www.ssoar.info
Tidying Up? 'EU'ropean Regionalisation and the Swedish 'Regional Mess' Stegmann McCallion, Malin
Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article
Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu
Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Stegmann McCallion, M. (2008). Tidying Up? 'EU'ropean Regionalisation and the Swedish 'Regional Mess'. Regional Studies, 42(4), 579-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543322
Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-133383 Regional Studies
For Peer Review Only
Tidying Up? 'EU'ropean Regionalisation and the Swedish 'Regional Mess'
Journal: Regional Studies
Manuscript ID: CRES-2006-0187.R1
Manuscript Type: Main Section
R5 - Regional Government Analysis < R - Urban, Rural, and JEL codes: Regional Economics
Regionalisation, Regional Pilot Project, Regional Level, Sweden, Keywords: Europe of the Regions Debate
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 1 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 Tidying Up? 5 6 ‘EU’ropean Regionalisation and the Swedish ‘Regional Mess’ 7 8 9 Abstract The regional level of governance has been intensively discussed in Sweden 10 11 since the 1980s. One of the reasons is that Sweden has an obvious national level of 12 13 14 administration and an equally obvious local level of administration (with relatively 15 16 independentFor municipalities). Peer However, Review despite the debates Only regarding change, the 17 18 county (regional/meso) administration level actually remained incoherent, meaning 19 20 21 that the term ‘regional mess’ is frequently used to describe it. Drawing on empirical 22 23 work, this article evaluates recent attempts to change regional governance in Sweden 24 25 26 that have resulted from domestic and international (and especially ‘EU’ropean i.e. EU 27 28 membership) pressures. In particular, the article focuses on the experimental reform at 29 30 regional level – the development of Regional Pilot Project regions and, subsequently, 31 32 33 the Regional Development Councils. It establishes the mix of domestic and European 34 35 pressures, which produced these changes, and argues that the result has been an 36 37 exacerbation, rather than a cleaning-up, of the ‘regional mess’. 38 39 40 Key words: Regionalisation, Regional Pilot Project, Regional Level, Sweden, Europe 41 42 of the Regions Debate 43 44 Introduction – Understanding Sweden’s ‘Regional Mess’ 45 46 47 Since the 1980s the Swedish regional level has been intensively discussed. The main 48 49 focus of this discussion has been who should be responsible for what and at what 50 51 52 level and what role should (if any) the regional level play within the administrative 53 54 structure. This issue is even more salient today – as will be illustrated in this article – 55 56 with 40 different actors (some with overlapping competences) at regional level and 38 57 58 59 different regional ‘maps’ or regional administrative divisions of the country. The 60 article can be divided into three parts. The first part explores what the regional mess
1 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 2 of 37
1 2 3 in Sweden is and where one can find the origins of it, it also locates the Swedish 4 5 6 regional reform – Regional Pilot Project – in the Europe of the Regions debate. The 7 8 middle part of the article explains the introduction of the Regional Pilot Project and 9 10 11 the role that EU membership has had in this, namely as an argument. The conclusion 12 13 sections – Explaining the Regional Pilot Project and Cleaning up the Regional Mess - 14 15 are the analytical heart of this article, drawing upon fieldwork carried out in Sweden 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 during 2003 and 2004 with persons involved in the regionalisation process at all 19 20 levels (local, regional and national) and who are politicians, civil servants or 21 22 associated with the interest organisation for municipalities and county councils (The 23 24 25 Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions). 26 27 A Regional Mess?! 28 29 The Swedish state structure can be described as an hourglass. According to 30 31 32 PETERSSON (2000:84) a comprehensive summary shows that public power in 33 34 Sweden is relatively centralised and concentrated. Sweden can rightly be described as 35 36 37 both a centralised country (bearing in mind the strong central government) and as a 38 39 decentralised country (with the important role within the welfare state played by 40 41 municipalities). However the county administration 1 still remains ambiguous – so 42 43 44 much so that the term regional mess is sometimes used to describe it. At the regional 45 46 administrative level in Sweden there are many actors such as the County Council, the 47 48 County Administration Board, municipal association, and central state agencies. 49 50 51 There are currently 40 different central state actors present at the regional level and 52 53 currently Sweden has 38 different regional ‘maps’ (OLAUZON 2006). This has left 54 55 the regional administrative level with unclear jurisdictional borders, different ad hoc 56 57 58 institutions (for example, different kinds of municipal associations depending on area 59 60
2 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 3 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 of co-operation) and cross-county border co-operation with a web of interlocking 4 5 6 authorities and loyalties (JERNECK and GIDLUND nd.). 7 8 The term regional mess thus refers to the complex co-operation between actors and 9 10 11 political levels (local/municipal, regional, and national), or as Bengt Owe Birgersson 12 13 (who headed up the Commission of Inquiry with the task to analyse the regional 14 15 organisation of public services in the early 1990s) defined it: ‘it occurs when too 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 many responsible authorities and too many agencies, administration and political 19 20 bodies co-operate in far too many policy issues within far too changeable 21 22 geographical areas where the borders rarely coincide and sometimes clash’ 23 24 25 (REGIONUTREDNINGEN 1992:63). Hence the regional mess originate from the 26 27 meeting of two interrelated problems: partly it is about the relationship between the 28 29 different political levels , where the regional level exists in interplay between the local, 30 31 32 national and supranational levels, and partly it is about the multitude of different 33 34 actors , both public and private (for further discussion on this see BENZ et al 2000). 35 36 37 Moreover, it is in this dividing line (between levels and actors) where BADERSTEN 38 39 (2002:33) argues that the complex co-operation has arisen. What also makes the 40 41 regional level blurred is that the relative clarity with regards to who is responsible for 42 43 44 what and their respective roles, which can be found at both national (central) and local 45 46 (municipal) levels, is still lacking at the regional level. Or as LINDSTRÖM (2005:63) 47 48 incisively puts it, Sweden has very little of what elsewhere in Europe would fall under 49 50 51 the term ‘region’ (i.e. a clear regional executive that can be found in, for example, 52 53 German Länder or the Scottish Parliament). Thus the (in)famous complex problem 54 55 Sweden experiences regarding regional co-ordination is not only about improving co- 56 57 58 operation between different policy measures, but also creating a more united view on 59 60 what really motivates a future development of the role of the regions in politics
3 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 4 of 37
1 2 3 (LINDSTRÖM 2005:66) and a clear regional executive within the Swedish 4 5 6 administrative structure. 7 8 However, the historical heritage of Sweden’s regional mess needs to be explored 9 10 11 further in order to set the current mess into context. Sweden – and especially the 12 13 Swedish central administration – has after decades of investigations/inquiries and 14 15 political discussion still not been able to decide which role the regional level and 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 regions should have within the Swedish administrative structure. The result of this has 19 20 been a constant tottering between different suggestions of reforms, marginal 21 22 displacements with regards to who should be responsible and constantly changing 23 24 25 constellations of co-operation between actors and interest groups at the regional level 26 27 (LINDSTRÖM 2005:64). LINDSTRÖM (ibid ) argues that a probable cause of the 28 29 central governments decision angst over what to do with the regional level is 30 31 32 Sweden’s historical heritage from the Middle Ages and the establishment of Sweden 33 34 as a united territorial state. This is because the Swedish unitary state developed 35 36 37 through a gradual elimination of the then regional level ( landskap – provinces). A 38 39 systematic centralisation over the new territory took place where a newly instituted 40 41 regional level – county ( län ) – was established. Sweden today has more or less the 42 43 44 same county division that was introduced in 1634. This was followed by a 45 46 transformation, at the local level, of the then parishes into municipalities 2, into an 47 48 authority that did not have the potential to challenge the central state in its supreme 49 50 51 wielding of power in the same way as provinces, which were both larger and more 52 53 historically rooted. It is through this development that Sweden’s divided political 54 55 power structure consisting of municipalities and the central state has dominated the 56 57 58 territorial politics until today. Thus, with the growth of the welfare state since World 59 60 War Two and the resultant gradual demand for larger and more administratively
4 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 5 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 capable actors with responsibility for carrying out policy implementation, the decision 4 5 6 was made that there should be a continued focus on the municipalities as the central 7 8 state’s principal partner in the role as policy implementer. In order to comply with the 9 10 11 need for a more efficient municipal actor the central state went through a series of 12 13 municipal mergers (LINDSTRÖM 2005:64-65, PETERSSON 2000:94, 14 15 GUSTAFSSON 1996 chapter 3), and today Sweden has 290 municipalities (1 st 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 January 2006), a reduction from around 2500 in the 1950s. 19 20 The main features of the ‘Swedish Model’ have been identified by LOUGHLIN et al 21 22 (2005:351-352) as: 23 24 25 - high level of welfare provision through general taxation; 26 27 - high rates of tax for both individual and businesses; 28 29 - an active labour market policy with a commitment to full employment as a 30 31 32 means of providing these taxes; 33 34 - uniform standards across the country based on the principles of equity and 35 36 37 fairness; and 38 39 - an important role for local authorities in the delivery of these services. 40 41 It is this last feature that illustrates the hourglass characteristic of the Swedish state – 42 43 44 a strong central state setting the standards across the country, as well as coordinates 45 46 the redistribution between local authorities, and the strong local level in the delivery 47 48 of these services. Thus, LOUGHLIN et al (2005:365) argues that at the core of the 49 50 51 current debate about the role of who should provide the services of the welfare state 52 53 can be seen as a tension between those, who are mainly found in favour of local 54 55 authorities and thus advocates further decentralisation of local autonomy (and to some 56 57 58 extend diversity in services provided), and those who are in favour of 59 60 (re)centralisation of services in certain areas and regulations relating to services
5 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 6 of 37
1 2 3 carried out in the name of the welfare state 3. This tension is also visible in how the 4 5 6 welfare services are being paid for, by local taxes. It is worth pointing out that the 7 8 local levels (constitutionally Sweden has two levels – the national and the local – the 9 10 11 difference between county and local level is, in essence, population based. Services 12 13 that need a larger population base such as health care and medical care can be found 14 15 at the county level. The county councils and municipalities has a constitutional right 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 in Sweden to levy taxes in order to carry out the tasks assigned to them by the central 19 20 state (see LOUGHLIN et al for an excellent overview of the recent changes to local 21 22 income tax in Sweden). The hour-glass structure is further illustrated if one examines 23 24 25 the expenses of Sweden at the various levels; the central state’s expenses were €79 26 27 billion, the County Councils expense was €19.3 billion (the breakdown of spending is 28 29 per 100skr of county council tax (approximately €11) 89skr is spent on health and 30 31 32 medical care; 3skr on dental care; 1skr is spent on education and culture; 5skr is spent 33 34 on public transport; and 2skr is spent on other activities – included here is regional 35 36 37 development (SVERIGES KOMMUNER OCH LANDSTING 2005b:60)); whereas 38 39 the local authorities expense were €46.5 billion in 2001. Thus the total expense of the 40 41 local authorities is almost the same size as the central state; this further indicates the 42 43 44 importance of the local authorities in both the political and administrative system. The 45 46 debate over the regional administrative level picked up again 4 as a result of pressures 47 48 from the county level and in 1991 the Swedish government appointed a one-man 49 50 51 Commission of Inquiry with the task of investigating the public sector in relation to 52 53 the existing regional structure. The focal point of the Inquiry was the need for a co- 54 55 ordination of responsibility for regional economic development and growth. The 56 57 58 Inquiry’s report Regional Roles – a Perspective Study presented three alternatives for 59 60 the regional organisation of society 5. The inquiry also examined the geographical
6 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 7 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 division of Sweden, and outlined three alternatives for fewer and larger counties; 4 5 6 however, any actual suggestion for a new county division was not presented. 7 8 The Commission of Inquiry into the regional level delivered its report to the 9 10 11 Parliamentary Committee on Regional Administration in 1992. This Parliamentary 12 13 Committee had as its task to analyse the proposal made by the Commission on 14 15 Regional Administration, and from both that and any other sources available propose 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 idea(s) on both what the public administration’s structure at regional level should look 19 20 like as well as the regional division of the country. The Committee on Regional 21 22 Administration saw all three alternatives as realistic; however, the Committee rejected 23 24 25 the thought of Sweden as a federal state for two reasons. Firstly, Sweden is a small 26 27 country in comparison with other European countries; and secondly, because Sweden 28 29 is so sparsely populated (HALVARSON et al 2003:123). The Parliamentary 30 31 32 Committee presented its report Regional Future and recommended a deepened and 33 34 unambiguous regional self-governance; it also suggested that the regional 35 36 37 development responsibility should be transferred from the County Administration 38 39 Board to the County Council. The Government put forward the bill Regional 40 41 Organisation of Society in 1996 as a response to the Parliamentary Committee’s 42 43 44 report. The Swedish parliament passed the bill and the regional reform process 45 46 regained momentum with the introduction of the Regional Pilot Project on 1 st July 47 48 1997. However, in order to be able to fully appreciate the regional reform process 49 50 51 currently taking place in Sweden one must, first, generate an understanding of the 52 53 pressures for reform. The next section of the article focuses on this task. 54 55 Swedish Regional Reform – a case of ‘EU’ropean Regionalisation? 56 57 58 The hourglass structure of the Swedish state is changing. According to PETERSSON 59 60 (2001:68) there are five tendencies which facilitate or cause this change:
7 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 8 of 37
1 2 3 - Globalisation/internationalisation and especially European integration with 4 5 6 which has emerged a supranational decision-making level with increasing 7 8 powers; 9 10 11 - The central state’s relative importance is decreasing – with competences 12 13 passing to a supranational level and the strengthening of the regional level; 14 15 - EU’s new regionalism where the positions of regions is strengthened 6; 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 - Privatisation – certain tasks that the county council and municipality are 19 20 responsible for are taken over by private persons, private business, or 21 22 associations, for example, a parent association being formed which takes over 23 24 25 childcare; and 26 27 - Kommundelsnämnder – sub-divisions of a municipality – are creating a new 28 29 and more local organisational level in society 7; this is an attempt to 30 31 32 decentralise powers within the municipality, and these sub-divisions are 33 34 expected to enhance local democracy by closer contact between citizens and 35 36 37 local political decision-makers. 38 39 The tendencies of privatisation and kommundelsnämnder fall under the heading of 40 41 endogenous factors, whereas, internationalisation/globalisation, the shift of some 42 43 44 decision-making from national level to supra-national level and the partial emphasis 45 46 on regionalism of the EU can be classed as exogenous pressures for change. These 47 48 pressures for change can also be seen if one examines changes at the regional level 49 50 51 throughout EUrope during the 1980s and 1990s. LOUGHLIN (2001:21) argues that 52 53 these changes may be the result of gradual and increasing pressures for change to 54 55 various – both internal and external – challenges, or the changes may be the result of 56 57 58 reform programmes (e.g. French decentralisation in the 1980s or the current 59 60 devolution process in the UK). He also argues that some of the challenges are
8 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 9 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 particular to the state in which it takes place while others are common to all, such as 4 5 8 6 globalisation, social changes, Europeanisation, and regionalisation . 7 8 One can view the Europe of the Regions debate as a process facilitating 9 10 11 regionalisation, i.e. a greater role for regional bodies in the administration of public 12 13 policies. This debate over the region and what role is should have was given weight as 14 15 well as was revitalised during 1988-1993 when the central governments were 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 perceived to be losing some of their power base to both the supranational level and 19 20 the sub-national level through the partnership principle ‘forcing’ the national level to 21 22 co-operate with sub-national actors/authorities, the creation of Committee of the 23 24 25 Regions, and with the increase over the years in the EU regional policy budget 26 27 (ALLEN 2000:245). The notion of a Europe of the Regions re-emerged in the 1990s, 28 29 simultaneously with the Single European Market and the discussion of a 30 31 32 federalisation of the European Union. The concept originally referred to a federal 33 34 Europe where it would be the region and not the nation state, which was the 35 36 9 37 constituent part of the Union . However, a federal Europe is very unlikely today as it 38 39 is the nation state that remains the key level of government. Nevertheless, the usage of 40 41 the term a Europe of the Regions is an important indicator of the increased importance 42 43 44 of region within the EU. What is important here is the fact that the intensifying of 45 46 European’ integration through the 1987 Single European Act and the revision of the 47 48 EC treaties at Maastricht and Amsterdam has created a new administrative and legal 49 50 51 environment for local and regional authorities to which they have been obliged to 52 53 adapt (LOUGHLIN 2001:24-25). KEATING (1998:17) argues that the EU has 54 55 modified the state-region [sub-national authorities] relationship, this because the 56 57 58 traffic between regional interests and the EU has not been one-way. The European 59 60 Commission itself has played an important role in mobilising regional interests,
9 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 10 of 37
1 2 3 establishing new networks and creating dialogue among regions, states and itself 4 5 6 (KEATING and HOOGHE 2001: 247). As the EUROPEAN COMMISSION 7 8 (1999:143) has stated the relationship between the European Commission, national 9 10 11 governments and regional and local authorities is one of partnership and negotiation, 12 13 rather than being a hierarchical one. 14 15 Regionalisation, in this case, involves the development of a new kind of politics and 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 policy-making, in which space becomes significant as the context in which public 19 20 tasks are performed. Regionalisation thus creates new structures and procedures, with 21 22 the region/regional level becoming a new forum for mobilisation, co-operation, 23 24 25 participation, and democratic self-determination (BENZ et al 2000:7). 26 27 It may seem paradoxical that the creation of regions as new sub-national authorities is 28 29 only one manifestation of the regionalisation process. In fact, it is a rather exceptional 30 31 32 one, as regionalisation processes can help disaggregate state functions. Paradoxically 33 34 they also demonstrate a wish to develop structures that allow actors to carry out 35 36 37 functions that appear to be becoming unmanageable at nation state level (KEATING 38 39 and HOOGHE 2001:242). Furthermore, when it does occur, regionalisation may be in 40 41 response to considerations other than those defined by the European Parliament 10 , 42 43 44 even if the institutions created do fulfil the needs it stipulated as for example in the 45 46 cases of Spain and Italy (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2000:23-24). Indeed, this has 47 48 happened in Sweden, with the introduction of the Regional Pilot Projects and 49 50 51 subsequently with the Regional Development Councils. 52 53 There are both top-down and bottom-up regionalisation processes; the top-down 54 55 process is usually seen as a state-led process and can have more political aims such as 56 57 58 to pre-empt and to contain bottom-up regionalism (when the pressure for change 59 60 comes from sub-national levels) (JOHN 2001:111). There are certain functions,
10 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 11 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 according to JOHN (2001:111), which create a need for a regional level, for example 4 5 6 transport and regional economic development because local government cannot 7 8 effectively perform this task. JOHN (2001:114-117) has also set out factors that 9 10 11 influence both processes of regionalisation. 12 13 “Table 1 about here” 14 15 When examining various regionalisation processes one has to take into consideration 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 that regionalisation can be perceived as a central state policy where the state 19 20 consciously constructs regional centres of power – thus a state-led top-down process. 21 22 Regionalism (the bottom-up process), on the other hand, can be viewed as a 23 24 25 phenomenon from inside where regional actors ideologically construct their territory 26 27 and create various forms of regional networks. However, regionalisation without 28 29 regionalism can be expected to lead to regional technocracy and regionalism without 30 31 32 regionalisation can be expected to lead to political tensions between the centre and the 33 34 periphery (GIDLUND 1999:5-6). This leads us neatly to the current regionalisation 35 36 37 process in Sweden, which one can argue started with the introduction of the Regional 38 39 Pilot Project in 1997. 40 41 The Regional Pilot Project 42 43 44 In terms of political administrative powers the Regional Pilot Project can be viewed 45 46 as a small revolution. The Regional Pilot Project regions were granted new 47 48 competencies in issue-areas that were formerly the prerogative of the County 49 50 51 Administrative Board. The pilot regions assumed responsibility for regional 52 53 development and long-term planning, including tourism, the allocation of EU funding, 54 55 and regional transport infrastructure. In addition to being answerable for drafting the 56 57 58 strategies for the county’s long-term development, the new political body in each pilot 59 60 region also had/has the main responsibility for acting as the region’s representative in
11 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 12 of 37
1 2 3 the dialogue with the central state in the Regional Growth Agreements (PARK 4 5 6 2000:51-59). 7 8 9 The Regional Pilot Project can be divided into three phases. The first phase of the 10 11 12 central state-led reform process (1 July 1997 – 31 December 2002) was from the start 13 14 marketed as a controlled experiment, or trial, with limited duration and scope 15 16 (JERNECKFor and GIDLUND Peer n.d.). InReview temporal terms, the regionalOnly pilot project can be 17 18 19 depicted as a three-track procedure; the first phase was the actual initiation of the five- 20 21 year process, and the granting of new competencies to the self-governing bodies of 22 23 24 the four participating regions. This was followed by a mid-term evaluation carried out 25 11 26 by Parlamentariska Regionkommittén (PARK) , roughly halfway through the trial 27 28 period. It was the result of the evaluation by PARK that initiated the second phase in 29 30 31 the regional pilot project, the phase that Sweden currently finds itself in. The third 32 33 phase will start after the publication of recommendation for the future of the regional 34 35 level by Committee on Public Sector Responsibilities in February 2007. 36 37 38 As a response to PARK’s recommendations the Swedish Government put forward the 39 40 bill Regional Co-operation and Central Administration at County Level . PARK had 41 42 in its evaluation suggested that the time period should be prolonged to the end of 2006 43 44 45 for the four pilot regions. The Government bill wanted the trial period for the four 46 47 regions to end as already decided at the end of 2002. However, after a proposal from 48 49 50 the Standing Committee on the Constitution, and a debate and vote in the parliament 51 52 it was decided that both Region Skåne and Västra Götaland Region would continue 53 54 with the trial. An alternative was presented in the Government bill; this alternative 55 56 57 meant that all municipalities and county councils in Sweden can participate in a new 58 59 form of regional co-operation in connection to regional development. 60
12 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 13 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 ‘Regional development is neither purely a municipal responsibility 4 5 6 nor the responsibility of the state. State and municipality must co- 7 8 operate from a democratic perspective anchored in respective levels 9 10 11 of democracy (i.e. national, county, and local levels). The regional 12 13 level has a given place within the co-operative arena between state 14 15 and municipalities, county councils, business and organisations’ 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 (REGERINGEN 2001/02, author’s own translation). 19 20 What the Swedish Government proposed was the introduction of Samverkansorgan; a 21 22 Regional Development Council consisting of the municipalities in a county, and, if it 23 24 25 so wishes, the County Council. The result of this was that the regions of Skåne and 26 27 Västra Götaland were to continue as regional pilot regions until the end of 2006, and 28 29 the other two regional pilot regions, the counties of Kalmar and Gotland, were to 30 31 32 transform into Regional Development Councils when the trial period ended on 31 33 34 December 2002. However, this has since changed, after a decision in the parliament, 35 36 37 which prolonged the trial status of Skåne and Västra Götaland until the end of 2010 – 38 39 as Sweden is currently awaiting the findings of the Committee of Public Sector 40 41 Responsibility that are expected to be published in February 2007. Even though 42 43 44 Sweden has two new regions – Skåne and Västra Götaland – one could argue since 45 46 they are constitutionally on the same level as the County Councils and municipalities. 47 48 (Sweden only has two levels – national and local. The difference between local 49 50 51 authorities and county councils is the population size needed for the task with which 52 53 they are assigned to carry out) Thus, one could view these two regions as up-graded 54 55 county councils . There has been (and still is) resistance within the central 56 57 58 administration in viewing Skåne and Västra Götaland as regions; however this is not 59 60 the view in the two regions. The opinion in the two regions is further backed by the
13 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 14 of 37
1 2 3 CLRAE’s report on local and regional democracy in Sweden (2005) which states that 4 5 6 these two regions politically and functionally have more in common with regions in 7 8 ‘EU’rope, than the county councils (SVERIGES KOMMUNER OCH LANDSTING 9 10 11 2005a:32). 12 13 The Law Lag (2004:34) om samverkan i länen which enables the creation of Regional 14 15 Development Councils came into effect on 1 July 2002. However, the Regional 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 Development Councils could not take over the responsibilities allocated to them until 19 20 1 January 2003. What is interesting about the Regional Development Council 21 22 structure is that it is based upon the Kalmar Model (JERNECK and SJÖLIN 2000:27; 23 24 25 EHN 2001), i.e. from the first phase of the regional pilot project. It consists of 26 27 indirectly elected politicians; however, one major difference is that the Regional 28 29 Development Council must consist of all municipalities within a county, and if it so 30 31 32 wish the County Council. It should be noted that the in the 9 Regional Development 33 34 Councils 12 that are currently in operation, all County Councils have opted to 35 36 37 participate. Still, the Regional Development Council can only be formed if it fulfils 38 39 the criteria set out in law. This matter because, it only takes one municipality within a 40 41 county to block the creation or the folding of a Regional Development Council. 42 43 44 Explaining the Regional Pilot Project 45 46 As this article seeks to ascertain the extent to which the recent regionalisation 47 48 processes in Sweden have made a difference to both the regional mess and the 49 50 51 ‘hourglass structure’ of the state one needs to explore the origins of the Regional Pilot 52 53 Project. One can here discern both endogenous and exogenous (in this case 54 55 ‘EU’ropean) arguments by actors in favour of regionalisation, and how these 56 57 58 arguments have been intertwined by the actors within the process, for example, one 59 60 argument used is that ‘with globalisation it becomes even more important what we do
14 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 15 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 at regional/local level’ (AXELSSON 2006). When Sweden applied for membership of 4 5 6 the European Community in 1991 this put the regional level back into the spotlight. 7 8 The (possible) EU membership brought new vitality into the Swedish regional debate 9 10 11 and process. Through my interviews with persons involved in the regionalisation 12 13 process new variables for the process surfaced, and one of these was that EU 14 15 membership highlighted the need for a Swedish regional executive ; one can here draw 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 a comparison to Kissinger’s legendary question who speaks for Europe? , i.e. who 19 20 speaks for the regional level in Sweden? As a corollary, it was considered that 21 22 Sweden needed a capable regional politician in order to escape the situation of not 23 24 25 knowing who to call , as well as a person whom also is accountable for the decision/s 26 27 taken on behalf of the region. 28 29 Did Swedish EU membership play a part in helping the regionalisation process insofar 30 31 32 as it created new, unanswerable pressures for reform? Or was it just used as a 33 34 convenient argument for empowering the regional level? I argue that EU membership 35 36 37 was partly the cause – one of many – that strengthened the regionalisation process. 38 39 There are three main reasons for this: 40 41 - EU membership provided models of and pressures for more professional 42 43 44 working methods for dealing with issues at regional level; 45 46 - The partnership principle within EU structural funds; and 47 48 - EU membership put renewed focus on the regional level. 49 50 51 (Interviews with a member of Västra Götaland Council, May 2003; the Chair 52 53 of the Regional Council in Kalmar County, June 2003; and Chief Executive 54 55 Officer with the Regional Council in Kalmar County, June 2003). 56 57 58 A source of inspiration was the European debate at the time (late 1980s and early 59 60 1990s) over the notion of a Europe of the regions . Swedish EU membership thus put
15 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 16 of 37
1 2 3 focus on the regionalisation issue, in view of the fact that Sweden had long needed to 4 5 6 take the issue in hand and come up with a solution to the unclear role-sharing between 7 8 actors at the regional level (i.e. the regional mess). However, preparation for EU 9 10 11 membership placed a new emphasis on this. In the political system, at the regional 12 13 level in Sweden, there is no clear person to ‘call’ at the regional level. This became 14 15 even more salient when Sweden joined the EU, especially as in some cases civil 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 servants from the County Administration Board had to take decisions, which later had 19 20 to be ‘defended’ at home (interview with Deputy Director, Ministry of Finance, June 21 22 2003), if these decisions were taken by a regional politician the issue of accountability 23 24 25 could be avoided. Thus the conclusion can be drawn that EU membership (Interview 26 27 with the Chair of the Regional Council in Kalmar County, June 2003) was used as a 28 29 vehicle to push the regional agenda forward by sub-national actors arguing that they 30 31 32 should take over responsibility for regional economic growth and development, and to 33 34 provide a locus of accountability. The sub-national levels in Sweden then took the 35 36 37 opportunity provided by EU membership to put pressure on the national level for 38 39 change. There has been, one could argue, an informal network of actors promoting the 40 41 idea of regional government. 42 43 44 “Table 2 about here” 45 46 In the context of this network it is impossible to distinguish if there was particular 47 48 support/resistance for the regionalisation process at national level or in one particular 49 50 51 political party. Instead, it appears that the persons within the network shifted around, 52 53 moving from being civil servants, interest organisation employees, and/or politicians. 54 55 Moreover, these people often held office at different levels of government in the 56 57 58 relevant period. 59 60
16 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 17 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 One conclusion, which can be drawn from this, is that there ware no separate norms 4 5 6 or agenda regarding regionalisation in particular levels of government but rather that 7 8 the ‘supporters’ of regionalisation came together in this informal network because 9 10 11 they shared an interest in promoting the regional level of governance for a range of 12 13 reasons. There was a feeling in the regions (interview with former State Secretary at 14 15 Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication, March 2004; interview with 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 Chair of the Regional Council in Kalmar County June 2003) that ‘Stockholm’ was not 19 20 interested or active enough in solving the regional problems. However, for this 21 22 perception to be translated into structural change, it was necessary to secure support 23 24 25 from key actors at national level too. The role of Jörgen Andersson in pushing 26 27 through the relevant reforms illustrates this dependence upon networking; his 28 29 presence in a key position helped the reform see the light of day, and his departure 30 31 32 from the relevant office helps explain the subsequent difficulties of regionalisation 33 34 (the introduction of Regional Development Councils). Within the Swedish 35 36 37 government there have been for some time both opponents and supporters of further 38 39 regionalisation and decentralisation. At the moment of introduction of the regional 40 41 pilot project there was a ‘majority’ for, or rather, within the government there was a 42 43 44 rather strong supporter of regionalisation who enabled the introduction of the regional 45 46 pilot project (on rather opportunistic grounds, one may argue, because of funding 47 48 from the EU structural funds). This supports the thesis that there was a window of 49 50 51 opportunity – the right people in the system, at the right place in the right time (for 52 53 supporters of regionalisation anyway!). 54 55 The regional actors’ desire to take more responsibility over the region’s economic 56 57 58 growth and development coincided with the financial crisis that Sweden went through 59 60 in the early 1990s. In the then difficult financial climate, regionalisation became an
17 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 18 of 37
1 2 3 attractive option of the government to off-load responsibilities and unpopular 4 5 6 decisions with regards to cuts in funding for service (Interview with a Swedish 7 8 Member of Parliament, June 2003) (see also GREN (2002b); MÉNY and WRIGHT 9 10 11 (1985) for a discussion on transfer of ‘crisis’ management to a lower level, the 12 13 regional in this case). It was also part of a more general attempt to try new structures 14 15 for Sweden’s unprecedented economic problems. It was at this moment in time that 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 the changes in regional administration and in Swedish regional policy become re- 19 20 enforcing of each other. After the financial crisis traditional regional policy in 21 22 Sweden was no longer possible and in the spring of 1998 the Swedish parliament 23 24 25 approved the bill Regional Growth – for Employment and Welfare . This bill contained 26 27 a proposal for a regional industrial policy and the overall objective of the policy was 28 29 to utilise the unique features of each region. To succeed in this endeavour, industrial 30 31 32 policy will have to be adapted to regional and local conditions, thereby putting the 33 34 region in the spotlight. There was a realisation that within today’s Sweden all three 35 36 37 levels (central, regional, and local) are needed within the administrative/service 38 39 structure of the state. For example, some municipalities are too small as people 40 41 commute over the municipality-borders for employment and/or education and thus 42 43 44 there was a realisation that co-operation between municipalities was needed within 45 46 further policy areas. To be able to solve welfare problems today one can argue that the 47 48 national level is too big – it cannot solve the problems Sweden face on its own any 49 50 51 more (interview with CEO Regional Council Kalmar County June 2003), for example 52 53 the change of regional policy into regional industrial policy. There has also been a 54 55 realisation that the local level is too small for some services within the welfare state, 56 57 58 for example public transport policy; in addition, maintaining social equality in the 59 60 face of economic recession was considered to require structural change (interview
18 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 19 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 with a Member of Västra Götaland’s Regional Council, May 2003) and a growing 4 5 6 wish at regional level to challenge the competence of the central state in regional 7 8 development policy (interview with CEO Region Halland, May 2003). 9 10 11 The bill introduced Regional Growth Programmes (modelled on the workings of the 12 13 programme idea of the structural funds) and especially, it introduced the regional 14 15 partnership principle into Swedish regional policy. Thus the argument here is that EU 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 membership provided a new toolbox to work with within regional policy as a result of 19 20 the practical experience gained by actors at regional level that has come through EU 21 22 membership and the operations of the structural funds. The reason for briefly bringing 23 24 25 in changes in regional policy to the debate about these to regional administration is 26 27 that they are, unintentionally, a twinned process. In retrospection one can see the 28 29 importance that the process of regionalisation and the process of decentralising 30 31 32 Swedish regional policy took place at the same time. However, one needs to bear in 33 34 mind that there was no co-operation in promoting the regional level between the then 35 36 37 Minister for the Interior, Jörgen Andersson, and the Minister of Industry, Anders 38 39 Sundström, although they were aware of what was happening within the other policy 40 41 area. Today, these two processes are re-enforcing each other (interview with former 42 43 44 State Secretary at Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication, March 45 46 2004). 47 48 In the case of changes in the regional administration structure, then, Europeanisation 13 49 50 51 (i.e. ‘EU’ropean pressures for change) does not play any direct role in the 52 53 regionalisation process in Sweden. Instead of EU membership being the cause of the 54 55 reforms to regional governance structures in Sweden it was rather used as an 56 57 58 argument to justify them. However, what comes to light in the Swedish case is that in 59 60 future research into regionalisation where one believe that the EU is the cause for
19 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 20 of 37
1 2 3 change one should examine the indirect, as well as the direct, effects of EU 4 5 6 membership (i.e. ‘EU’ropeanisation). The present case shows how such indirect 7 8 Europeanisation is possible and potentially significant. What is interesting with 9 10 11 indirect Europeanisation is that here member states have, to varying degrees, begun to 12 13 follow either one another, or the ‘EU model’ as regards to particular choices or 14 15 regulatory frameworks – this happens out of choice (and sometimes need ). The 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 implication then is that Europeanisation can be accidental/indirect, i.e. that it can 19 20 occur even without a direct and clear EU model or policy to be emulated if national 21 22 discourse can be constructed on the basis of assumptions about what EU membership 23 24 25 requires. KEATING’S argument (1998:185) that regions do matter in European 26 27 integration because they have become a key level of functional transformation, or if 28 29 one turns the argument around – that European integration plays a key role in 30 31 32 regionalisation processes – one can see how indirect Europeanisation can take place. 33 34 This argument is partly backed up by the Swedish case study, insofar as that the 35 36 37 regionalisation proponents have been seen to use the Europe of the Regions argument 38 39 successfully as one could argue that the regional level is now seen to be the logical 40 41 administrative level where economic growth can be created. Thus, the Swedish case 42 43 44 can back up BÖRZEL’S argument (2002:3) that the EU can be conceived of as a 45 46 political opportunity structure as it can provide new resources (arguments) to some 47 48 actors, while constraining other actors. This can then cause a significant redistribution 49 50 51 of power among domestic actors and/or result in institutional change. 52 53 Conclusions – Tidying Up Sweden’s Regional Mess? 54 55 In Sweden as in other European countries regional development issues are high on the 56 57 58 agenda. Regional development is to a great extent located at regional level in Sweden, 59 60 even if it is divided across many actors such as central state agencies and authorities,
20 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 21 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 county councils, municipal associations among others, that may cover different 4 5 6 geographical areas (OLSSON 2003). By strengthening the region’s internal ability for 7 8 action and to secure these policies and actions in legitimate institutions, i.e. elected 9 10 11 bodies, the actors within the regionalisation process aimed to resolve the regional 12 13 mess (PARK 2000:151). 14 15 One result of the establishment of Regional Assemblies in Skåne and Västra 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 Götaland, and the Regional Development Councils is that in Sweden there is now a 19 20 broader base when discussing the regional level . What has this meant for the regional 21 22 mess ? 23 24 25 “Table 3 about here” 26 27 This means that throughout the political system regional levels are varied and there is 28 29 no single publicly elected accountable person to contact at the regional level in 30 31 32 Sweden. Thus, neither ‘EU’ropean influence nor longstanding popular debate about 33 34 democracy and efficiency has been sufficient to provide a person who ‘speaks for the 35 36 37 region’. The changes which have taken place in the Swedish administrative structure 38 39 during the 1990s with the introduction of the Regional Pilot Projects and the 40 41 subsequent introduction of Regional Development Councils has not – yet – helped to 42 43 44 sort the regional mess out. On the contrary, there are today more regional actors at the 45 46 regional level. 47 48 Has Sweden’s ‘hourglass’ state structure then really changed? The pendulum is now 49 50 51 swinging back towards the central state with the introduction of the Regional 52 53 Development Council (interview with the Chief Executive Officer with the Regional 54 55 Council in Kalmar County June 2003; interview with a Senior Adviser with the 56 57 58 Ministry of Finance May 2003), and the veto right of municipalities to form a 59 60 Regional Development Council can be seen to be a catch 22 situation which the
21 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 22 of 37
1 2 3 government intended when it introduced the law. 4 5 6 “Table 4 about here” 7 8 There is thus something of a tug of war between the central and the local level 9 10 11 (leaving the regional level to be pulled from two directions), but no fundamental 12 13 change in the power structure. However, in order to illustrate the situation more fully, 14 15 in relation to terminology there has been a change – today the use of the word region 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 implies that it is believed that the region will increase further in importance within the 19 20 state structure (interview with Deputy Director, Minister of Finance June 2003). 21 22 However, how this will occur is another matter and one has to await the Committee 23 24 25 on Public Services Responsibilities findings that is expected to be published in 26 27 February of 2007 to be able fully to answer this question. Although there is today a 28 29 conscious usage of the term region there has not been, so far, any transference of real 30 31 14 32 financial powers to the region/regional elected actor with regard to regional growth 33 34 agreements, as it is the central government that has the final say on how much of the 35 36 37 budget will be spent within the regions through regional policy. 38 39 In addition to the change in terminology there has been a change in thinking on the 40 41 government side, that the region is needed for the economic growth of Sweden. One 42 43 44 could have believed that the power structure in Sweden would start to change with the 45 46 introduction of the regional pilot projects in 1997. However with the re-centralisation 47 48 (with the Catch 22 mechanism) introduced with the creation of the Regional 49 50 51 Development Councils one could argue that the central state is re-claiming the powers 52 53 given in 1997 to the Regional Pilot Regions. This can be argued despite the fact that 54 55 the Regions of Skåne and Västra Götaland still exist and they have kept the powers 56 57 58 that were transferred to them in 1997. Moreover, even though these two regions have 59 60 taken over, from the old county council, the right to levy taxes, their main expenditure
22 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 23 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 is still centred on the tasks allocated to them as county councils, and their existence is 4 5 6 only guaranteed until the end of 2010, having been extended only because the 7 8 Swedish government did not want to anticipate the Committee on Public Sector 9 10 11 Responsibilities’ judgement on and role of the regional level in Sweden 12 13 (FINANSDEPARTEMENTET 2004). 14 15 Thus, to sum up, one can draw the conclusion that even though Sweden introduced a 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 regional pilot project in 1997 with regions that had extended powers transferred to 19 20 them from the County Administration Board, the subsequent re-centralisation of these 21 22 powers (by stopping the regional pilot project for two of the regions, Kalmar County 23 24 25 and the Island of Gotland, and also by introducing the regional development councils) 26 27 allowed the central government to re-appropriate powers that had been decentralised. 28 29 Thus the regional level in Sweden is back where it started, and is perhaps even a bit 30 31 32 messier given the existence of a broader range of regional actors since the pilot 33 34 project was begun. The power structure and the future of the regions now lie in the 35 36 37 hands of the findings of the Committee on Public Services Responsibilities. When 38 39 their report is published in February 2007, one can argue, that the current 40 41 regionalisation process will enter into its third phase. What this phase will entail one 42 43 44 has to wait and see. Hence, to return to the metaphor of the hourglass structure in 45 46 Swedish state power relations, at the moment the waist (the regional level) is not 47 48 expanding. Perhaps the best that can be concluded is that the state is metaphorically at 49 50 51 the glass-blower’s, and that whether or not it will emerge as an hour-glass or a vase is 52 53 not yet clear. In September 2006 Sweden elected a new non-socialist coalition 54 55 government consisting of four parties (the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the 56 57 58 Centre Party, and the Christian Democratic Party – with the differences of perception 59 60 and role of what a regional level should look like or which roles it should have within
23 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 24 of 37
1 2 3 the administrative structure) 15 . It is too early to early to discern if this government will 4 5 6 change the design of the hour-glass or what the design would look like. One can 7 8 further see the division within the country when examining the regional political map 9 10 11 that is in place since the September 2006 election. 12 13 “Map 1 about here” 14 15 Perhaps an answer to the design question of the hour-glass/vase, or at least partial 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 answer, will be provided when the Committee of Public Sector Responsibilities have 19 20 presented their findings. What we can expect is a tidying up of the current regional 21 22 mess – how tidy this cleaning session will be one has, also, has to wait and see. It is 23 24 25 with great interest we await the report from the Committee of Public Sector 26 27 Responsibilities, although we can expect to see recommendations Sweden will have 28 29 fewer regions and that these new regions are modelled upon the current regional pilot 30 31 32 regions – Skåne and Västra Götaland. One could from this draw the conclusion that as 33 34 EU membership highlighted the need for a Swedish regional ‘executive’ this has 35 36 37 influenced somewhat the new regions, thus one could argue that they are the result of 38 39 a successful strategic ‘EU’ropeanisation by the regional actors promoting regional 40 41 governance. 42 43 44 45 1 The terminology county and region will be used interchangeably throughout the article reflecting 46 47 practice in Sweden, thus region and regional level refers to the meso level of administration in a three- 48 49 tier system.
50 2 51 For a brief history and evolution of Swedish municipalities please see chapter 1 in GUSTAFSSON 52 53 (1996) or chapter 3 in PETERSSON (2001).
54 3 55 This is not a new element of tension in Swedish politics. In this case it can be illustrated by the former 56 prime minister Göran Persson’s principle - this refers to when Persson was asked in an interview if he 57 58 had to choose between municipal self-governance, regional self-governance and the continued 59 60
24 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 25 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 development of the Swedish welfare state with its equal treatment of the citizens – then Mr Persson 5 6 would choose the welfare state (JERNECK 2001). 7 8 4 The regional question in Sweden has had two main themes since the discussion began in the 1960 – 9 10 democracy and efficiency. The democracy argument works out of the principle that more responsibilities 11 12 and competences should be moved from the central and regional levels to municipal self-government. By 13 14 doing this the decision-making process is transferred from central civil service employees at regional level 15 16 (i.e. County AdministrationFor Peer Board) to elected Review politicians. This argument Only has mainly come from political 17 18 parties and from the municipalities and county councils. The second main theme – efficiency – is 19 20 connected to the need for a mustering of strength which could ease the development of different parts of 21 22 Sweden and help them become dynamic and competitive regions within Sweden, Europe and 23 24 internationally. Such mustering of strength needs as a prerequisite a simplified, rationalised and effective 25 26 regional public organisation, i.e. structural change (Author’s own translation, REGIONBEREDNINGEN 27 28 1995:163). 29 30 5 These alternatives were: 31 32 The central state at regional level, i.e. the County Administration Board, should have 33 34 responsibility for regional development issues. A more co-ordinated county administration, 35 36 which should be expanded to more areas relevant to regional growth, should be established, and 37 38 the County Administration Board’s role as a uniting regional agency should be strengthened. 39 40 Municipalities, in co-operation with each other, should take over the responsibility for the 41 42 regional development issues. The county council’s tasks would be transferred to the 43 44 municipalities, and later the county councils would be abolished. The County Administration 45 46 Board should in principle still have the same tasks, but possibly some tasks could be transferred 47 48 from the County Administration Board to an agency which would be formed by the 49 50 municipalities in co-operation. 51 52 To create a new elected regional agency/assembly, which would then take over responsibilities 53 54 from both the county council and the County Administration Board. The county council was to 55 56 be abolished while the County Administration Board was to be transformed into the central state 57 58 supervisory agency at regional level.
59 6 60 When the words ‘old’ and ‘new’ are used in any manner it conveys, according to GREN (1999:29) the significance of a particular break with the old, in this case the regionalisation process of the 1960s and
25 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 26 of 37
1 2 3 4 1970s. That process was based mostly on domestic politico-social issues. New regionalisation in contrast 5 6 to old regionalism is more a question of logical shift in decision-making that is regarded as better 7 8 exercised at a regional level than at the national level (GREN 1999:37). New regionalism differs from old 9 10 regionalism through two main reasons: 11 12 - supranational regional policy; and 13 14 - a bottom-up movement which takes its strength from the region’s internal dynamics (GREN 15 16 2002a:7).For Peer Review Only 17 18 7 A kommundelsnämnd is a sub-division of a municipality. For example, the municipality of Stockholm is 19 20 very big (approximately 763,000 inhabitants) thus it has been divided into smaller districts such as 21 22 Bromma stadsdelsnämnd (approximately 59,300; inhabitants in 2003), and Hässelby-Vällingby 23 24 stadsdelsnämnd (approximately 58,800 inhabitants in 2003) which have taken over the responsibility of, 25 26 for example, childcare and care for the elderly within their districts. 27 28 8 European regionalisation – new regionalism – is concerned with the shift in decision-making from 29 30 national level to sub-national levels (GREN 1999:37) and one can find the origins to this shift in EU’s 31 32 supranational regional policy. 33 34 9 At least those regions which posses a strong identity such as Brittany, Corsica, Flanders, Wales and 35 36 Scotland, although, over time one can see a growing identity within the newly created region of Västra 37 38 Götaland, Skåne on the other hand has had a very strong regional identity. After numerous 39 40 Commissions of Inquiry into West Sweden – the City of Gothenburg and surrounding areas – the 41 42 region Västra Götaland emerged as the result of a fusion of three counties, Göteborg and Bohuslän, 43 44 Älvsborg, and Skaraborg, and the City of Gothenburg. The municipalities of Habo and Mullsjö 45 46 transferred from being members of Skaraborg County to Jönköping County. Since the 1 November 47 48 1998, the region of Västra Götaland (the Region of Västra Götaland became part of the regional pilot 49 50 project on 1 January 1999) has been represented by directly elected members in a regional assembly. 51 52 With regards to Skåne, the Region of Skåne was also formed by merging the counties, in this case 53 54 Kristianstad and Malmöhus, and the health services of the City of Malmö. The regional pilot project in 55 56 Skåne began with giving the responsibility for new tasks to a Regional Council – Regional Association 57 58 of Skåne – with Skåne’s municipalities and county council as members. The regional association was 59 60 replaced on 1 January 1999 by a regional assembly, which was directly elected in the 1998 elections (PARK 2000). Thus we can see a difference in the creation of the two regions in Sweden, Skåne had
26 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 27 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 already an existing identity - when Sweden obtained Skåne from Denmark the King thought that one 5 6 way of weakening the opposition to their new Crown and Country was to divide the province into two, 7 8 thus Malmöhus County and Kristianstad County were created. However this has not altered the 9 10 identification with Skåne as a province of people who live and are born there. Thus having a clear 11 12 regional identity, whereas one can describe Västra Götaland as a metropolitan region, which centres 13 14 geographically around Gothenburg. Things have started to change in Västra Götaland, the usage of 15 16 Västra GötalandFor as a geographic Peer reference Reviewpoint has increased. Since Only 1999 when surveyed inhabitants 17 18 in this region has increased from 4 percent to 9 percent when answering the question on where one 19 20 lives (SOM 2006). 21 22 10 The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S (2000:23) has defined regionalisation as: ‘[A] process which 23 24 creates a capacity for independent action aimed at developing a specific area (sub-national but supra- 25 26 local) through the mobilisation of its economic fabric and, where appropriate, of features of local and 27 28 regional identity, and through the development of its potential. This process can occur on the basis of 29 30 existing institutions, or can give rise to a new territorial organisation which will better fulfil these aims. 31 32 It is always conditioned by the constraints imposed by the political and institutional framework, which 33 34 in turn can be influenced by other factors.’ 35 36 11 A Parliamentary Committee consists of representatives from the Swedish political parties. 37 38 12 The Counties of Blekinge, Dalarna, Gotland, Halland, Jönköping, Kalmar, Södermanland, Uppsala 39 40 and Östergötland. 41 42 13 OLSEN (1996:245) has summed up Europeanisation as the interplay between changes in the 43 44 relations between European states and changes within each state. Europeanisation will thus, in this 45 46 article, be used in what might be considered a top-down way; in Sweden this refers structural 47 48 adaptation. 49 14 50 The Regional Assemblies of Skåne and Västra Götaland nor the Regional Development Councils. 51 52 15 Only the Centre Party has a track record at central level of advocating an elected regional institution; 53 54 it has done so since the 1960s. The Centre Party no longer promote regional self-governance as a lone 55 56 voice among the political parties, and has now been joined by the Liberal Party, the Green Party, and 57 58 the Christian Democratic Party. Up until the 1990s the Left Party supported central state influence over 59 60 the regional level; however they have switched position and now want to increase the region’s power.
However, this apparent consensus is undermined by the dissent of the Moderate Party, which was in
27 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 28 of 37
1 2 3 4 favour of increased regional self-governance until the 1980s but is now against self-governing regions 5 6 and the apparent reversal of the brief change in the Social Democratic Party perspective. 7 8 9 10 11 References 12 13 ALLEN, D. (2000) Cohesion and Structural Funds in WALLACE, H. and WALLACE, 14 15 16 W. (eds.)For Policy-Making Peer in the European Review Union (fourth edition)Only Oxford: Oxford 17 18 University Press 19 20 AXELSSON, C. (2006) Speech at the Nordiska regioner i förändring – Självstyrelse i 21 22 th 23 utveckling Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden 16 June 2006 24 25 BADERSTEN, B. (2002) Mellan värden och praxis – det regionala företrädarskapet 26 27 i demokratisk belysning Stockholm: Svenska Kommunförbundet and 28 29 30 Landstingsförbundet 31 32 BENZ, A. FÜRST, D., KILPER, H. and REHFELD, D . (2000) Regionalisation 33 34 35 Theory, Practice and Prospects in Germany Östersund: SIR 36 37 BÖRZEL, T. A. (2002) States and Regions in the European Union: Institutional 38 39 Adaptation in Germany and Spain Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 40 41 42 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1999) Sixth Periodic Report 43 44 on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the EU 45 46 Brussels: Commission of the European Communities 47 48 49 EHN, P. (2001) Mycket väsen för lite ull – En ESO-rapport om partnerskapen i de 50 51 regionala tillväxtavtalen Ds 2001:59 Stockholm: Fritzes 52 53 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (DG IV Publications Regional Policy) (2000) 54 55 56 Regionalisation in Europe Executive Summary REGI 108a XX/rev.1 –04/2000 57 58 FINANSDEPARTEMENTET (2004) Förlängda regionförsök i Skåne och Västra 59 60 Götaland Pressmeddelande 13 Oktober 2004
28 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 29 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 5 GIDLUND, J. (1999) Regionalisering & demokratisk legimitet Kalmar: 6 7 Regionförbundet i Kalmar län 8 9 GREN, J. (2002a) Den perfekta regionen?: en nyregionalism i Europa och samspelet 10 11 12 mellan staten, regionen och den europeiska integrationen Lund: Studentlitteratur 13 14 GREN, J. (2002b) ‘New Regionalism in West Sweden: Change in the Regionalism 15 16 Paradigm’For Regional Peer and Federal StudiesReview 12 (3) pp. 79-101 Only 17 18 19 GREN, J. (1999) The New Regionalism in the EU. The lessons to be drawn form 20 21 Catalonia, Rhône-Alpes and West Sweden Östersund: SIR. 22 23 24 GUSTAFSSON, A. (1996) Kommunal Självstyrelse (7:e upplagan) Stockholm: SNS 25 26 Förlag 27 28 HALVARSON, A., LUNDMARK, K. and STABERG, U. (2003) Sveriges statsskick: 29 30 31 fakta och perspektiv Stockholm: Liber 32 33 JERNECK, M. and GIDLUND, J . (n.d.) Region-building, Democracy and Changing 34 35 Policy-Styles in Sweden available online at 36 37 38 http://www.arena.uio.no/events/papers/jerneck%20and%20gidlund%20region- 39 40 bui.pdf 41 42 JERNECK, M and SJÖLIN, M. (2000) ‘Regionalisering och flernnivåpolitik – Kalmar 43 44 45 och Skåne län’ in Regional försöksverksamhet – tre studier SOU 2000:64 46 47 Stockholm: Fritzes 48 49 50 JERNECK, M. (2001) Speech at a conference held on 22 November 2001 Ansvaret 51 52 för framtiden. Utmaningar för kommuner och landsting Arranged by Institutet för 53 54 Framtidsstudier in co-operation with Svenska Kommunförbundet and 55 56 57 Landstingsförbundet 58 59 JOHN, P. (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe London: Sage Publications 60 Ltd.
29 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 30 of 37
1 2 3 4 5 KEATING, M. (1998) Is there a regional level of government in Europe? in Le 6 7 GALÈS, P. and LEQUESNE, C. (eds.) Regions in Europe London: Routledge 8 9 KEATING, M. and HOOGHE, L. (2001) By-passing the nation state? Regions and the 10 11 12 EU policy process in RICHARDSON, J. (ed.) European Union Power and Policy- 13 14 Making London: Routledge 15 16 LINDSTRÖM,For B. (2005) Peer Regionalpolitiken Review som tillväxtpolitik. Only Retorik och substans i 17 18 19 den regionala utvecklingpolitiken A2005:011Östersund: Institutet för 20 21 tillväxtpolitiska studier 22 23 24 LOUGHLIN, J. (2001) Subnational Democracy in the European Union: Challenges 25 26 and Opportunities Oxford: Oxford University Press 27 28 LOUGHLIN, J., LIDSTRÖM, A. & HUDSON, C. (2005) The Politics of Local 29 30 31 Income Tax in Sweden: Reform and Continuity Local Government Studies 31 (3) 32 33 pp. 351-366 34 35 MÉNY, Y. and WRIGHT, V. (1985) General Introduction in MÉNY, Y. and 36 37 38 WRIGHT, V. (eds.) Centre-Periphery Relation in Western Europe London: 39 40 George Allen & Unwin 41 42 OLAUZON, M. (2006) Presentation ‘Ett nordiskt svep – dagsläge och framtid vad 43 44 45 gäller samhällsorganisationen Sverige’ at the Nordiska regioner i förändring – 46 47 Självstyrelse i utveckling Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden 16 th June 2006 48 49 50 OLSEN, J.P. (1996) Europeanization and Nation-State Dynamics in: GUSTAVSSON, 51 52 S. and LEWIN, L., (eds.) The Future of the Nation-State Essays on Cultural 53 54 Pluralism and Political Integration London and Stockholm: Routledge in co- 55 56 57 operation with Nerenius and Santerus Publishers 58 59 OLSSON, J. (2003) Regionaliseringens drivkrafter Bilaga 3 till PM Tillväxt och 60 regionalisering URL Address:
30 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 31 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 5 http://www.sou.gov.se/ansvar/pdf/Bilaga%203%20Regionaliseringens%20drivkraft 6 7 er.pdf 8 9 PARK - PARLAMENTARISKA REGIONKOMMITTÉN (2000) Regional folkstyre 10 11 12 och statlig länsförvaltning SOU 2000:85 Stockholm: Fritzes 13 14 PETERSSON, O. (2001) Kommunalpolitik (4:e Upplagan) Stockholm: Nordstedts 15 16 Juridik For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 PETERSSON, O. (2000) Statsbyggnad: Den offentliga maktens organisation (2:a 20 21 Upplagan) Stockholm: SNS Förlag 22 23 24 REGERINGEN (2001/02) Prop. 2001/02:7 Regional samverkan och statlig 25 26 länsförvaltning 27 28 REGIONBEREDNINGEN (1995) Regional framtid SOU 1995:27 Stockholm: Fritzes 29 30 31 REGIONUTREDNINGEN (1992) Regionala roller – en perspektivstudie. 32 33 Betänkande av Regionutredningen SOU 1992:63 Stockholm: Allmänna förlaget 34 35 SVENSKA KOMMUNFÖRBUNDET (2002) Att arbeta regionalt — Ett nytt politiskt 36 37 38 uppdrag Stockholm: Svenska Kommunförbundet 39 40 SVERIGES KOMMUNER OCH LANDSTING (2005a) Europarådets Rapport: Om 41 42 lokal och regional demokrati i Sverige Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och 43 44 45 Landsting 46 47 SVERIGES KOMMUNER OCH LANDSTING (2005b) Statistisk årsbok för 48 49 50 landsting 2005 Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting 51 52 SOM (2006) Invånarna positivare till regionen URL address: 53 54 http://www.som.gu.se/i_medierna.htm accessed December 2006 55 56 57 58 59 60
31 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 32 of 37
1 2 3 4 5 Table 1. Processes of Regionalisation 6 7 8 Top-down Regionalisation Bottom-up Regionalisation 9 10 Regional planning – when the nation Regional mobilisation – where political 11 state attempts to direct the movements challenge the legitimacy and the 12 localisation of growth i.e. institutions of the national state 13 localisation policy in Sweden 14 15 16 Regional functionsFor – thePeer emergence ReviewDemocratisation – Onlyin this case regionalisation 17 of special functions for the regional represents the extension of rights and equality, 18 level, for example within the welfare as the rise of identity politics coincided with a 19 state. reaction against centralisation in southern 20 European states i.e. Spain, Portugal and 21 22 Greece 23 24 Crisis of the state – reformers of the Role of regional elites – the interests and 25 state who are keen on more levels of strategies of regional elites which articulate a 26 government as they can ‘off-load’ demand for regional government, and usually 27 uncomfortable and un-popular they and their organisations also benefit from 28 29 decisions to lower levels the transfer of power from the centre 30 downwards 31 32 The European Union – new 33 regionalisation and the partnership 34 principle within EU structural funds 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
32 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 33 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table 2. Key people in the current regionalisation process in Sweden* 8 9 10 Name/Political Position Role played 11 affiliation* 12 Martin Political adviser to Jörgen Was political adviser to Jörgen 13 Andreae (s) Andersson Andersson in the Department of the 14 15 Interior and was instrumental in the 16 For Peer Reviewwriting ofOnly the Government Bill 17 which introduced the Regional Pilot 18 Project. 19 20 Jörgen Minister of the Interior, Paved the way politically at central 21 Andersson (s) 1996-1998 level for the introduction of the 22 Regional Pilot Project. 23 24 Bengt County Council Politician, Initiator of the current 25 Holgersson (s) chair of the Social regionalisation process in Skåne 26 Democratic Party District 27 and chair the Federation of 28 County Councils 29 30 Sven Group-leader of Social Together with Lars Nordström and 31 Hulterström (s) Democratic MPs and part Kent Johansson, he was successful 32 of various Commissions in securing this issue within their 33 34 into the regional level political parties. 35 Göran ‘Heavy-weight’ local He supported the regionalisation 36 Johansson (s) politician in Gothenburg process in ‘west’ Sweden thus the 37 38 municipality was not against the 39 region. 40 Kent Johansson County Council politician Together with Lars Nordström and 41 42 (c) later Regional Assembly Sven Hulterström, he was successful 43 politician in securing this issue within their 44 political parties. 45 Local politician in the city ‘Founding father’ of the Regional 46 Roger Kaliff (s) 47 of Kalmar and member of Council in Kalmar County together 48 Sydsam with Stig Davidsson (c). 49 Anders The Centre Party’s The Centre Party’s representative in 50 51 Ljunggren (c) representative in the the Cabinet Office and instrumental 52 Cabinet office together with Martin Andrea in 53 writing the Government Bill which 54 introduced the Regional Pilot 55 Project 56 57 Lars County Council politician Together with Kent Johansson and 58 Nordström (fp) later Regional Assembly Sven Hulterström, he was successful 59 politician in securing this issue within their 60 political parties.
33 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 34 of 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 (Political affiliation: (s) Social Democratic Party; (c) Centre Party; (fp) Liberal Party) 7 * During the second round of fieldwork I presented this list to key persons in the 8 current regionalisation process, and asked what role they had played and if someone 9 10 was missing. Although some names other than those presented in table 1 surfaced, the 11 vast majority of interviewees agreed that the people on the above list played the key 12 roles. 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
34 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 35 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table 3. Who speaks for the Regional Level in Sweden in Regard to Regional Policy 9 today? 10 11 12 13 Agency ‘Spokesperson’ 14 15 County Administration Board Civil servant 16 For Peer Review Only 17 Regional Pilot Project Region Elected politician 18 19 20 Regional Development Council Indirectly elected politician 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Regional Studies Page 36 of 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Who what 8 Table 4. is responsible for ? 9 10 11 Level Central State Regional Municipal 12 Responsibility: - That all citizens in the - to draw up - full 13 county, no matter where regional responsibility for 14 15 one live, is guaranteed development planning 16 Foran equalPeer standard Reviewin programmes Onlyand to according to the 17 regard to certain welfare co-ordinate planning and 18 services such as care development building law; 19 and education; measures; - to participate in 20 21 - Long-term stable - decide on the regional 22 conditions for regional priorities with development 23 development work. regard to work. 24 infrastructure 25 measures etc.; 26 27 - decide on certain 28 central state 29 funding for 30 regional 31 development; 32 33 - be given and 34 prepare EU 35 structural fund 36 applications; 37 38 - follow-up 39 measures and 40 effects of the 41 development work 42 within the county; 43 44 - send a yearly 45 report to the 46 government in 47 respect of measures 48 49 and their effects. 50 51 52 Source: SVENSKA KOMMUNFÖRBUNDET (2002:3) 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
36 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected] Page 37 of 37 Regional Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Map 1. Political Majority in County Council after 2006 Election 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
37 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cres Email: [email protected]