PISM Report: Polish and Norwegian Governance: Closing the Gaps
31 JUL 2014 Report
Due to recent historical experience and the evolution of political systems, the governance system in Norway is more efficient than in Poland. This can be at least partly explained by the application of domestic-learning mechanisms in Norway, where governance reviewing and learning play an important part and by the apparent lack of institutional-learning capacities in Poland. Norway ranks higher than Poland in governance terms as assessed by Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) in all six key governance categories. Transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland should therefore be possible and Poland should be able to improve its governance by learning also from Norwegian governance. However, the process of possible governance learning can be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland; by the fact that Poland and Norway belong to various categories in at least two fields of governance—energy and migration; and by the fact that Norway has decided to stay outside of the EU while Poland is a full-fledged member of the EU. This means that Poland directly participates in the EU’s experimentalist governance, while Norway has to seek indirect access to the European governance-learning arena.
Due to recent historical experience and the evolution of political systems, the governance system in Norway is more efficient than in Poland. This can be at least partly explained by the application of domestic-learning mechanisms in Norway, where governance reviewing and learning play an important part and by the apparent lack of institutional-learning capacities in Poland. Norway ranks higher than Poland in governance terms as assessed by Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) in all six key governance categories. Transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland should therefore be possible and Poland should be able to improve its governance by learning also from Norwegian governance. 
However, the process of possible governance learning can be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland; by the fact that Poland and Norway belong to various categories in at least two fields of governance—energy and migration; and by the fact that Norway has decided to stay outside of the EU while Poland is a full-fledged member of the EU. This means that Poland directly participates in the EU’s experimentalist governance, while Norway has to seek indirect access to the European governance-learning arena.