In its welfare-statist expansion in the 1900s, administrators in Sweden worked in a climate of general belief in the blessings of collective bargaining, central planning, rationalism, technological innovation, and an overarching goal of economic and social equality among Swedish citizens. This gave rise to the internationally recog- nized idea of a Swedish model, in which rational planning and goals for incremental change would turn administrators into social engineers. Up until at least the mid- 1970s, this holistic approach seemed valid and facilitated public administration in many ways. The state had a clear and undisputed role in society, priorities were easy to make, and coordination between different parts of the state apparatus could be regarded as a technical issue against the backdrop of consensus politics and Keynes- ian macroeconomics. Since the 1980s, however, administrators in Sweden have seen interest politics and an increasing acceptance of economic and social differentiation creep in. Quick on the trigger, the Swedish government began to experiment with different forms of decentralization and limited forms of privatization. The role of public administrators was gradually changing, and the 1990s saw an enhancement of centrifugal forces and large-scale changes in the social and economic fabric of the nation, due in part to the continuing trend of increased immigration that had raised the percentage of foreign-born and foreign citizens residing in Sweden from 11.8 percent of the population in 1960 to 18.3 percent in 2006.56 The Swedish
reform trajectory followed suit, increasingly adjusting to EU membership and the values of a people moving from solidarity-collectivism to solidarity-individualism.
It can be argued, however, that such a linear image of the Swedish reform trajec- tory is false because it neglects the important role of administrative dualism. First of all, the expansion and maintenance of welfare state functions in Sweden was and is, first and foremost, a local affair. The Swedish municipalities were steered by policy objective by the Swedish government in the expansion phase of the welfare state. In the later stages and beginning in the 1980s, however, the Swedish state opted for a strategy based on steering by objective instead. Some of the financial responsibilities for welfare state functions were shifted over to municipalities, par- ticularly in the 1990s, and deregulation increased the autonomy to look for alter- native sources of financing and organization. But reregulation through law and ordinance kept the welfare state as an overall objective alive in Sweden. This has produced a current situation in which the welfare-statist values of economic and social equality are upheld by the local government sector in Sweden on the basis of vertical administrative dualism.
The second important aspect of administrative dualism in Swedish administra- tion is horizontal. National administrative reform in Sweden is dependent on the interaction between three spheres of influence. The government and the Govern- ment Offices make up one sphere, the national agencies make up another sphere, and the independent commissions of inquiry (SOUs) make up the third sphere.
The ability that a Swedish government has to steer the implementation of reform through policy is significantly curbed by the legal right of national agencies to question the legality of reforms. The SOUs are expected to provide the facts and perspectives required by government to formulate good and concise policy. With- out overstating the case, it would be possible to argue that the Swedish system of administration is inert and inflexible at the top. In addition, it forces policy makers, administrators, and knowledge seekers into cumbersome processes of formal and informal coordination. Swedish researchers have identified it as a system in which it is easy for actors to avoid the ownership of problems.57, 58
As a consequence, it is questionable just how the linear trajectory of administra- tive reform in Sweden should be interpreted. From one angle, it seems that Swedish government has been skillful when it comes to bypassing national agencies and cooperating directly with local governments. In a different light, the national agen- cies have been both highly efficient and complacent in implementing numerous policy changes since the beginning of the 1990s while not utilizing their consti- tutional right to block government policy on legal grounds. The important lesson seems to be that Sweden has gone through waves of both radical and incremental reform during the past 40 years without significantly modernizing its national sys- tem of administration. In this, Sweden continues in a tradition with administrative roots in the 17th century.
On a final note, the linearity of administrative change in Sweden can be ques- tioned also concerning values. Although belief in the values of administrative
efficiency and rationalism persist, they are not always consistent with the demo- cratic values of transparency, accessibility, and a closer relationship between admin- istrators and citizens in Sweden. And although the Swedish administrative system may be unique in aspects of its mission, institutional configurations, and traditions, it is not unique in the ways new ideas and practices sometimes do not manifest or realize their full potential because of administrative inertia, lack of understanding, unclear priorities, or a combination of these factors. It is therefore likely that the future direction of administrative reform in Sweden will emanate from the fact that the Swedish administrative tradition, as illustrated by administrative dualism, is at the crossroad. Again.
References
1. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G., Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
2. Peters, B. and Pierre, J., Introduction: The role of public administration in governing, in Handbook of Public Administration, Peters, B. and Pierre, J., Eds., Sage, London, 2003, 2.
3. Einhorn, E. and Logue, J., Scandinavian Politics and Policy in the Global Age, Praeger, Westport, 2003, 305–350.
4. Tarschys, D., Den Offentliga Revolutionen, Liber Förlag, Stockholm, 1978.
5. Pierre, J., Ticking bombs, institutional inertia, and policy change: Swedish admin- istrative reform in international perspective, in Proceedings of the International Con- ference for the 50th Anniversary of KAPA, October 2006, 222–238, http://www.
innovation.go.kr/include/file_down.php?id=2076.
6. Premfors, R., Democratization in Scandinavia: The Case of Sweden, Stockholm Center for Organizational Research, Score Rapportserie, Stockholm, 2003, 8.
7. Halvarsson, A., Lundmark, K., and Staberg, U., Sveriges Statsskick. Fakta och Perspe- ktiv, Liber, Stockholm, 2003, 1–34 and 122–150.
8. Lidström, A., Kommunsystem i Europa, Liber, Stockholm, 2003.
9. Bäck, H. and Larsson, T., Den Svenska Politiken. Struktur, Processer och Resultat, Liber, Stockholm, 2006, 176–178.
10. Swedish Institute, The Swedish System of Government, Stockholm, 2007, 3–4, http://
www.sweden.se.
11. Swedish Institute, The Swedish System of Government, Stockholm, 2007, 4, http://
www.sweden.se.
12. The Government and the Government Offices of Sweden, Stockholm, 2007, http://
www.sweden.gov.se.
13. The Swedish Parliament, Stockholm, 2007, http://www.riksdagen.se.
14. Bäck, H. and Larsson, T., Den Svenska Politiken. Struktur, Processer och Resultat, Liber, Stockholm, 2006.
15. Halvarsson, A., Lundmark, K., and Staberg, U., Sveriges Statsskick. Fakta och Perspe- ktiv, Liber, Stockholm, 2003.
16. Premfors, R., et al., Demokrati och Byråkrati, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2003, 323–334.
17. Swedish Institute, The Swedish System of Government, Author, Stockholm, 2007, 3–4, http://www.sweden.se.
18. Swedish Institute, The Swedish System of Government, Author, Stockholm, 2007, 3–4, http://www.sweden.se.
19. Bäck, H. and Larsson, T., Den Svenska Politiken. Struktur, Processer och Resultat, Liber, Stockholm, 2006.
20. Bäck, H. and Larsson, T., Den Svenska Politiken. Struktur, Processer och Resultat, Liber, Stockholm, 2006.
21. Swedish Institute, The Swedish System of Government, Author, Stockholm, 2007, 3–4, http://www.sweden.se.
22. Halvarsson, A., Lundmark, K., and Staberg, U., Sveriges Statsskick. Fakta och Perspe- ktiv, Liber, Stockholm, 2003.
23. Montin, S., Moderna Kommuner, Liber, Stockholm, 2002.
24. Lidström, A., Territorial Restructuring in Sweden—A Weakening of the Unitary State? pre- sented at the conference Territorial Choice, Umeå University, Umeå, 15–16 June 2007.
25. Lidström, A. and Eklund, N., Decentralisering eller maktdelning på allvar: vad är sannolikt i Sverige? in Federalism på Svenska, Karlsson, N. and Nergelius, J., Eds., Ratio, Stockholm, 2007, 165–199.
26. Montin, S. and Amnå, E., The local government act and local government reform in Sweden, in Towards a New Concept of Local Self-Government? Amnå, E. and Montin, S., Eds., Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, 2000, 157–185.
27. Lidström, A., Kommunsystem i Europa, Liber, Stockholm, 2003.
28. Premfors, R., et al., Demokrati och Byråkrati, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2003, 94.
29. Einhorn, E. and Logue, J., Scandinavian Politics and Policy in the Global Age, Praeger, Westport, 2003, 305–350.
30. Arter, D., Scandinavian Politics Today, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999.
31. Larsson, J., Hemmet vi ärvde. Om Folkhemmet, Identiteten och den Gemensamma Framtiden, Bokförlaget Arena, Stockholm, 1994.
32. Montin, S., Moderna Kommuner, Liber, Stockholm, 2002, 10–15.
33. Montin, S., Moderna Kommuner, Liber, Stockholm, 2002, 12.
34. Statskontoret, Statsförvaltningens Utveckling 1990-2005, 32, 16, 2005, http://
www.statskontoret.se; see also Statskontoret, Statliga Myndigheter 2007, 99:5, 1–23, 2007, http://www.statskontoret.se.
35. Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Agency for Administrative Development (Statskontoret), Core Values of Public Administration in Sweden, Stockholm, 1999, http://www.sweden.gov.se.
36. Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Agency for Administrative Development (Statskontoret), Core Values of Public Administration in Sweden, Stockholm, 1999, 10, http://www.sweden.gov.se.
37. Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Agency for Administrative Development (Statskontoret), Core Values of Public Administration in Sweden, Stockholm, 1999, 4, http://www.sweden.gov.se.
38. Ministry of Justice and the Swedish Agency for Administrative Development (Statskontoret), Core Values of Public Administration in Sweden, Stockholm, 1999, 12–13, http://www.sweden.gov.se.
39. Bäck, H. and Larsson, T., Den Svenska Politiken. Struktur, Processer och Resultat, Liber, Stockholm, 2006, 236–237.
40. Kolam, K., Kommunerna och Friheten. Självstyrelsen i Teori och Praktik, Sveriges Kom- muner och Landsting, Stockholm, 2007, http://www.skl.se.
41. Johansson, F., Nilsson, L., and Strömberg, L., Kommunal Demokrati under Fyra Decennier, Liber, Stockholm, 2001.
42. Möller, T., Politikens Meningslöshet. Om Misstro, Cynism och Utanförskap, Liber, Stockholm, 2000.
43. Riksrevisionsverket, Statsförvaltningens EG-Förberedelser, Fg, 17, Stockholm, 1991.
44. Eatwell, R., European Political Cultures: Conflict or Convergence? Routledge, Lon- don, 1997.
45. Miles, L., Sweden and the European Union Evaluated, Continuum, London, 2000.
46. Johansson, K.-M., Sverige i EU, SNS Förlag, Stockholm, 1999, 113–149.
47. Vifell, Å., Enklaver i Staten. Internationalisering, Demokrati och den Svenska Statsför- valtningen, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 2006, 113.
48. Hall, S., Europeisering, tjänstemannaetik och oklara roller, in Politik i Globaliserin- gens Tid, Jönsson, C., Jerneck, M., and Stenelo, L.-G., Eds., Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2001, 195–217.
49. Hudson, C., Governing the Governance of Education: The State Strikes Back? presented at the conference on Local Autonomy or State Control, University of Bergen, Bergen, 26–27 October 2006.
50. Sundström, G. and Premfors, R., The Limits of Loyalty: Civil Servants’ Role Perception Within the Swedish Government Office, presented to Panel RC27.19 at IPSA World Congress, Fukuoka, 9–13 July 2006.
51. Lidström, A., Territorial Restructuring in Sweden—A Weakening of the Unitary State? pre- sented at the conference Territorial Choice, Umeå University, Umeå, 15–16 June 2007.
52. Lidström, A., Territorial Restructuring in Sweden—A Weakening of the Unitary State? pre- sented at the conference Territorial Choice, Umeå University, Umeå, 15–16 June 2007.
53. Rothstein, B., Ed., Politik som Organisation. Förvaltningspolitikens Grundproblem, SNS, Stockholm, 2001.
54. Lundqvist, L., Hotet mot den politiska demokratin, in Demokrati och Medborgarskap, SOU, 7, 1999, 225–266.
55. Stoker, G., Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work, Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, 2006.
56. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Summary of Population Statistics 1960–2006, Stockholm, 2007, http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart_26041.asp.
57. Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J., Makten att Reformera, Carlssons, Stockholm, 1990.
58. Hall, P. and Löfgren, K., Politisk Styrning i Praktiken, Liber, Malmö, 2006.