Policy reform and the decline of corporatism in Sweden

Abstract

This article describes the development of corporatism in Sweden from the 1970s onwards. We demonstrate that the Swedish case differs a great deal from other small European countries, such as the Netherlands and Sweden's neighbour Denmark, where corporatism is alive and well and often credited with providing for economic success in recent years. We study corporatism indirectly rather than directly, in the sense that we start from public policy changes in labour market policy, pensions, and immigrant policy, and follow the policy-making chain backwards in order to identify the norms, institutions, and actors that have mattered for policy choices, and how they mattered. Our conclusion is that Sweden has not only experienced decorporatisation in terms of formal institutional changes, but also in terms of a decline in the norms regarding social partnership that previously guided policy making and the interaction of interest organisations.Across Europe, the 1990s witnessed a resurgence of corporatism, but in Sweden, which once ranked among the world's most corporatist countries, no such thing has occurred. We describe the changes that Swedish corporatism has undergone in the last 30 years from the point of view of public policy. That is, rather than describing institutions and organisations directly -which is the more common approach -we begin by identifying a set of crucial policy decisions and then follow the policy-making chain backwards in order to identify the norms, institutions, and actors that have mattered for policy choices. Evidence from all three policy areas included in our analysis (labour market policy, pensions, and immigrant policy) indicates that decorporatisation in Sweden has gone far -further than in other small, European countries.On the surface, this conclusion is not surprising. It is well known that the relationship between the government and major interest organisations in Sweden has changed over the last decades, especially since the late 1980s (

Does the Government Selection Process Promote or Hinder Pluralism? Exploring the Characteristics of Voluntary Organizations Invited to Public Consultations

“…Corporative resources appear to be of some importance (.167) but show significance on the 90% level and suggest cautious interpretation. The weak support of corporatist resources coincides with recent research that has found minor evidence of corporatist patterns in Scandinavia (Christiansen et al, 2010;Lindvall & Sebring, 2005). Being frequently involved in informal decision-making arenas on the national level such as reference groups and internal inquiries at national government level appears to be of importance for being invited to the remiss procedure when the effects of the another variables are controlled for.…”

“…Historically, access was lightly regulated and it was largely the resourceful organizations with large memberships and close contact to the government that were invited to participate in corporative settings such as government boards and agencies and government commissions (Rothstein, 1992;Ruin, 1974). Since the 1990s, the Scandinavian governance style in general, and Sweden in particular, have experienced a decline in corporatist institutions in terms of both formal and normative institutional structures (Blom-Hansen, 2000;Lewin, 1994;Lindvall & Sebring, 2005). In addition, informal policymaking arenas such as networks and personal contacts with decision-makers, professionalized opinion formation and media contacts have gained momentum (Hysing, 2009;Öberg & Svensson, 2012).…”

Toward a New Social Contract? The Participation of Civil Society in Swedish Welfare Policymaking, 1958–2012

“…First, the slight increased participation of corporatist organizations runs parallel to claims of a declining privileged pattern of corporatist organizations in Swedish policymaking (Lindvall and Sebring 2005). With the inclusion of more corporatist organizations in policymaking, the privileged pattern of participation, which marks the essence of classic corporatism, has become less evident.…”

“…However, since the 1980s, the institutionalist position of civil society in policymaking in Sweden has weakened, as it has in Denmark and Norway as well (Blom-Hansen 2000;Lindvall and Sebring 2005). In fact, the formal inclusion of CSOs on government boards and agencies was formally abolished in the early 1990s.…”

“…Scholars have suggested various explanations for the decline in neocorporatism, including new modes of state governance, the increasing heterogeneity of civil society, and the unwillingness of CSOs to participate in neocorporatist institutions. In Scandinavian literature on the topic, a central argument is that representation has had to be more concurrent with pluralism (Hermansson et al 1999;Lindvall and Sebring 2005) and that policymaking has thus assumed a more varied form due to lobbying and media.…”