludes that it is not new for personal connections to have political significance, but the scale of it prompts the research group to raise a finger in warning:
»The greater complexity in the lobbying landscape makes it harder to discern which interests are at play and what influence they have. This is in itself a democratic challenge because it becomes difficult for the population to keep track of who is being listened to and why.«
Furthermore, it states:
»Thus, there is potentially a layer of rockwool across the channel connecting citizens and members of various organizations into the political system.«
It is also worth noting that party membership numbers have dramatically declined over the past 20 years, falling from 5% to just 2% of the population.
»If you think that the primary connection between citizens and the political system is through the parties, you should think again. The parties have such a narrow membership base that it is no longer meaningful,« says Bang Petersen.
In the opening volume, the research group does not name individuals or companies in the rockwool layer. It is a well-known fact that several individuals with a background as special advisors to top ministers now hold prominent positions in this sector. A job as a special advisor in the Prime Minister’s Office has often developed into a launch pad for founding or becoming a partner in PA or lobbying firms specializing in public affairs, strategic communication, strategic advising, and crisis management.
Names like Jacob Bruun, Thomas Juul-Dam, Mikael Børsting, Michael Ulveman, and Michael Kristiansen have alternately been special advisors to Prime Ministers Lars Løkke Rasmussen (then Vesntre, V), Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Socilademokratiet, S), and Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V). Today, they are co-founders or partners in firms such as Bruun Advisory, Primetime, Ulveman & Børsting, and Kristiansen+Partners. The same applies to a number of other former special advisors from various ministries.
»It is very symptomatic of how this class functions. You see a circulation between different positions that gives the impression that networking is incredibly important for your ability to hit the right moment with the right message,« says Michael Bang Petersen.
No Regulation
Twenty years ago, consulting firms like Jøp, Ove & Myrthu existed, but the scale was nowhere near what it is today.
The Democracy and Power Study notes that »Denmark, unlike many other countries, has virtually no regulation of lobbying or requirements for transparency in lobbying.«
»In many countries, we see a movement towards greater openness around professional interest representation, such as lobby registries. The public debate should reflect on whether this is a path Denmark should take. We will focus on policy professionals and interest representation in several of the forthcoming volumes,« says Michael Bang Petersen.
One issue in this development is that it often requires significant financial resources to hire PA firms and lobbying companies to create connections into the influential political halls where real changes happen.
»It is one thing that typically it is those with strong economic resources who gain access. The other aspect concerns transparency. To what extent can citizens understand the processes behind legislation,« says Bang Petersen, noting that 60% cannot discern which interests are being listened to.
Many Former Politicians
Former politicians also play a role in the rockwool layer, although according to Michael Bang Petersen, they are far from central. Former prime ministers Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V) and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (S) run their respective firms, Rasmussen Global and Thorning-Schmidt Global. The list of former politicians who have turned their political networks into a career is long. Former top ministers Jeppe Kofod (S) and Lars Barfoed (Konservative, K) run consulting firms Kofod Global and LB&C.
Former politicians like Brian Mikkelsen (K) and Jakob Ellemann-Jensen (V) hold leading positions at the Danish Chamber of Commerce. Former Enhedslisten (Ø) profiles Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen, Pernille Skipper, and Maria Reumert Gjerding are front figures at Save the Children, Coop, and the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, respectively.
Dansk Folkeparti’s (DF) Kristian Thulesen Dahl is the director of Aalborg Port, Radikale Venstre’s (RV) Sofie Carsten Nielsen is an industry director at the Confederation of Danish Industry, and Socialistisk Folkeparti’s (SF) Jacob Mark is a senior manager for public affairs at the energy company Andel. Venstre profiles Kristian Jensen, Karsten Lauritzen, Søren Pind, and Martin Geertsen hold leading positions at Green Power Denmark, Danish Bar and Law Society, Active Owners, and the consulting firm Primetime, respectively. Former Socialdemokratiet ministers Nick Hækkerup and Bjarne Corydon are the director of the Brewers’ Association and the incoming director-general of Denmark’s Radio, respectively.
Twenty years ago, there were also these kinds of examples?
»The revolving door issue (where politicians use the network gained through politics to land leading positions, ed.) has just become much more pronounced. Today, there are more positions to move into. Because the discipline of interest representation has been professionalized over the past 20 years, there is now an opportunity that did not exist earlier to convert the experience gained as a politician into a paid position.«
And earn big money?
»Exactly. In that way, it is new. There are positions to be had and demand for the service. It is a kind of arms race. If you are a company, individual, or organization with interests that need to be heard, you have to get the best expertise on your side.«
A third category within the group of policy professionals is top civil servants. Fifteen years ago, it made headlines when department head Karsten Dybvad left the Prime Minister’s Office for a job as CEO of the Confederation of Danish Industry. That kind of move has become more common. For instance, the three most recent department heads at the Ministry of Finance – Peter Stensgaard Mørch, Martin Præstegaard, and David Hellemann – switched from the central administration to top positions at PensionDanmark, ATP, and Nykredit, respectively. The two most recent department heads at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ulrik Vestergaard Knudsen and Lars Gert Lose, now hold director positions at Netcompany and Finance Denmark, respectively. This trend is also seen in other ministries.
According to Michael Bang Petersen, shedding light on the driving forces behind this movement will be a significant task for the Democracy and Power Study.
»The truly interesting question is, what are the systemic changes that have led to this much more professionalized interest representation.«
