Regional development partnerships in Sweden: Putting the government back in governance?

Abstract

Regional development partnerships were introduced in Sweden in 1998 as part of a new regional policy. Here it is argued that these partnerships can provide support for the concept of governance in which the state continues to play an important role in steering the direction of policy. On the surface, as a decentralized organizational form, emphasizing inclusion of a broad range of regional stakeholders in the production of regional growth agreements/programmes, the partnerships would seem to fit a strategy of ‘letting other regimes rule’ on the part of the state. However, the central role played by the Swedish county administrative boards (the extended arm of the state in the region), suggests that the partnerships could also be a way for central government to retain control over the direction of regional development. In this way, they become an example of the state's ability to adjust to a changing environment rather than its ‘hollowing out’.

Keywords:

• Regional policy
• regional development partnerships
• regional growth agreements
• government
• governance

Notes

1 With appologies to Peter Evans & Theda Skocpol.

2 The change in policy is accompanied by changes in the structure of national government departments (e.g. the Ministry of Industry and Trade became the Ministry of Industry, Employment & Communications) and the establishment of new governmental organizations or changes in the remit of existing ones from 1 January 2001 (e.g. Swedish Business Development Agency (NUTEK), Swedish Agency for Innovative Systems (Vinnova) and Institute for Growth Studies (ITPS). However, these are not dealt with here.

3 In the case of Swedish regional policy, an example can be seen in the lack of synchronization between Mona Sahlin and the Björn Rosengren, the then Ministers for Industry, Employment and Communications reported in Dagens Nyheter 9/2/2000, page A10. Mona Sahlin is portrayed as launching a new decentralized regional policy which Björn Rosengren appears to be in the process of thwarting through his pursuit of measures associated with more traditional, centrally-steered regional policy.

4 Their roots go back to 1634 when a country-wide system of national government regional administration was established (Prop. 2001/02: 7)

5 These were set up as experiments in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Prop. 2001/02: 7 extended the experimental period to 2007.

6 The municipalities within a region were allowed to build regional associations from 1 January 2003. These have been established in seven regions to date.

7 It has been argued that because of the tradition of strong government in Sweden, corporatism rather than leading to a possible democratic deficit led to both more democracy (in the sense of participation) and greater efficiency – hence the term democratic corporatism (see for example Gustafsson 1995).

8 A special memorandum entitled Regional Growth Agreements – Business in Focus (Regionala tillväxtavtal – näringslivet i focus) dated 6 May 1998, accompanied Anders Sundström's invitation to the County Administrative Boards and the directly elected regional councils.

9 Except in the experimental regions, where the directly elected regional councils are given this responsibility. The then Minister for Industry, Anders Sundström, sent an invitation (6 May 1998) to the county administrative boards and the directly elected regional councils inviting them to initiate, run and co-ordinate the preparation of the Regional Growth Agreements.