Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations

This report set out to gain a better understanding of the ways in which the principle of Nordic added value is being and has been used and conceptualised across the institutions of inter-ministerial Nordic co-operation. This has been done in light of the association that is frequently drawn between Nordic added value and the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation, as well as the increasing institutionalisation of the principle within those institutions.

In order to understand the nature, development, and use of Nordic added value in inter-ministerial Nordic co-operation, Chapter 2 explored the conceptual characteristics of Nordic added value. It was highlighted that Nordic added value is a contested, composite, and temporally multi-layered concept. Among other things, this means that the concept of Nordic added value has acquired and continues to acquire meanings based on who uses and debates it, and that such meanings are also influenced by the multiple other terms contained within the concept, saturating it through their associated and contested meanings, as well as the various temporal layers that have been ingrained in the concept through its usage history.

In Chapter 3, the report outlined the historical emergence and development of the principle of Nordic added value and its related English and Scandinavian-language terms within the institutional framework of Nordic co-operation. Broadly speaking, it highlighted three main historical shifts:

In the 1990s, the principle of nordisk nytta was introduced as an evaluation tool for trimming back the institutional set-up of Nordic co-operation in the context of increased European integration, outreach to the newly independent Baltic countries, and cuts to Nordic budgets.
In the 2000s and 2010s, nordisk nytta was increasingly fused with the notion of nordiskt mervärde to describe the outcomes also of the preconditions for efforts of Nordic co-operation. At the same time, the English-language term Nordic added value was introduced as part of the continued Europeanisation of Nordic co-operation and an increased emphasis on the Nordic region’s brand value.
From the mid-2010s onwards, Nordic added value has increasingly been institutionalised as an operationalised steering principle as part of the reform efforts of the Secretariat to the Nordic Council of Ministers, aimed at making Nordic co-operation more demand-driven and politically relevant.

Based on interviews and document analysis, Chapter 4 has outlined historical and contemporary uses and understandings of Nordic added value within individual institutions and sectors across the institutional framework of inter-ministerial Nordic co-operation. As part of this, where relevant the chapter sections outlined how the historical developments described above have played out within, affected, and been affected by the different institutions and sectors. Moreover, the current uses and meanings of Nordic added value were outlined for each of the parts of the institutional framework of Nordic inter-ministerial co-operation, showing that ambiguity as well as different interpretative strategies and understandings still exist within and between the different institutions and sectors.

The analysis found that:

Nordic added value operates across and obtains divergent meanings from different key domains of Nordic co-operation, typologised in this report as “culture and identity”, “society and welfare”, “economy and innovation”, and “sustainability and climate”. Especially if unacknowledged, the co-existence of these domains of Nordic added value creates tensions in the definition and operationalisation of the concept.
There are significant inter-sectoral and inter-institutional differences in interpretations of Nordic added value, reflecting different institutional histories and sector-specific outlooks. This has resulted in two different – if often co-existing – understandings of Nordic added value as both an internal driving force for individual institutions and their employees, and as an external steering principle tying individual efforts to joint priorities.
The instability in terminology that characterises the use of Scandinavian and English-language terms to legitimise joint Nordic efforts adds to the enigmatic character and ambiguous interpretations of the principle of Nordic added value.
The evaluation of Nordic added value remains a complex issue and subject to interpretation, reflecting the evolving nature of regional collaboration and the diverse priorities of the sectors involved.
The Nordic prime ministers’ Vision 2030 declaration in 2019 has impacted the aims of Nordic co-operation without explicit reference to the principle of Nordic added value, facilitating a shift towards an understanding of Nordic added value as a tool rather than a vision for Nordic co-operation.

It should be emphasised that different interpretations of operational principles relating to purpose and legitimacy are likely inevitable in a wide-spanning, multi-sectoral organisation like the Nordic Council of Ministers and its subsidiary institutions. However, the different interpretations of the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation, if acknowledged and addressed, would become a strength rather than a weakness, creating the basis for connecting the unique preconditions of Nordic co-operation with the outcomes desired for its efforts.

Moreover, conceptual ambiguity and different possible interpretative frameworks are not necessarily negative aspects of the principle of Nordic added value, as they might allow for flexibility and reflect an ability to adapt to changing historical, political, and geopolitical circumstances. As a case in point, a domain of Nordic added value focusing on defence, security, and related issues is seemingly becoming more pronounced in response to the current geo-political instability in the Nordic region’s neighbourhood areas and the recent accession of Finnish and Swedish to NATO.

Recommendations

The report makes the following recommendations regarding the current and future role of Nordic added value in Nordic co-operation:

	Create institution-specific working definitions of Nordic added value: Outlining working definitions of what constitutes Nordic added value within each individual Nordic institution and for project funding – while allowing for flexibility and adaptation – would make it possible to acknowledge that different dimensions of the multi-dimensional concept of Nordic added value are relevant to pursue and operationalise within institutions that operate across different sectors. This could be done in the grant letters outlining the relationships between the Secretariat to the Nordic Council of Ministers and the individual institutions in close co-operation with the institution itself, its employees, and its co-operation partners.
	Attach value to the preconditions for impactful Nordic co-operation: The operationalisation of Nordic added value risks rewarding measurable short-term outcomes at the expense of the difficult-to-measure long-term efforts, which have been essential in the creation of the Nordic regional identity that facilitates present-day co-operation on, for example, aspects such as branding, innovation, climate, defence, and security. Moreover, a Nordic regional identity is more relevant and sought-after now than it was when the Scandinavian-language predecessor of Nordic added value emerged in the 1990s. By attaching value to the less immediately tangible results of joint efforts, the strengthening of a Nordic regional identity can regain a central place in the efforts of the Nordic institutions in the face of geopolitical instability, and the preconditions for successful Nordic co-operation can be sustained. This could be done through a strategic prioritisation of efforts related to cultural programmes, the Nordic offices, and the facilitation of informal intra-regional networks that do not produce easily measurable or tangible short-term outcomes.
	Clarify the relationship between Nordic added value and Vision 2030: Articulating how and if Nordic added value relates to the strategic ambitions of Vision 2030 to make the Nordic region the most integrated and sustainable region in the world by 2030 would help align the visions and practices of Nordic co-operation. Moreover, a clarification of the relationship between Nordic added value and the two substantially different ambitions and an evaluation of whether Nordic added value is the most suitable steering principle for pursuing both those ambitions would offer a clearer sense of purpose for all sectors of Nordic inter-ministerial co-operation. This could be done in a directive from the Ministers for Nordic Co-operation or the Secretary General of the Nordic Council of Ministers, articulating the relationship between Nordic added value and Vision 2030.
	Further examine tensions regarding the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation: Further efforts to examine how the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation is viewed in the parts of Nordic co-operation not under the institutional umbrella of the Nordic Council of Ministers would likely reveal quite different interpretations. Given the significance of Nordic inter-parliamentary co-operation and Nordic civil society organisations for Nordic co-operation as a whole, constructive dialogue with such actors on what constitutes the added value of joint Nordic efforts would be necessary for creating a more robust basis for ambitious, meaningful, and forward-looking Nordic co-operation in the future. This could be done through the initiation of cross-organisational dialogue or through the commissioning of one or more studies examining attitudes regarding the legitimacy of joint Nordic efforts outside the Nordic Council of Ministers.
	Broaden the perspectives on regional co-operation: Approaching the legitimisation of joint regional efforts from broader and comparative perspectives might allow for more meaningful co-operation with non-Nordic partners, with the potential for learning from other models of regional co-operation. This includes paying closer attention to perspectives from the Baltic countries and encouraging dialogue with Baltic partners about meaningful ways to conceptualise Nordic-Baltic added value, a term used occasionally by Nordic institutions operating in the Baltic countries. Moreover, a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the principles of European added value and Nordic added value would help clarify the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation vis-á-vis the project of European integration. Finally, lessons might be learnt from studying how other bodies of regional governance function and legitimise their work, for example the Benelux Union or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This could be done through intensified dialogue with Baltic partners through the Nordic offices in the Baltic countries and through the commissioning of working papers or conferences providing comparative regional perspectives on Nordic co-operation.
	Standardise translation practices: Creating and implementing standardised translation practices across and within the institutions of official Nordic co-operation for terms like nordisk nytta, nordiskt mervärde, Nordic added value, Nordic synergies, Nordic benefits, etc. would help avoid conceptual confusion within and across the sectors and organisations of Nordic co-operation. This could be done by producing an official style guide or glossary for employees within the institutions as well as researchers, consultants, translators, and other stakeholders performing commissioned work under the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Create institution-specific working definitions of Nordic added value:
Outlining working definitions of what constitutes Nordic added value within each individual Nordic institution and for project funding – while allowing for flexibility and adaptation – would make it possible to acknowledge that different dimensions of the multi-dimensional concept of Nordic added value are relevant to pursue and operationalise within institutions that operate across different sectors.

This could be done in the grant letters outlining the relationships between the Secretariat to the Nordic Council of Ministers and the individual institutions in close co-operation with the institution itself, its employees, and its co-operation partners.

Attach value to the preconditions for impactful Nordic co-operation:
The operationalisation of Nordic added value risks rewarding measurable short-term outcomes at the expense of the difficult-to-measure long-term efforts, which have been essential in the creation of the Nordic regional identity that facilitates present-day co-operation on, for example, aspects such as branding, innovation, climate, defence, and security. Moreover, a Nordic regional identity is more relevant and sought-after now than it was when the Scandinavian-language predecessor of Nordic added value emerged in the 1990s. By attaching value to the less immediately tangible results of joint efforts, the strengthening of a Nordic regional identity can regain a central place in the efforts of the Nordic institutions in the face of geopolitical instability, and the preconditions for successful Nordic co-operation can be sustained.

	This could be done through a strategic prioritisation of efforts related to cultural programmes, the Nordic offices, and the facilitation of informal intra-regional networks that do not produce easily measurable or tangible short-term outcomes.
	Clarify the relationship between Nordic added value and Vision 2030: Articulating how and if Nordic added value relates to the strategic ambitions of Vision 2030 to make the Nordic region the most integrated and sustainable region in the world by 2030 would help align the visions and practices of Nordic co-operation. Moreover, a clarification of the relationship between Nordic added value and the two substantially different ambitions and an evaluation of whether Nordic added value is the most suitable steering principle for pursuing both those ambitions would offer a clearer sense of purpose for all sectors of Nordic inter-ministerial co-operation. This could be done in a directive from the Ministers for Nordic Co-operation or the Secretary General of the Nordic Council of Ministers, articulating the relationship between Nordic added value and Vision 2030.
	Further examine tensions regarding the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation: Further efforts to examine how the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation is viewed in the parts of Nordic co-operation not under the institutional umbrella of the Nordic Council of Ministers would likely reveal quite different interpretations. Given the significance of Nordic inter-parliamentary co-operation and Nordic civil society organisations for Nordic co-operation as a whole, constructive dialogue with such actors on what constitutes the added value of joint Nordic efforts would be necessary for creating a more robust basis for ambitious, meaningful, and forward-looking Nordic co-operation in the future. This could be done through the initiation of cross-organisational dialogue or through the commissioning of one or more studies examining attitudes regarding the legitimacy of joint Nordic efforts outside the Nordic Council of Ministers.
	Broaden the perspectives on regional co-operation: Approaching the legitimisation of joint regional efforts from broader and comparative perspectives might allow for more meaningful co-operation with non-Nordic partners, with the potential for learning from other models of regional co-operation. This includes paying closer attention to perspectives from the Baltic countries and encouraging dialogue with Baltic partners about meaningful ways to conceptualise Nordic-Baltic added value, a term used occasionally by Nordic institutions operating in the Baltic countries. Moreover, a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the principles of European added value and Nordic added value would help clarify the legitimacy of Nordic co-operation vis-á-vis the project of European integration. Finally, lessons might be learnt from studying how other bodies of regional governance function and legitimise their work, for example the Benelux Union or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This could be done through intensified dialogue with Baltic partners through the Nordic offices in the Baltic countries and through the commissioning of working papers or conferences providing comparative regional perspectives on Nordic co-operation.
	Standardise translation practices: Creating and implementing standardised translation practices across and within the institutions of official Nordic co-operation for terms like nordisk nytta, nordiskt mervärde, Nordic added value, Nordic synergies, Nordic benefits, etc. would help avoid conceptual confusion within and across the sectors and organisations of Nordic co-operation. This could be done by producing an official style guide or glossary for employees within the institutions as well as researchers, consultants, translators, and other stakeholders performing commissioned work under the Nordic Council of Ministers.