“A contribution to Norway’s political geography: The Haugean parliamentarians in the Storting (Norwegian parliament) in the 19th century”

During the modernization of the Norwegian economy in the 1800s, different national and international pietistic and puritan groups, such as the Haugeans in Norway, probably played an important role in promotion of economic growth. The importance they had on the modernization of society in Norway, however, is not limited to the modernization of the economy alone, but also to the expansion of civil and political rights. An important underlying question in the assessment of the role the Haugeans may have played in the modernization process in Norway is if they were numerous and strong enough in the Parliament and elsewhere to affect the community and leave a lasting influence on Norwegian history. This study is an attempt to contribute to such a clarification by trying to identify the number of Haugean-minded members in the Norwegian Parliament during the 1800s. Efforts to identify who they were and how many of the representatives that were Haugean- minded members of the Parliament, has been going on for a long time. Paradoxically, at present there is still no consensus. The estimates have ranged from 4 to 49. The survey indicates that the number may have been slightly higher than assumed. 73 were elected as representatives or deputy representatives, of which 60 took seats in the Storting during 1814–1910. The figure may have been higher than this as well, but only future research can deter- mine how much higher. limited


INTRODUCTION
During the early 19th century, Norway experienced an era of rapid economic growth. The traditional agrarian society characterized by slow economic growth was replaced gradually by a modern society with enduring economic progress. This economic shift changed society as dramatically as the independence gained in 1814.
It is likely that various national puritan or pietistic movements, such as the Haugeans in Norway, played an essential role in modernizing Western countries during the early 19 th century. The process is not limited to the economy, but to other areas of society as well, such as expansion of civil and political rights, development of the school system, etc.

Theory
The Haugeans had their name after the founder, Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), who created a Lutheran, pietistic lay movement, which was especially inspired by the puritan influenced pietism from Halle, Belgium.
The importance the Haugeans have had on Christian life, the business community, and social life, has been investigated for almost two hundred years. There is still rather limited general agreement among historians on what role the movement played in the social, economic and political development during the 19th century (Furre, 1996;Njaastad, 2011;Dørum, 2016b;Repstad, 2017, Dørum, 2017bJohansen, 2019).
The Haugean's social reform process during the 19 th century was four folded (Hommerstad, 2014a) One field was policy-making carried out in the Storting. Another was the political work carried out by the Haugeans in local councils from 1838 onwards. (Dørum, 2017c)  The Haugeans placed particular emphasis on solving two serious societal problems: ignorance and economic poverty. The first had to be solved through better education, the second through economic growth (Sjursen, 1997b;Jensen, 2012;Grytten & Minde, 2015). Importantly, they advocated improvements to the school system, emphasis on hard work, a sober lifestyle, reinvestment of profits, innovation, and wide-ranging employer responsibility.
From 1815, but mostly from the early 1830s until the early 1880s, Haugean members of the Parliament promoted liberal economic policies. In addition, they supported social policies to limit alcohol consumption and establish inheritance equality for women. They were the driving force to expand local democracy. Hauge also advocated a greater degree of religious freedom and a more humane society.
Of the four fields, it is probably the business activities, which have been the subject of most in-depth research. (

MODEL
Looking at the Haugean's impact on the business community and thereby economic growth, one may start by looking at the Solow model, which explains economic activity from the production side: Here Y denotes production or output, which is a function (F) of capital (C), labor (L) and the use of natural resources (N). Natural resources often are taken as capital. Thus, the equation can be written in the reduced form: Empirical research has concluded that multi factor productivity (A), i.e., the institutions and mix of input of C and L plays not only a vital, but the most important role for economic growth. Thus, the production function can be written as: , To operationalize the variables in order to calculate their contribution to production, a Cobb-Douglas production function may be used: Here α denotes the relative weight of C's contribution to Y. This may be expressed in intense form with a Cobb-Douglas function with constant economy of scale: ( ) With the first order derivative: And the second order derivative: Thus, the Haugean's, the MPs included, were able to influence both the level and the intensity of both capital (C) and labor (L).
Moreover, by the way they might have influenced economic and industrial policy, they also might have influenced multi factor productivity (A). An important channel for managing this was through economic politics.  x 0 x 1 y 0 y 1 x PC y PC A background for their economic policy during the 19th century was the great social tensions that a centuries-long mercantilist policy had created between the peasants on the one hand and the urban citizens and the state authorities on the other, ever since the 17th century.
There are many indications that their policy aimed to promote economic growth through productivity improvements and through better opportunities for both domestic and foreign trade. The rationale for this policy is illustrated in Figure 1 Production and consumption in two countries, producing and consuming two products x and y, without and alternatively with trade (Norman, 1998).
Without trade, the adaptation to production is that each country individually consumes what it produces as in A, where the utility curve, U 0 , optimally meets the production constrains to the relative price marked by P A ; here x 0 units of item x and y 0 units of item y.
In a trade situation, each of the two countries will specialize in the production of either item x or y, and exchange for the items they demand, but do not produce themselves. The optimal utility will now be in B, where the new utility curve, U 1 , hits the relative price, P B . Hence, the two countries may now produce x PC units of product x or y PC units y, respectively. Thus, they are able to increase productivity by economy of scale due to trade. This also implies that the two countries may optimally consume x 1 units of item x and y 1 units of item y.
The effect of the adaptation to trade would be that the total production of goods x and y in each country increases from a total of (x 0 +y 0 ) to (x 1 +y 1 ) units. The increase in total production of goods x and y, along with the possibility of trading now creates room for increased consumption from x 0 and y 0 to x 1 and y 1 for the two products according to the new utility level U 1 . Thus, both production and consumption increase to higher levels.

SOURCES
In the quest to find out who the Haugean parliamentarians were, how many they were and how long they served, secondary literature about Hauge and the movement he created have been used. (Sjursen, 1993;Sjursen, 1997a).
This research is based on the source material and methodology Golf (1958) and Sjursen (1997a) developed and used. Using these and other materials, the Haugeans who were members of the two Constituent Assemblies in 1814 and in the Storting from 1815 onwards were identified.
The historical material on personnel that Sjursen collected, and on which much of this study is based, is one of the results of the Norwegian Teachers' Academy's independent school project. The project's purpose was to study free, Christian institutions for teaching and upbringing in Norway from the 1730s to the present day (Sjursen, 1997a Additionally, one has found another five that have been registered as likely Haugeans. Thus, there is a list on which there are the names of a total of 73 deputies and representatives (68 + 5).
The basic material consists of the 60 representatives with fixed seats. However, after making an independent assessment of the 13 deputy representatives too, the conclusion from the assessment is that 7 of them undoubtedly were Haugeans, that three of them were probably Haugeans, and that three more belonged to a "likely" group.
Regardless of Sjursen's assessment of his own 55 identified representatives, the conclusion is that 48 of these 60 (55+5) must be Haugeans. The other 12 (60-48) parliamentarians are found in a twilight position where it is difficult to determine the definite affiliation. They were probably the Haugeans. This applies in particular to a group of eight people. Still, it may never be possible to decide for sure whether the 12 were members of the movement.
In this study, these 12 are included in a group named a "likely group." Despite their status, they have been included in the statistical material for this survey since the results of a study in which they are involved probably will give an equally accurate picture of reality than when omitting all 12 from the survey.
The three books have been penned through long and extensive work using the sources. Overall, the content in them appears to be a very reliable secondary source material.
In determining which term a given Haugean was serving as an MP, what profession he had, which district he represented, age, etc., this study have used the work of Lindstøl, material from the Politikerarkivet 1814-1905, NSD, Bergen and the Free School Project's archive (NLA).

METHOD
Registering personal historical material linked to the Haugeans has presented significant challenges in that the Haugean communities did not keep membership protocols.
To find out who were Haugeans, the same source material and methodology was used similar to Golf (1958), Sjursen (1997b), and others who tried to identify Haugeans. Here by trying to find a ref-erence in the source material that stated something about the degree of belonging and thus determined whether that person could be considered a Haugean or not. (Sjursen, 1993(Sjursen, , 1997b. In particular, this study has relied on Heggtveit (1905Heggtveit ( -1911Heggtveit ( , 1912Heggtveit ( -1920, Bang (1888), and Lindstøl (1892Lindstøl ( , 1914 as sources that could document such affiliation. The main criteria to whether an MP can be regarded as a Haugean must be the mention of names in Hauge's or the elders' writings, recognized own affiliation in writing and correspondence, or having had such affiliation to written or oral transmission from contemporaries. This affiliation must be verified in later research, especially in Lindstøl's work, Bang's Hauge monograph, and Heggtveit's church history but also through the work of Norwegian historians as Koht, Bergsgård, Golf and many others (Koht, 1926;Bergsgård, 1932;Bang, 1888;Heggtveit I andII, 1905-1920;Lindstøl I andII, 1912, 1914;Sjursen, 1997b).
The time span covered by the survey also affects the number of Haugeans it is expected to find.
One possibility is to limit the timespan forward to 1850, as Golf (1996b)  Secondly, this study has not in advance defined the time the Haugean period ended based on neither the changes in the content of the movement's preaching, nor the implementation of the movement's political reform mission (Grytten & Minde, 2015). Fundamental goals of the Haugean reform mission were to combat ignorance and poverty in Norway. Parts of this program were not realized until the 1880s.
In working with the time limit methodology, this has not been taken into account, but looked into which parliamentarians who, according to the criteria for identifying them, must or may have been the Haugeans, and then having let the occurrence of this phenomenon create its own time frame.
The delimitation is clear -1814 is the starting point, and the Haugean period lasts for as long as there are identifiable Haugeans in the Storting.
This provides new and comprehensive opportunities to study the number, distribution, professional affiliation, etc., of the Storting Haugeans, and thus also for the first time establish a common basis when estimating how many Haugean MPs may have served in the Storting during the period.

GENERALIZATION OF THE MAIN STATEMENTS
The aim of this paper is to get an overview of who the Haugean parliamentarians were and how many they were. Paradoxically, there is, as of today, no general agreement to this question. These are new figures and new results having emerged by the use of new sources.
As Figure 2 shows, it was during the period 1832-1870 that they had their strongest representation in the Parliament.
As Figure 2 shows, there was a period of approximately 40 years, from 1832 to around 1870, that in each of the Stortings there were 6-10 Haugean representatives.
As for the number of members, Golf arrived at 38 named in 1958. Sjursen came to 49, but their names are not known. This study arrives at 60 by name, but 12 of them have been placed in a "likely" category since one cannot say with certainty whether they were Haugeans or not. This study considers the 48 to be so well-identified that there can be no doubt they were Haugeans.
As for the geographical distribution, the results do not present anything significantly new compared to what was known before. The geographical distribution points to well-known centers of gravity such as Rogaland County, Sogn and Fjordane County, Oppland County and Sør-Trøndelag County.
Secondly, this study expands the knowledge of a few aspects of their geographical distribution by calculating how many terms each representative served in the Storting, and then combine the sums for all the parliamentarians from the same county in one sum.
This study has referred to the overall time performed by each representative or his group as the Period Sum. Figure 3 shows the sum of the work carried out by the group, calculated in office terms. By looking at the overall work carried out in the Storting, Rogaland County is seen to have a special position here. Not only were there many representatives from this county, but they also served in the Storting for many terms in office as well. The representatives from Rogaland County served 41 terms out of 184 terms served by the Haugians. The high period sum in some counties is partly explained by the fact that the county was represented by the Haugeans over long periods of time.   The total period sum is 184. That is the sum of all Haugean representatives' total terms in office. In comparison, the period sum for all the MPs 1814-1894 was around 3,100. For the farmers, the total number was slightly more than 1,000.
Among the leading Haugean counties were populous counties such as Rogaland County, Sør-Trøndelag County and Oppland County. Despite a lower population, the parliamentarians from Sogn and Fjordane County, together with parliamentarians from the three counties previously mentioned, served no less than 123 terms, which is 2/3 of all the terms served by the group 1814-1910. The result is therefore an image characterized by a strong geographical concentration around a few counties. These results underline and reinforce a known picture: the Haugean representatives from Rogaland County, Sogn and Fjordane County, Oppland County and Sør-Trøndelag County, did much of the overall work in the Storting. This happened both by virtue of the number of representatives, but also because some of them served several terms after they first were elected.
The median number of terms served for the representatives was estimated to be two terms.
Thirdly, this study has given a better insight into their social diversity by gathering new knowledge regarding their professional affiliations.
Here by dividing the 60 Haugeans into two categories, "Farmer" and "Non-farmer". The result may surprise most people. 34 of the 60 were "Farmers," 26 were not. Over 40% of them had other occupations, of which the merchant group was the largest. The image is also dynamic; it changes slightly over time as the proportion of "Non-farmer" grows until 1890.
The distribution of the representatives between various occupational groups has been difficult to determine with certainty. For that reason, there will be some uncertainty as to how accurate the numbers are. The result nevertheless indicates that at least 34 of the 60 representatives must be described as farmers. 24 were farmers, four were farmers and teachers, six were farmers and merchants.
Of the remaining 26, ten were merchants, nine were teachers, and seven worked in other mercantile activities. Two of the latter were shipowners, one was a wholesaler, and three others belonged to a category that can be called craftsmen.
What complicates the picture is that some of these 26 may have run farms, at least occasionally, in addition to their main business. That means the number of professionals in "Non-farmer" may have been calculated too high. An example is Michael Grendahl, as he periodically worked as a merchant and periodically as a proprietor. Although it is still uncertain whether he can be defined as a merchant by profession. The same problem was encountered with the teachers. Some of them obviously have had teaching as their main occupation, while others, in addition to the teaching profession, also ran farms. An example is the MP, Ole Brandt, Oppland County, who was counted as a teacher.
To get a picture of how much of the Haugean group's workload in the Storting the group "Nonfarmer" actually did, the sum of terms the various   1814  1815  1820  1826  1832  1838  1844  1850  1856  1862  1868  1873  1879  1885  1891  1897  1903  1910 occupational groups served in the Storting gives some insight.
It is estimated that the proportion is possibly too high. Still, the Haugeans in the Storting had, in any case, a significant element from other occupations than those who were farmers alone. Especially through the insight and experience merchants and artisans had, they had great opportunities to maintain direct political contact both with representatives of the urban industries and with those engaged in trade and crafts.
The importance of the merchant group in "Nonfarmer" remained high even towards the end of the 19th century, although the total number of Haugean representatives fell sharply during the 1870s. The research underlines how significant the group "Non-farmer" really was. They served 74 terms out of 184 terms that the Haugeans served. This means they did 40% of the "job" during 1814-1910. The conclusion is that the current popular image of the Haugeans in general is to some extent right, also among the members of the Storting, but the results indicate that it must be nuanced better.
The last finding brings attention to the distribution of representatives between urban and rural districts. Here, too, the results convey a new insight. Eleven out of 60 representatives were elected from the cities, and this tendency was particularly strong from 1840 to 1860. During this period, the city district representatives performed 20-30% of the total work done by the Haugeans in the Storting during these years. Nine out of eleven city district representatives came from the South-West, Rogaland County, and Vest-Agder County.

Reliability
There is no known reason to assume that parts of the primary source material or the secondary literature should contain deliberate distortions of facts. Therefore, this aspect of reliability is taken care of in all the material.
Regarding the processing of the very detailed quantitative material, along with other scholars who also have worked with these materials, there could be committed misinterpretations, transcript errors, or calculation errors.
The transcripts, source references and calculations have been checked several times. The mistakes that probably still exist are considered so insignificant that they can not influence the conclusions.
Therefore, the reliability of this work must be acceptable.

Validity
This study's internal validity is mostly about three factors: whether a person has been a parliamentarian, whether he has been a Haugean and what profession he had.
To determine whether the representatives had been members of the Parliament or not, Sjursen used Lindstøl's biographies of the members of the Storting and the Government.
This work has been checked, and with the same conclusion. There is a secure identity on all of the 68 members Sjursen found, as well as the five new ones this study has included in the statistical material.
At this point, the validity is satisfactory. However, were they the Haugeans? At this point, the validity is clearly weaker.
This study has checked the references in Golf and Sjursen's materials and made extensive and independent searches in old and new material to find more Haugeans. This survey found five more.
This study, like the others, have mainly relied on Heggtveit, Bang, and Lindstøl as a source to establish their affiliation. These three works are obviously of such high quality that they in itself strengthens the validity of the survey.
However, the main problem is not the quality of the material in itself but whether the mention of an MP is comprehensive enough that a study of the textual content of the source can determine whether a parliamentarian can be perceived as a Haugean.
This study must therefore rely heavily on their assessments of whether an MP was a Haugean or not because there is a limited knowledge of the sources that made up the basis for their conclusions.
This survey has assessed the sources for all the 60 members of the Parliament and the 13 deputies.
Although the 13 of the 73 were deputies who are not included in the statistical material on which the conclusions are based, this study has nevertheless assessed them. Seven of them were obviously the Haugeans, three of them most likely were, while three probably were.
In the group of 60, 48 surely must have been the Haugeans, while there is a group of 12 who probably (eight) or maybe (four) were. The chances that they were the Haugeans are so high, that they are included in the statistical basis for the survey.
It is also probable that the group of Haugeaninfluenced members of the Storting must have been larger than it was found. The group of 48 from the 73 must rather be a minimum estimate of the number of them rather than 48 being the total population of Haugean parliamentarians during the 19th century.
In addition to these identification problems, there are at least three cases in which there is factual research disagreement about whether a person was a Haugean or not.
This disagreement applies to Ole Paulsønn Haagenstad, one of the Storting farmers' foremost men during the 1820s and 1830s. It was found that Heggtveit and several others must have concluded correctly: Haagenstad must be perceived as a Haugean. The main source for this interpretation is found in Claus Pavels's diary from April 1, 1815.
Here Bishop Pavels mentions Haagenstad as one of the Hauge brethrens.
Lars Svendsen is another example of a parliamentarian who may or may not be a Haugean.
Heggtveit referred to him as a Hauge brethren and therefore classified him as a Haugean, so did Birkeli (1946). Danbolt (1947) and Nome (1942) have both concluded that he was a Moravian. In this case, this survey rely on Heggtveit's and Birkeli's (1946) assessment. It is also important to take into account that the Moravians and the Haugean movement were very close to each other. Obviously, the differences can hardly have been so great that Lars Svendsen, due to disagreement about belonging to the Moravian church, should be deleted from the list of the 60 (Danbolt, 1947;Golf, 1958).
An adjacent concept validity problem, which is also linked to who were the Haugeans, represents those who at the time of identification was, but later "backslidden" and left the movement by joining other Christian movements. This applied, for example, to those transitioning to groups such as the Quakers, the Moravians, or the Grundtvigians. From around 1850, there are also examples of Haugeans becoming members of Reformed Free Churches or joining the Lammer revival. Others joined similar movements, e.g., the "Feigumians" or "The Strong Believers." (Sjursen, 1997a). It is unknown how many of the 73 we registered, or who might have left the Haugean movement later.
In this survey, the parliamentarians are devided into two main categories, "Farmer" and "Nonfarmer". The sources provide far from unambiguous answers to the questions related to the determination of occupations. This becomes a problem when the group of farmers is separated from those who were not. However, there is a large group in the sources, 24 out of 60, who clearly fall into the category "Farmer." In addition, there were ten representatives defined as farmers, but still have another profession. Four of them were teachers, and six were merchants. These 34 (24+10) were listed as "Farmers". 26 were listed as "Non-farmers", 17 of these worked in crafts and mercantile professions, nine were teachers.
The lack of certainty in connection with the categorization of the 60 job titles clearly reduces the internal validity to some extent.

CONCLUSION
This survey has provided new insight into several areas.
First, it has contributed to new and more reliable knowledge about the number and composition of Haugean representatives. Hereby getting an overview of who the Haugeans were, how many they were, what occupations they had and which districts they represented. Thus, it will be substantially easier to study the impact the Haugian-minded representatives may have had on the work in the Norwegian parliament as well as the influence this group may have had on the general social, political and economic development in Norway during the 19th Century.
These are part of the conditions that the Haugeans had to work with in the Parliament and that created opportunities and limitations for exerting political power in the Storting. However, the issue whether these features meant for the ability of the Haugeans to exert political influence after 1814 was omitted.
The survey indicates that the number may have been slightly higher than what was identified earlier. 73 were elected as representatives or deputy representatives, 60 of which took seats in the Storting.
Among these 60 there are 12 representatives who were in a gray zone, where it is difficult to determine with certainty whether they belonged to the movement or not. References in the source material are not sufficient to give a definite determination. 48 of the 60 were beyond any doubt Haugeans.
In the research work, however, these 12 were included in the basic material because omitting them creates greater errors in the conclusions.