Multi-Level Governance in Sweden?

Abstract

This article examines whether multi-level governance (MLG) as a practice has been established in Sweden. It does so by dividing multi-level governance into vertical and horizontal dimensions. The article argues that there is a multi-level policy process within Swedish regional policy and that a degree of network governance has been introduced in Sweden through the Regional Growth Programmes and regional partnerships. Regional partnerships also demonstrate how the horizontal and vertical aspects of MLG have become inter-twined. However, the article concludes that vertical MLG has not yet been fully introduced in Sweden because there is no new regional level. However, with the recommendations of the Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities, a new regional level in Sweden may not be too distant.

Keywords:

• Multi-level governance
• regionalisation
• regional partnerships
• Sweden

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Alex Warleigh-Lack for useful feedback and comments on the earliest of drafts, as well as for subsequent drafts. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers for useful comments and feedback.

Notes

¹The terms ‘region’ and ‘county’ will be used interchangeably throughout the article, reflecting practice in Sweden, thus ‘region’ and ‘regional level’ refers to the meso-level of administration in a three-tier system.

²The fourth Regional Pilot Region was Gotland, a unique case in Sweden whose governance has long been atypical (PARK, 2000: 69).

³Regional policy and the sub-policy area of regional industrial policy within industrial policy were merged to create the new policy area of regional development policy (Regerings Proposition, 2001/02: 4). Technically only regional industrial policy now exists in Sweden; however, for simplicity the term ‘regional policy’ will be used unless otherwise stated.

⁴Interview with CEO Region Halland (March 2004).

⁵Currently there are three different types of regions in Sweden with regards to responsibility over regional development: Regional Council, Regional Development Council or the County Administration Board. Different types of region have different models for co-ordinating regional partnerships—see Näringsdepartementet Ds 2001: 12; Ds 2002: 13; Ds 2003: 10.

⁶For a discussion on multi-level and multi-layered governance in relation to central–local co-ordination within the welfare state in Sweden (as well as in Denmark, Finland and Norway), see Baldersheim and Ståhlberg (2002).

⁷Olsson and Åström (2003) are examining the regionalization process in Sweden through a Europeanization lens.

⁸There were four pilot regions—Gotland, Västra Götaland (joined the RPP on 1 January 1999), Skåne and Kalmar County—and they worked out from different types of models. Skåne and Västra Götaland have directly elected assemblies; in Gotland it was the municipality that took over some responsibilities from the County Administration Board; and in Kalmar County it was the indirectly elected Regional Council that took over the responsibilities.

⁹The vast majority of interviewees agreed that the people listed in Table 1 played key roles in the regionalization process (Stegmann McCallion, 2008).

¹⁰Interview with Civil Servant with Gothenburg City, May 2003.

¹¹Interview with CEO Region Halland (March 2004).

¹²Interview with CEO Regional Council Kalmar County, June 2003.

¹³Interview with a member of Västra Götaland Regional Council, May 2003. An ulterior motive of the central state could also be the somewhat attractive option of offloading responsibilities and unpopular decisions with regards to cuts in funding for welfare services (interview with a Swedish MP, June 2003; also see Gren, 2002; Mény and Wright, 1985).

¹⁴Interview with an employee of The Swedish Association of Local Authorities/Federation of County Councils (June 2003), who also was an expert member of the Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities. Interview with MP (June 2003).

¹⁵Interview with a senior advisor Ministry of Finance (May 2003); interview with project manager Västra Götaland region (May 2003); interview with Chair Regional Council Kalmar County March 2004—one interviewee called the process ‘middle-top’ and ‘middle-bottom’ (Secretary General Nordic Council, June 2003).

¹⁶Interview with Chair, Regional Council Kalmar County (June 2003).

¹⁷When Sweden obtained Skåne from Denmark it was split into Malmöhus County and Kristianstad County. However, this has not altered popular identification with Skåne.

¹⁸The remiss device is when findings of an inquiry or a committee are sent out in a consultation process to authorities, institutions and organizations for their opinion. The Swedish usage of the consultation process is particular to Sweden as it is so extensive, systematized and public (Petersson, 2007: 148–149).

¹⁹Interview with CEO Region Halland (March 2004).

²⁰Interview with former State Secretary at Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication (March 2004) and with Chair, Regional Council Kalmar County (June 2003).

²¹‘Large regional policy’ includes policy areas such as transport, employment and education—policy areas that have regional effects.

²²An additional reason for changes in Swedish regional policy is put forward by Östhol and Svensson (2002: 87), namely unemployment: “[t]he labour market mismatch increasingly became a regional mismatch and regional policy was refocused to place emphasis on the pre-conditions for regional government, rather than on direct subsidies”. It was in a 1993/94 Government Bill where one can discern the first change of thinking.

²³With regards to the Swedish understanding of corporatism (the triangular arrangement between state and organizations where the typical example is the state, employers' organization(s) and the trade union movement come to an agreement over salaries), the Swedish model's character was that the central state stayed outside such arrangements (Petersson, 2007: 77).

²⁴The Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities (Ansvarskommittén, 2003: 3) listed possible actors within a regional policy partnership in Sweden: central state authorities and agencies, municipalities, county councils, regional development councils, industrial policy actors at both local and regional levels, business, trade unions, and other organizations/actors that have an interest in regional economic growth and development, such as universities and associations.

²⁵For a discussion on large and small regional partnerships see—Näringsdepartementet (2001) and, for a discussion on representative and active partnerships—see Näringsdepartementet (2002).

²⁶Warleigh (2006: 79–81) summarized the seven reasons for why the central state may choose to participate in a MLG system, these are: ideological conviction; reinforcing their (the central government) power in international negotiations; empowerment of central government vis-à-vis powerful domestic actors and interest groups; to bind the hands of successor administrations; to blame others for unpopular decision; as a necessary precondition for the achievement of their (the government's) real objective; and/or simply because they have no other choice. For a fuller discussion on these reasons, see Warleigh (2006).

²⁷See Ansvarskommittén (2007: 13) for a brief discussion on possible dates for the creation of these new regions.