6 . Conclusions on Regional Partnership and In - stitutional Change in the Nordic Area

This study has dealt with the formation of regional partnerships in four Nordic states – Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. It has proved that regional development activity as a rule is increasingly based on different forms of partnership arrangements. In fact the partnership model is apparent within the frame of regional development policies in all the selected Nordic countries. The ambition at the outset of the study was to compare institutional consequences and policy outcome of partnership formation and eventually identify new models governance as a consequence. This concluding chapter presents some of the most important differences and similarities of ongoing processes as analysed in the four states and twelve different regions. Institutional features, policy impact and the relationship between partnership-based processes and institutional change are dealt with in the sections to follow. In the very end, some future scenarios are elaborated and issues in need of further research are identified. As part of this enterprise, each section deals with the issue of whether the results indicates uniquely regional patterns, if national patterns are discernable, and whether it is relevant to speak of a Nordic model of regional development activity emerging from the modus operandi of the regional and local partnerships. The evolving partnerships in the Nordic countries reflect significant differences in terms of governing. Governing styles varies more than styles of government. This fact brings attention to variations in terms of institutionalisation of relationships among key actors normally taken as given in more traditional studies of politics in the Nordic countries. For instance, the separation between an East-Nordic (Finland and Sweden) and a West-Nordic system (Norway and Denmark) is appearing now and then but seems irrelevant to this study. One example of this distinction is the greater degree of direct minister control reflected in the West-Nordic system perceived to lead to less regulated competences among governing bodies and greater flexibility. However, it is widely acknowledged among scholars of today that this dichotomy cannot be maintained when discussing regional administration in the Nordic countries even if we should limit ourselves to the formal workings of institutions (Baldershiem et. al.