Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: “Clusters” and “learning regions” are high on most national agendas for creating economic growth and helping disadvantaged regions catch up. The role of the public sector is often that of an “anima-teur”, supporting “innovation systems” by arranging favorable institutions and other background conditions. In Sweden new regional partnerships were set up to coordinate policies and make the welfare state more supportive of the needs of businesses, inspired by the European union structural funds. To some extent these policies go against the Swedish tradition of a unified welfare state op-erating independently of business interests. Furthermore, the aim is that the partnerships should be “learning systems”, i.e. that they should guide and control their activities through an elaborate set of evaluations, creating a system of “self-regulation” for economic growth.

The paper is based on a study of how far the partnerships have implemented the new policy. Its em-phasis is on describing and explaining differences among the regions. The evaluations that have been commissioned by the 21 regional partnerships give evidence of how well the partnerships function and where tensions reside. The most creative and challenging evaluations have been com-missioned in regions where regional actors have agendas of their own, i.e. where the national policy of “devolution” fits with regional ambitions. Only one regional partnership has attempted to keep track of economic indicators and use these to adapt their strategies.

The study is relevant from several perspectives, e.g. the reform of the welfare state, adoption of EU-policies by member states, implementation of new governance structures, the working of a weak network structure partly in conflict with strong national policy sectors (such as the national labor market board, AMS). It also brings out the contradictions in the national policy, simultaneously wanting “devolution” and still maintaining central control. The regions differ in the level of consen-sus that has developed and the ways that “policy entrepreneurs” can help such consensus develop. Yet, it is doubtful whether even the strongly cooperating regions will make an impact on clusters or innovation systems.

Clusters are supposed to develop as a kind of “learning regions”. The question here is if networks of public and private actors can be a “learning government” to support learning among businesses. Since networks are traditionally seen as a weak form of governance, the expectation of a learning capability seems particularily demanding, especially in a country with few traditions of government being involved with – or even subordinate to – the needs of business.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to study whether commercialization can explain the extent to which Swedish news media at the 1998 and 2002 national elections framed politics as a game rather than as issues, followed an interpretive rather than a descriptive journalistic style, and, finally, how many sentences politicians were allowed to speak for themselves. Using quantitative content analysis, the study includes the two leading national broadsheet papers, the two leading national tabloids, and the three main broadcast news shows during the three weeks prior to each election.
Contrary to expectations, the results show that even though the Swedish media system has become more commercialized during the last 15-20 years, commercialization is not the decisive factor in explaining the extent to which leading Swedish media in their election coverage frame politics as a strategic game, follow an interpretive journalistic style or let politicians speak for themselves. Even though commercialization of the media is a global force, affecting news media in democracies around the world, most news media are still rooted in their country- and cultural-specific contexts, where they have to operate within the limits set by political regulations, audience expectations, journalistic norms and values, and current events as they play out during different election campaigns.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Why does the Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) oppose employer proposals for increased labor migration from non-EU countries? Many recent studies conclude that weak trade unions now support pro-immigration policies. However, less attention has been paid to the migration policy preferences of strong labor movements, particularly those in coordinated market economies. Since 2002, labor migration is among the most salient issues on the Swedish political agenda. Sweden’s chief employer’s association, The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (SN), argues that the effects of an aging population and a shrinking workforce can only be counteracted by relaxing Sweden’s strict labor migration policy. LO, widely regarded as one of the most powerful trade unions in the advanced industrial countries, rejects these proposals.
To explore this puzzle, I draw upon the varieties of capitalism (VoC) literature, particularly the claim that economic policies need to be incentive compatible with the broader political economy in order to succeed. I argue that LO evaluates labor migration reform proposals on the basis of whether they are likely to be incentive compatible with the Swedish model, supporting those that are market-conforming and opposing those that are market-disruptive. However, support for market-conforming labor migration policies is not an end in and of itself for LO. Rather, I show that LO prefers incentive compatible labor migration policies as these are most likely to guarantee that core interests of organized labor -- interests that are embedded in the Swedish model -- are not challenged.
As such, LO opposes the introduction of a liberal labor migration policy that would place control over the work permit approval process solely in the hands of employers and that would grant economic migrants full access to the Swedish labor market, without regards to broader labor market trends. Rather, the trade union supports a policy of coordinated labor migration, characterized by granting the state and labor market partners joint control over the work permit approval process; limiting initial labor market access for migrants to sectors with staffing shortages; and ensuring that migration does not result in an oversupply of labor or impair economic and social policies central to the workings of the Swedish model.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In Sweden the law concerning children is universal and can be thought of as status conferring1. In other words, the law regarding children, in Sweden confers a particular status to children, that is it confers the status of person. In Sweden, it is conceived as being the child’s right to stability, love, freedom from fear, emotional harm and physical abuse (including neglect and medical neglect). In the US these same factors,(meaning abuse, neglect, etc.) are a matter of action sorting. Child protection laws sort actions into what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behaviour towards a child. The child himself derives less status from the laws and so his opportunity to be “heard” or “listened to” are more variable from state to state.
Differences arise, between societies based upon these conceptions of right-- from the “right to be heard”, as in Sweden)--and a legal guarantee that if a child's opinion is expressed it can be weighted along with the other evidence,as in US.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper analyses Swedish, Danish and British news about Europe from the perspective that television news narratives are sites where collective (i.e. national and international) identities are cultivated and mobilised through the contrast between ‘we’ and ‘others’. The issue is not if European stories are domesticated to fit national news bulletins, but how events are domesticated, and what meanings are made from these by the programmes’ producers. The results indicate that viewers are offered different images of Europe during the week 15-21 November 1999, and that the journalists play active roles in constructing ‘themes’ which link together different types of news stories about Europe into stories about ‘us’. The Swedish ‘we’ was characterised as a moralising global villager, slightly superior but willing to adapt to the outside world, the Danish ‘We’ appeared as an anxious and conscientious European, trying to do its share, despite its reservations on EU cooperation. The British ‘We’ was characterised as the engaged international humanitarian who prefers to keep a distance from time-consuming Euro-squabbles.