New Defenders of the Welfare State?
The Restructuring of the Swedish Welfare State and the Role of Civil Society in
the Policy Process
Paper presented at
“The voluntary sector in the Nordic countries: Change agents and contract partners?”
Bergen, May 18 - 20 2011
Erik Lundberg
Örebro University
Sweden
This article focuses on the changing level of participation of civil society organisations in the
policy process between 1964 and 2009 and its implication for the role civil society organisation
in the Swedish welfare state. Drawing on data from the remiss-procedure, one of the most
understudied aspects of the Swedish policy making process, the article demonstrates that the role
of civil society organisations has been reduced. In addition, the article draws attention to an
ongoing shift from conflict and member benefit oriented organisations to consensus and public
benefit oriented organisations. The findings implies that civil society organisations functioning
as arenas for deliberation and mediators of individual interests have gradually been losing
ground in relation to the state, while organisations taking direct welfare responsibility have
increased. These findings are put in the context of the changes in the coordination and
implementation of the welfare state; and indicate that the welfare state is now less dependent on
the interest groups and old social movements that expanded the welfare state, and more
dependent on service organisations that can contribute towards upholding it.
Introduction
A hallmark of the process of Swedish public policy is the prominent position of civil society1.
After the industrial development and the consolidation of democracy, civil society organisations
came to be indispensible as a vehicle between the state and the citizens. At an early stage, large
interest organisations were considered as self-evident political actors equal to the political parties
and demonstrated a potential to take public responsibility and act as influential key players vis-àvis the state during the formation of welfare policies (Heckscher, 1951, Micheletti, 1994:62-66,
Micheletti, 1998:42f, Back, 1967, Elvander, 1966, Rothstein, 1992).
In recent decades several signs of shifting boundaries between state and civil society have
become apparent. In the mid 1980s, civil society organisations were endorsed to operate as
1
Civil society is defined as formal or informal organisations based on voluntariness and are characterised by five
1
welfare service producers in childcare and schools (SOU1986:33-35) and were later
acknowledged as a complement to the public welfare production (Wijkström and Lundström,
2002:205). Nowadays, public welfare is stressed as a complement to civil society.2 In addition,
the “compact culture”, introduced in Britain in the late 1990s, has found its way into Swedish
state civil society relations recognizing the democratic role of civil society as well as welfare
service producers (Regeringen, 2008).
Scholars have raised the question as to whether the role of civil society has shifted from input to
output in the political process linking this to the restructuring of the welfare state (Amnå, 1995,
Amnå, 2006b:8f, Amnå, 2007:177, Wijkström, 2004, Wijkström, 2010:38f, Lundström and
Wijkström, 1995). However, empirical evidence has been sparse and often viewed from a
corporatist perspective focussing on a rather limited part on civil society, i.e. producer interests
(Lundberg, 2011b). A more comprehensive picture of the role of civil society in the policy
process is simply missing, particularly from an historical perspective. The aim of this article is to
fill this gap and address the following overarching question: How has the participation of civil
society in the policy process changed during the second half of the 1900s and what does that
implies for the function of civil society to the welfare state?
In a comparative perspective, Sweden is known for its centralized state governing structure based
on a strong corporatist tradition. Public policies have been produced in close cooperation with
major interest organisations playing a key role for the formation of welfare policies. The most
permanent arena for policy making in Sweden is the government commissions of inquiry.
Almost all major policies and public programs have been prepared through the work of a
government commission where compromises and consensus-seeking processes with civil society
organisations have been an integral part of the policy process. However, from the second half of
the 1900s to the present, the government commissions of inquiry have played a far less
prominent role as arenas for policy making (Gunnarsson and Lemne, 1998, Lundberg, 2011a).
The number of active government commissions has decreased (Premfors et al., 2009:154f), and
public policies are to a greater extent formed by public authorities without the direct participation
of civil society organisations (Zetterberg, 1990:305ff, Larsson, 1994:378ff). The time available
for each inquiry has been reduced (Riksrevisionen, 2004), and the Commissions have been
increasingly steered by the government 3 (Johansson, 1992). Leading scholars have argued that
the “rationalistic model of social steering”, where policies are formed in close collaboration with
the major interest organisations, has changed having consequences for the legitimacy of the state
as well as the operation of democracy (Lindvall and Rothstein, 2006).
In order to shed light over the role of civil society visa-vi the welfare state, this article draws
evidence from the part of the government commission referred to as the remiss-procedure from
1964 to 2009. Drafts of reports and policy proposals are sent out for review and comments to a
2
See for example the Declaration of the Government from 2006.
This has been done by increasing the share of single investigators running the inquiry and reducing the
representative share of politicians.
3
2
large number of organisations considered as having a stake in the policy. The remiss-procedure
is often described as one of the most uniquely Swedish and the most democratic aspect of the
public policy process, where the participation of civil society organisations play an important
role (Elvander, 1966). Yet, it is “one of the most understudied aspect of the policy process”
(Trägårdh, 2007b:264). Three questions are addressed in the article.
1) How has the participation of civil society organisations in the remiss-procedure changed
between 1964 and 2009, and what does that imply for the role of civil society
organisations to the welfare state?
2) How has the share of conflict and consensus oriented organisations in the remissprocedure changed between 1964 and 2009 and what does that imply for the role of civil
society organisations to the welfare state?
3) How has the share of member benefit and public benefit oriented organisations changed
in the remiss-procedure changed between 1964 and 2009 and what does that imply for the
role of civil society organisations to the welfare state?
Before turning to the data, I will first discuss the changes of the Swedish welfare state addressed
above. In the second part the research design is outlined followed by the empirical results in the
third part. Thereafter I discuss the results, and in the fifth and final part the conclusions are
presented.
Shifting the coordination and implementation of welfare policies
In this section I draw attention to three of the most profound dimensions of change of the
Swedish welfare state during the second half of the 1900s (compare Kuhnle and Selle, 1992,
Kendall and Anheier, 2001b:231). The first two dimensions focus on the coordination of the
welfare state policies, namely the Europeanization of the welfare state and implications of a
important role of the European Union (EU), and the second on the move from government to
governance. The third dimension concentrates on the implementation of welfare state policies
and the drift toward decentralisation and privatisation. These dimensions are obviously
intertwined, but I treat them separately to clarify the specific challenges imposed on the welfare
state.
Europeanization
Sweden is often stressed as the most typical example of the Scandinavian welfare states based on
a strong state expected to steer the transformation of society, a large public sector and a small
role of civil society in service production (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Since the1980s the Swedish
welfare state has been under pressure due to internal and external changes (Pierson, 2006a,
Esping-Andersen, 1996:6ff, 55). The integration in the EU serves as one of the most significant
changes influencing the coordination of the welfare state (Pierson, 2006a). An often used entrypoint for understanding the domestic impact of the EU is the term “Europeanization” (Radaelli,
3
2006, Börzel and Risse, 2006). Although it is a contested term with a variety of meanings 4,
Europeanization is based on the argument that political systems of the nation states are
influenced and transformed by EU decisions. Ladrecht (1994:69) has defined Europeanization as
“a process reorienting the direction and shape of politics to the degree that EU political and
economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policymaking.” The essence of this concept is the notion of an institutional adaptation among actors
that redefine their interests and behaviour to meet the imperatives, norms, and logic of EU
membership.
From a rationalist perspective, Europeanization follows from more “rational calculation and
anticipated reactions” (Radaelli, 2003:30) among the actors. According to this view civil society
organisations are politically oriented to the arena where the greatest level of influence can be
attained. From a social perspective, action is guided by an understanding of what is socially
accepted or an appropriate behaviour in a given situation (March and Olsen, 1989). The
“dominance of national institutional tradition” (Esping-Andersen, 1996:6) could thereby lead to a
moderate Europeanization.
Jacobson and Sundström (2006:149) argue that Europeanization has made the state less
autonomous and more fragmented, and the institutional adaptation of the government has been
somewhat limited. Rather than adapting to the new environment, the government has, to a great
extent, legitimised the old forms of governing (Jacobsson and Sundström, 2006:149-161). In the
coordination of EU policies, civil society organisations have a weak position in relation to the
state and the contacts between these two actors have been informal, irregular and non-transparent
(Jacobsson and Sundström, 2006:132). Therefore, the possibilities among civil society
organisations to influence the EU via the state can be considered as rather limited. On the other
hand, civil society organisations are able to take direct action vis-avis the EU.
New modes of governing
Over the last decades the traditional and democratic corporatist tradition with close interaction
between major interest organisations and the state has changed. Decision making, such as the
government commissions, previously among the most centralised in the world, were formally
decentralised in the early 1980s. In 1991 when the Swedish Employers‟ Confederation (SAF)
withdrew from the boards of almost all government, scholars declared the end of corporatism
(Rothstein and Bergström, 1999, Hermansson et al., 1999). With reference to interest
organisations, Lindvall and Sebring (2005) claim that not only has the formal framework of
administrative corporatism changed, but also the norms and practices of corporatism that existed
in Sweden until the 1970s and early 1980s have changed or disappeared.
4 One category of studies considers Europeanization as a result or an effect, whereas others see it as a process, an
interaction between the EU and domestic policy processes. See example Olsen (2002) for a discussion of the
concept.
4
While the typical corporatist forms of organising the relationship have diminished, more
horizontal arenas for public policy making have evolved (Pierre and Peters, 2000, Rhodes,
1997). Public policies are being made in more informal ways, and the state is increasingly
engaging in co-regulation, co-steering in different policy networks and partnerships that cross the
boundaries between state and civil society (Pierre and Sundström, 2009, Sørensen and Torfing,
2007). Public policies are to a greater extent made outside of traditional arenas for policy making
such as the Government Commission. This creates legitimacy problems for the of the state, since
the process of how policies should be produced and implemented is not clear to the public
(Lindvall and Rothstein, 2006). The question whether the state has pulled back from the central
coordination of the welfare state is a contentious issue. With reference to the Swedish
environmental policies, Hysing (2010) argue that the state has not reduced its power but simply
steers at a distance.
Finally, although the typical corporatist relationship does not exist, some scholars argue that
corporatist elements still are important in the Swedish policy process. Considering the changing
context of the welfare state, it is possible that government actors is seeking to establish a
relationship with different types of social actors in order to tackle the new challenges of the
welfare state such as societal aging and pension funding (Pierson, 2006b:348f).
Decentralisation and privatisation
Within the last 20 years the Scandinavian welfare states in general and Sweden in particular,
have experienced a drift towards decentralization and privatization (Esping-Andersen, 1996:14).
As the welfare state suffered from fiscal crisis in the 1980s and 1990s, private sector
management styles were introduced under the heading of New Public Management (NPM) in
order to improve the efficiency, quality and effectiveness of the public sector (Politt and
Bouckaert, 2004). Some scholars argue that these deliberate adjustments of the structure and the
processes of the public sector have changed the notion and aspirations of the state from being the
sole producer of welfare services to being a purchaser or a guarantor (Montin, 1992). In order to
improve the efficiency, the state has rolled back from the implementation of public services to
focus on steering and evaluations according to private-sector management principles.
Secondly, the drift toward decentralisation and privatisation can also be understood in relation to
the critique of the welfare state as being inflexible and failing to meet the heterogeneous needs
and expectations among citizens (Blomqvist and Rothstein, 2000:55). During the expansion
phase, the welfare state represented ideals of universalism and equality, which emerged in
relation to a comparatively homogeneous industrial working class. The greater occupational and
life cycle differentiation that characterizes post-industrial society has resulted in more
heterogeneous needs and expectations among citizens. Citizens of the post-modern welfare states
are more individualized and seek personal self-fulfilment and autonomy to a greater extent. They
demand greater participation and more personal control and individualized solutions in the
welfare state delivery than they did previously (Beck, 1992, Ingelhart, 1997, Esping-Andersen,
1996:8f). Thirdly, today‟s challenges are about the new social risks as the demographic changes,
5
caused by a combination of low fertility and longer life expectancy, engender burdensome
dependency ratios without a strong economic growth and further these tendencies (Pierson,
2006a:212-221).
These changes have influenced the environment of civil society and furthered organisations to
take on a greater role as welfare service producers. In order to increase the effectiveness of the
public sector and tackle a more heterogeneous society and shifting citizen demands, the Swedish
state has turned to civil society to inject resources and legitimacy in the welfare state delivery
(Kendall and Anheier, 2001b). Simultaneously, the state policy towards civil society has changed
implicitly encouraging civil society as service providers (Prop.2009/10:55). Measures have also
been taken for a clearer distinction between funding and service delivery (Johansson, 2005).
Taken together, societal actors that acted as service producers before the expansion of the
welfare state, seem to constitute an important resource for the structural adjustment of the
welfare state in line with another welfare mix (Ascoli and Ranci, 2002).
Data and methods
In order to analyse the role of civil society organisations in the policy process, this article draws
evidence from the remiss-system, which is the process where reports produced by government
commissions are distributed to a large number of recipients according to a list created by the
government. It is also an open process, and anyone is free to send written comments, which
constitute important pieces of information for the government to write the bill to the parliament.
The remiss-procedure is one of the most important arenas for public policy making in Sweden
formally ascribed in the constitution and acknowledge by civil society as an important arena for
participation (Elvander, 1966). As such, it is an appropriate area for studying the role of civil
society in the public policy-making process, especially from an historical perspective.
The data includes 33 remiss-lists between 1964 and 2009 and includes 728 different civil society
organisations.5 Thereby, the article covers a period when the corporatist system was particularly
pronounced, another period characterized by the expansion and the transformation of the welfare
state and yet another period marked by the introduction of NPM and of adaptation of EU
membership. The remiss-lists include nine different policy fields, namely alcohol, housing,
fishing, integration, hunting, nuclear energy, public service, social and education policies.
Together, they represent a broad palette of policy areas. From each policy area three to five
comparable government commissions have been chosen, which enable comparisons over time.
These policy areas do not cover the whole range policies subject for “remiss”, but they are broad
enough to lend themselves to conclusions about the role of civil society.
In order to deepen the understanding of the role played by civil society organisations in the
remiss-procedure, the article considers different ways of participating in the remiss-procedure.
5
1964 was chosen as the starting point since it is the oldest inquiry in one of the policy areas.
6
As illustrated in Table 1, an organisation can act in three different ways in the remiss-procedure.
An organisation can choose to reply, abstain, or reply spontaneously. For purposes of this
research “actual replies” include those recipients who have chosen to reply and those who have
replied spontaneously, while “recipients” involves the organisations requested by the
government to answer the remiss. By these means, actual replies measure the interest of civil
society vis-à-vis the remiss-procedure while recipients indicate the interest of the government.
Table 1
Dimensions of participation in the remiss-procedure
Actual replies
Chose to reply (replies)
x
Chose not to reply
(abstentions)
Spontaneous replies
x
Recipients
x
x
Types of civil society organisations
In order to broaden the picture of the Swedish civil society, I introduce a typology based on a
differentiated conception of civil society (Wollebæck and Selle, 2002, Wollebæk and Selle,
2008:48-50). Firstly, the typology makes a distinction between conflict and consensus oriented
organisations and secondly between member oriented and public oriented organisations. The
conflict dimension stresses the role of organisations as a democratic infrastructure and as
mediators of interests. The consensus dimension embraces a social rather than political
understanding of civil society and emphasises the role of organisations as arenas for recreation,
social integration in local communities and contributors of welfare services. Public benefit
oriented organisations serve non-members (i.e., „„the public‟‟) rather than members, whereas
member benefit groups work exclusively for those affiliated with the group.
Table 2
Types of civil society organisations
Conflict oriented
Consensus oriented
Member benefit oriented
Interest organisations
Community based
organisations
Public benefit oriented
Old social
New social
movements
movements
Service organisations
Source: Partly modified (Wollebæk and Selle, 2008, Wollebæck and Selle, 2002)
7
All together, the typology includes five types of organisations.7 First, interest organisations are
conflict and member oriented. These groups are considered as genuine expressions of people‟s
interests and preferences and seek to maximize the individual benefits of members and compete
with each other in relation to the state. Interest organisations are ascribed essential democratic
importance by scholars in the pluralist vein (Dahl, 1982). This group includes organisations such
as labour organisations, and organisations for sick and disabled people. i
The second category consists of old social movements, which are conflict and public benefit
oriented. These are critical organisations which strive to challenge established consensus in
society and function as a democratic infrastructure seeking common interests, not only as
representing the individual members of the organisations. Their main function is to express and
institutionalise the value pluralism in society (Cohen and Arato, 1995). Old social movements
strive to question consensus in society, are driven by routines and are often locally and nationally
organised. Traditional movements, folk high schools and study circles are included in this
group.ii
The new social movements comprise the third category. Just like the old social movements, they
are conflict and public benefit oriented organisations and strive to challenge established
consensus in society and express and institutionalise value pluralism in society. In contrast to the
old social movements, the new social movements are less constrained by routines, more informal
and sometimes leaning towards civil disobedience as a means of influencing the public agenda
(Thörn, 1998, Tarrow and Meyer, 1998). These are organisations we regularly associate with
local protest organisations, action groups and some environmental organisations. iii
The fourth category, community based organisations, is characterized as being member based
and consensus oriented. In contrast to the interest organisations, theses groups tend to be
apolitical and do not include political programmes as a leading principle. The emphasize is rather
on direct interaction and networking among the members that are central. The main purpose is to
supply members with benefits, usually in the form of leisure activities, knowledge, personal
networks and socialization. This type of organisation is strongly valued by the sprawling social
capital literature (Putnam, 2000). Sport organisations, hunting associations and religious
organisations are examples of groups in this category.iv
The fifth category includes service organisations, which are both public benefit and consensus
oriented. These organisations can be viewed as the counterpart to interest organisations, which
place utility maximation and self interest at the core of understanding human actions. Instead,
7
The categorization is based on information provided by each organization's website. In cases where there is no
website, secondary sources have been used, for example, websites of other organisations, investigations and reports.
In a few cases, organisations have defied categorization and have been excluded from the study. A few organizations
are multi-purpose organisations and have bearing on several categories. This has been handled by studying how
organisations have ranked their preferences in their respective statutes. Here, it is assumed that the hierarchy of the
organization's objectives plays a role in the organization's "identity" in each category. In cases where the statutes are
not sufficient consideration has been given to information on the activities and tasks of the organisation.
8
service organisations direct their focus on building good local communities, solving social
problems, and securing a sense of belonging. As such, they do not only work for the interests of
their members, but take considerable responsibility for the benefit of the public. Social and
humanitarian organisations as well as self-help groups are examples of organisations in this
category. v
How does the role of these organisations in the remiss-procedure relate to the adjustment of the
welfare state? Returning to the restructuring of the welfare state previously discussed, some
results can be expected. Firstly, due to the Europeanization of the welfare state, there is reason to
believe that conflict oriented organisations have shifted their position in line with
Europeanization, leading to a lesser or moderate activity in policy-making on the national level.
A similar consequence can be expected as a result of a more governance oriented way of
steering. Secondly, it is possible to expect to find a move from member benefit to public benefit
oriented organisations and particularly to service oriented organisations. The challenges of the
welfare and a higher demand for individual solutions in welfare production simply calls for
another balance between state led and private welfare provisions.
The role of civil society in the remiss-procedure
How has the participation of civil society organisations in the remiss-procedure changed between
1964 and 2009, and what does this imply for the role of civil society organisations vis-à-vis the
state? As noted above, researchers have emphasised civil society organisations as key actors visà-vis the state in the formation of public policies (Rothstein, 1992, Heckscher, 1951, Micheletti,
1994:62-66, Micheletti, 1998:42, Elvander, 1966). The result of this study partly agrees and
partly disagrees with these statements. On the one hand, the findings demonstrate that the
numbers of civil society organisations in the remiss-procedure increased slightly between 1964
and 2009 indicating a stronger presence of civil society. In addition, civil society organisations
are substantial actors relative to state8 and market9 actors with about 30 per cent of the actual
replies in the remiss-procedure (compare Eriksson et al., 1999). On the other hand and as Figure
1 demonstrates, the relative share of civil society organisations has decreased while state and
market actors have increased.
8 The State refers to municipal and state agencies and organisations, the judiciary and companies that are more than
half-owned by public entities.
9 The market refers to any organisation not defined as state actors or civil society organisations.
9
Figure 1
The share of actual replies of civil society organisations, state and market actors between
1964 and 2009
100
90
80
70
60
Civil society
50
State
40
Market
30
20
10
0
1964-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
During the first period (1964-1979), civil society organisations represented 38 per cent of the
total number of actual replies in the remiss-procedure. In relation to the last period (2000-2009)
this number has declined to 27 per cent. Examining the proportional number of recipients, there
is a slightly upward tendency during the last period (2000-2009), though the general picture is
unaltered: civil society organisations have gradually been losing ground in relation to state as
well as market actors.
Further, the share abstentions have increased from 4.2 per cent during the first period (19641979) to 9.9 per cent during the last period (2000-2009).10 These figures are higher in
comparison to state and market actors. Looking at the same figures within the civil society
organisations, the proportional share of recipients that decided not to answer has increased from
17 to 29 per cent during the same period (compare Eriksson et al., 1999:46). The downturn is not
offset by an increase of spontaneous replies – they have in fact remained relatively stable
accounting for roughly about 30 per cent of the total replies. As discussed below, the declining
levels of society organisations in the remiss-procedure can be understood in relation to shifting
coordination and implementation of welfare state policies.
10
The change between 1964 and 2009 for civil society is significant at 90 per cent level.
10
Conflict and consensus dimension
How has the share of conflict and consensus oriented organisations in the remiss-procedure
changed between 1964 and 2009? As Tables 3 and 4 display conflict oriented organisations
comprise the largest numbers of actual replies and lead the policy making process in relation to
the state. However, conflict oriented organisations have gradually decreased their proportional
participation by over 10 per cent in relation to state and market. Simultaneously, consensus
oriented organisations have decreased by 2 per cent between the first and last period. Over time,
conflict oriented organisations have reduced their role vis-à-vis the state.
Table 3
The share of actual replies between 1964 and 2009 by conflict and consensus oriented
organisations
1964-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 Difference
Conflict
28.5
21
17.6
18.2
– 10.3
Consensus
9.6
11.3
7.8
7.6
–2
State
60.7
66.1
73.3
68.8
+8.1
Market
1.2
1.6
1.3
5.4
+3.9
%
100
100
100
100
N
786
528
848
1191
+405
Table 4
The share of recipients between 1964 and 2009 by consensus and conflict oriented
organisations
1964-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 Difference
Conflict
28.2
21.6
16.7
19.7
– 8.5
Consensus
6.3
6.4
4.9
6.9
+0.3
State
64.2
68.7
76.6
67.5
+3.3
Market
1.3
3.3
1.8
5.9
+4.6
%
100
100
100
100
N
732
473
877
1135
+403
A tendency towards a declining role of conflict oriented organisations vis-à-vis the state is
evident when looking at the parallel development of the share of recipients. Conflict oriented
organisations have decreased by 8.5 per cent (see Table 4) while consensus oriented
organisations have increased by 0.3 per cent. These results indicate that the state has gradually
turned its head from conflict oriented organisations to consensus oriented organisations.
Member benefit and public benefit dimension
How has the share of member benefit and public benefit oriented organisations in the remissprocedure changed between 1964 and 2009? Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate that member benefit
oriented organisations comprise the largest share of organisations in the remiss-procedure (see
Table 5). However, the share of actual replies from member benefit oriented organisations has
decreased by 9.9 per cent and the public benefit oriented organisations with 2.3 per cent in
relation to the state.
11
Table 5
The share of actual replies between 1964 and 2009 by member benefit and public benefit
oriented organisations
1964-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 Difference
Member benefit
29.8
24.5
18.0
19.8
– 10
Public benefit
8.3
7.8
7.4
6.0
– 2.3
State
60.7
66.1
73.3
68.8
+8.1
Market
1.2
1.6
1.3
5.4
+3.9
%
100
100
100
100
N
786
528
848
1191
+405
Table 6
The share of recipients between 1964 and 2009 by member benefit and public benefit
oriented organisations
1964-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 Difference
Member benefit
27.0
20.1
16.3
18.8
– 8.2
Public benefit
7.5
7.9
5.3
7.8
+0.3
State
64.2
68.7
76.6
67.5
+3.3
Market
1.3
3.3
1.8
5.9
+4.6
%
100
100
100
100
N
732
473
877
1135
+403
Focussing on the proportional share of recipients, Table 6 illustrates that the overall tendency is
similar; the number of member benefit oriented organisations in the remiss-procedure has
decreased. However, the results demonstrate a small increase for the public benefit oriented
organisations. In order to deepen the analysis, differences between the types of organisations
must be revealed.
Types of organisations
Unravelling the results from the outset of types of civil society organisations, makes the
tendencies of a shifting role of civil society in the public policy process become more evident.
Table 7 demonstrates that interest organisations, old social movements and community based
organisations have decreased, while service organisations have proportionally increased
participation in the remiss-procedure in relation to the state. The largest decrease is found among
interest organisations with 6.2 per cent followed by old social movements with 4 per cent and
community based organisations with 3.7 per cent. By contrast, service organisations have
increased 1.7 per cent.
12
Table 7
The share of actual replies between 1964 and 2009 by different types of civil society
organisations
1964198019902000Difference
1979
1989
1999
2009
Interest organisations
21.3
15.4
13.5
15.1
-6.2
Old social movements
6.8
5.6
4
2.8
-4
New social movements
0.3
0
0.3
0.3
0
Community based organisations
8.4
9.0
4.5
4.7
-3.7
Service organisations
1.2
2.2
3.2
2.9
+1.7
State
60.7
66.1
73.3
68.8
+8.1
Market
1.2
1.6
1.3
5.4
+3.9
%
100
100
100
100
N
786
528
848
1191
+405
Table 8
The share of recipients between 1964 and 2009 by different types of civil society
organisations
1964198019902000Difference
1979
1989
1999
2009
Interest organisations
21.5
16.1
14.0
15.8
-5.7
Old social movements
6.7
5.5
2.6
3.6
-3.1
New social movements
0
0
0.2
0.2
+0.2
Community based organisations
5.5
4.0
2.4
2.9
-2.6
Service organisations
0.8
2.4
2.5
3.9
+3.1
State
64.2
68.7
76.6
67.5
+3.3
Market
1.3
3.3
1.8
5.9
+4.6
%
100
100
100
100
N
732
473
877
1135
+ 403
This shifting role of civil society in the remiss-procedure can partly be explained by a changing
interest by the government. Table 8 illustrates that in particular interest organisations and old
social movements have decreased while service oriented organisations are the only type of
organisation that has increased. During the first period (1964-1979) service organisations
represented 0.8 per cent of the recipients in the remiss-procedure. During the last period, 20002009 this number increased to over 3.9 per cent. Interestingly, new social movements are almost
completely absent during the period and do not seek influence in the remiss-procedure and are
not wanted. In sum, next to a decreasing role of interest organisations there appears to be an
incentive within the state calling for civil society organisations to become more active as
contributors of welfare and arenas for recreation rather than mediators of interests and arenas for
deliberation and debate.
13
Table 9
Proportional share of abstentions by types of organisations
1964198019901979
1989
1999
Interest organisations
17%
23%
18%
Old social movements
25%
43%
21%
New social movements
0%
0%
0%
Community based organisations
7%
39%
52%
Service organisations
10%
25%
18%
20002009
29%
54%
0%
47%
60%
Difference
+12%
+29%
0%
+40%
+50%
However, the increasing interests in service organisations are not entirely met by the
organisations themselves. The number of absent replies is highest among service organisations.
Sixty per cent of the organisations decided not to answer a remiss during the last period (20002009). In comparison, 29 per cent of the interest organisations abstain. It is possible that the
strong institutional relation rooted in a corporative collaboration between interest organisations
and the state led to a higher number of responses. On the contrary, this relation between service
organisations and the state resulted in a higher number of absent responses.
Discussion
How can the participation of civil society organisations in the remiss-procedure between 1964
and 2009 be understood? Firstly, the declining levels of participating organisations, increasing
levels of absent replies and the move from conflict to consensus provide evidence for a changing
focus of civil society organisations away from national arenas for policy making towards other
arenas such as the EU. The combination of an increasing relevance of the EU (Kendall and
Anheier, 2001a), a more globalized civil society (Amnå, 2006b) and organisations receiving
weak positions in the coordination of the EU policies at national levels (Jacobsson and
Sundström, 2006) could be important drivers for this change. Rather than acting in line with
what is socially accepted or in line with a national institutional tradition (March and Olsen,
1989), civil society organisations act rationally (Radaelli, 2003:30) and turn to the level where
the greatest level of influence can be attained.
Secondly, the decreasing number of civil society organisations in the remiss-procedure in general
and the shift from conflict to consensus in particular can be understood in the light of a more
governance-oriented way of steering. While traditional forms of social steering such as the
government commissions are losing ground (Johansson, 1992, Lundberg, 2011a), public policies
are formed to a greater extent in more informal partnerships and networks (Pierre and
Sundström, 2009). Bearing in mind the unique, open and comparatively transparent setting of the
Swedish policy making, new forms of steering open up for a more closed way of policy making
with less control, making it more difficult to keep track of the political actors (Lindvall and
Rothstein, 2006). In addition, the fact that civil society appears to turn away from one of the key
14
arenas for policy making in Sweden, challenges the notion of the strong centralist state as well as
that of a highly institutional interaction between interest organisations and the state.
Thirdly, emergent shifts from member benefit to public benefit and in particular from interest
organisations to service organisations bring changes in the output side of the welfare state to the
forefront. Concurrently as the welfare state is challenged by a more heterogeneous society and
shifting citizen demands, service organisations have gradually come to occupy a more prominent
position in the policy process. This appears to be the result of a state interest for a more central
role for service organisations in the policy making process. The government simply calls for a
greater participation from service oriented organisations while the significance of interest
organisations successively has faded. As Pierson remarks, the political goals of policy makers
appear to have influenced the way the challenges of the welfare states are tacked as well as the
relation to social actors (Pierson, 2006b:348f).
These findings indicate that the state is now less dependent on interest groups and old social
movements that where the key actors in order to expand the welfare state, and more dependent
on the ones that contribute to uphold it. It is possible that by including service organisations in
the policy process the state is able to minimize critiques and political losses due to cutbacks on
the existing social programs. In other words, the state does not “need” the interest groups and the
old social movements as an instrument for policy making to the extent that it once did. Some
conflict oriented organisations such as interest groups and old social movements will continue to
challenge the state by representing the interests of their members and by operating as an arena
for social change. But compared to the 60s and 70s civil society will to a greater extent produce
the services to those rights the interest organisations previously defended.
As highlighted above, new social movements are almost completely absent in the remissprocedure. They do not seek influence in the remiss-procedure and are not wanted. With
reference to the growing individualisation, diminished support for the large-scale mass
movements (Amnå, 2007) and incentives to participate in the formation of public policies
(Amnå, 2006a), it could be expected that new social movements could compensate for the
declining level of conflict oriented organisations (Tranvik and Selle, 2005). Apparently, the
remiss-procedure is not attractive as a channel for citizen interest.
It must be noted that these findings are not representative of the remiss-procedure or the
government commissions, which make generalizations difficult. Even though the whole picture
may not presented here, the article draws evidence from a broad palette of policy areas in
Swedish politics and can therefore provide a relatively fair picture. Further, this article does not
explicitly scrutinize the nature of civil society and it is possible that some of the tendencies in the
results can be explained by the developments in civil society. At the same time, since the
methodological approach includes the spontaneous replies of organisations, it is relatively
sensitive to this aspect.
15
Finally, one methodological insight from this article is the importance of applying a
differentiated analytical model of civil society, particularly for studies with an historical
approach. Previous research has a bias towards interest organisations and old social movements,
which may have obscured important questions. By opening up for a wider approach, new
insights on civil society and its relation to the state can be attained.
Conclusions
This article began by asking how the participation of civil society in the policy process has
changed during the second half of the 1900s and what this implies for the function of civil
society visa-vi the welfare state. Drawing on data from the remiss-procedure between 1964 and
2009, one of the most institutional arenas for policy making in Sweden, the results provide
evidence of a reduced role of civil society in the policy process and shifting boundaries to the
state. By using a differentiated analytical model of civil society exposing five different types of
organisations, I have been able to detect tendencies of an emergent shift in the role of civil
society organisations from conflict and member benefit oriented organisations to consensus and
public benefit oriented organisations. Interest organisations and old social movements are less
active and sought after by the state. In contrast, service organisations have increased their
proportional participation in relation to the state and are more called for. This implies that civil
society organisations functioning as arenas for deliberation and a mediator of individual interests
have gradually been losing ground in relation to the state, while service providers taking direct
welfare responsibility have increased.
The declining share of conflict oriented organisations as well as the increasing number of absent
responses may be understood in light of the increasing relevance of the EU and the changing
modes of state governing. Public policies may be formed to a greater extent in more informal
partnerships and networks, making traditional forms of social steering as the remiss-procedure
less prominent. Further, as the welfare state has been challenged by processes of
individualisation, privatisations, a more heterogeneous society and the necessity for
effectiveness, service organisations have concurrently occupied a more prominent position,
partly due to state incentives. The growing interest in service organisations may be an attempt by
the state to overcome these challenges. Altogether, these findings indicate that the state is now
less dependent on the interest groups and old social movements that expanded the welfare state,
and more dependent on the service organisations that can contribute towards upholding it.
Important questions for future research are what characteristics of civil society organisations that
determine access to policy making arenas such as the remiss-procedure? Further, the increasing
interest in service organisations raises the question if we are witnessing a new corporatist relation
between service organisations and the state?
16
References
AHRNE, G., BOSTRÖM, M. & FORSELL, A. 2004. Meningen med föreningen. In: BOSTRÖM, M., FORSELL,
A., JACOBSSON, K. & TAMM HELLSTRÖM, K. (eds.) Den organiserade frivilligheten. Malmö: Liber.
AMNÅ, E. 1995. Det mångtydiga mellanrummet In: AMNÅ, E. (ed.) Medmänsklighet att hyra? Åtta
forskare om ideell verksamhet. Örebro: Libris.
AMNÅ, E. 2006a. Former för samhällsengagemang, en jämförande studie av gamla och nya rörelser. In:
JUSTITIEDEPARTEMENTET (ed.). Stockholm.
AMNÅ, E. 2006b. Still a trustworthy ally? Civil society and the transformation of Scandinavian
democracy. Journal of Civil Society, 2, 1-20.
AMNÅ, E. 2007. Associational Life, Youth, and Political Capital Formation in Sweden: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Trends. In: TRÄGÅRDH, L. (ed.) State and Civil society in Northern Europe, The
Swedish Model Reconsidered. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
ASCOLI, U. & RANCI, C. 2002. Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an era of
privatization, New York, Kluwer Academic.
BACK, P.-E. 1967. Sammanslutningarnas roll i politiken 1870-1920, Lund, Studentlitteratur.
BECK, U. 1992. Risk Society : towards a New Modernity, London, Sage Publications.
BLOMQVIST, P. & ROTHSTEIN, B. 2000. Välfärdsstatens nya ansikte, Demokrati och marknadsreformer
inom den offentliga sektorn, Stockholm, Agora.
BÖRZEL, A. T. & RISSE, T. 2006. Europeanization: The Domestic Impact of European Union Politics. In:
JORGESEN, K. E., POLLACK, A. M. & ROSAMOND, B. (eds.) Handbook of European Union Politics.
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
COHEN, J. L. & ARATO, A. 1995. Det civila samhället och den politiska teorin, Göteborg, Daidalos.
DAHL, A. R. 1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy, autonomy vs. control New Haven, Yale University
Press.
ELVANDER, N. 1966. Intresseorganisationerna i dagens Sverige, Lund, Gleerup.
ERIKSSON, L.-E., LEMNE, M. & PÅLSSON, I. 1999. Demokrati på remiss. In: UTREDNINGAR, S. O. (ed.).
Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer.
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism Cambridge, Polity
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. 1996. After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy. In:
ESPING-ANDERSEN, G. (ed.) Welfare States in Transition, National Adaptations in Global
Economies. London, Thousans Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
GUNNARSSON, V. & LEMNE, M. 1998. Kommittéerna och bofinken, Kan en kommitté se ut hur som
helst? Rapport till expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi. In: FINANSDEPARTEMENTET
(ed.). Stockholm: Finansdepartementet.
HECKSCHER, G. 1951. Staten och organisationerna, Stockholm, Kooporativa förbundets bokförlag.
HERMANSSON, J., LUND, A., SVENSSON, T. & ÖBERG, P. 1999. Avkorporativisering och lobbyism konturerna till en ny politisk modell? In: 1991:121, S. O. U. (ed.). Stockholm: Fakta Info Direkt.
HYSING, E. 2010. Governing towards Sustainability, Environmental Governance and Policy Change in
Swedish Forestry and Transport, Örebro, Örebro University.
INGELHART, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in
43 Societies, Princeton Princeton University Press.
JACOBSSON, B. & SUNDSTRÖM, G. 2006. Från hemvävd till invävd, Europeiseringen av svensk förvaltning
och politik, Malmö, Liber.
JOHANSSON, J. 1992. Det statliga kommittéväsendet, kunskap, kontroll, konsensus, Stockholm,
Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Stockholms universitet.
JOHANSSON, S. 2005. Ideella mål med offentliga medel, förändrade förutsättningar för ideell välfärd
Stockholm, Sober förlag.
17
KENDALL, J. & ANHEIER, H. K. 2001a. The third sector and the European Union policy process : an initial
evaluation. Third sector policy at the crossroads : an international nonprofit analysis. London:
Routledge.
KENDALL, J. & ANHEIER, K. H. 2001b. The Third Sector at the crossroad? Social, political and economic
dynamics. In: ANHEIER K., H. & KENDALL, J. (eds.) Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads, An
international nonprofit analysis. London, New York: Routledge.
KUHNLE, S. & SELLE, P. 1992. Government and Voluntary Organizations, Avebury, Aldershot.
LADRECH, R. 1994. Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France. JCMS:
Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 69-88.
LARSSON, T. 1994. Det svenska statsskicket, Lund, Studentlitteratur.
LINDVALL, J. & ROTHSTEIN, B. 2006. Sweden: The Fall of the Strong State. Scandinavian Political Studies,
29, 47-63.
LINDVALL, J. & SEBRING, J. 2005. Policy reform and the decline of corporatism in Sweden. West
European Politics, 28, 1057 - 1074.
LUNDBERG, E. 2011a. En försumbar arena, Civilsamhället och kommittéväsendet 1964-2009.
Kommande.
LUNDBERG, E. 2011b. Forskning om relationen mellan det civila och offentliga samhället. In: HELLBERG,
A.-S., MARTIN, K., LARSSON, H., LUNDBERG, E. & PERSSON, M. (eds.) Perspektiv på offentlig
verksamhet i utveckling, Tolv kapitel om demokrati, styrning och effektivitet. Örebro: Örebro
universitet.
LUNDSTRÖM, T. & WIJKSTRÖM, F. 1995. Från röst till service? Den svenska ideella sektorn i förändring,
Sköndalsinstitutet, Sköndalsinstitutets skriftserie.
MARCH, J. G. & OLSEN, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics, New
York, Free Press.
MICHELETTI, M. 1994. Det civila samhället och staten. Medborgarsammanslutningarnas roll i svensk
politik, Stockholm, Fritzes.
MICHELETTI, M. 1998. De svenska intresseorganisationerna - i går, idag och i morgon. Statsvetenskaplig
tidsskrift, 91, 41-54.
MONTIN, S. 1992. Privatiseringsprocesser i kommunerna – teoretiska utgångspunkter och empiriska
exempel. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 95, 31-57.
OLSEN, J. P. 2002. The Many Faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 921-952.
PIERRE, J. & PETERS, B. G. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State, London, Macmillian Press Ldt.
PIERRE, J. & SUNDSTRÖM, G. 2009. Politikens roll i samhällsstyrningen. In: PIERRE, J. & SUNDSTRÖM, G.
(eds.) Samhällstyrning i förändring. Malmö: Liber.
PIERSON, C. 2006a. Beyond the welfare state, the new political economy of welfare, Cambridge, Polity
Press.
PIERSON, C. 2006b. The New Politics of the Welfare State. In: PIERSON, C. & CASTELES, G. F. (eds.) The
Welfare state reader. Second edition ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
POLITT, C. & BOUCKAERT, G. 2004. Public Management Reform, A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
PREMFORS, R., EHN, P., HALDÉN, E. & SUNDSTRÖM, G. 2009. Demokrati och byråkrati, Lund,
Studentlitteratur.
PROP.2009/10:55 En politik för det civila samhället. In: UTBILDNINGSDEPARTEMENTET (ed.).
PUTNAM, D. R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York, Simon
& Schuster.
RADAELLI, C. M. 2003. The Europeanization of Public Policy. In: FEATHERSTONE, K. & RADAELLI, C. M.
(eds.) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18
RADAELLI, M. C. 2006. The Europeanization of Public Policy. In: FEATHERSTONE, K. & RADAELLI, M. C.
(eds.) The politics of Europeanization Oxford: Oxford University Press.
REGERINGEN 2008. Överenskommelsen mellan regeringen, idéburna organisationerna inom det sociala
området och Sveriges kommuner och Landsting. In: JÄMSTÄLLDHETSDEPARTEMENTET, I. O.
(ed.). Stockholm.
RHODES, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and
accountability, Buckingham and Philadephia, Open University Press
RIKSREVISIONEN 2004. Förändringar inom kommittéväsendet. In: RIKSREVISIONEN (ed.). Stockholm:
Riksdagstryck.
ROTHSTEIN, B. 1992. Den korporativa staten, intresseorganisationer och statsförvaltning i svensk politik,
Stockholm, Nordstedts.
ROTHSTEIN, B. & BERGSTRÖM, J. 1999. Korporatismens fall och den svenska modellens kris, Stockholm,
SNS Förlag.
SOU1986:33-35 Ju mer vi är tillsammans, betänkande av 1986 års folkrörelseutredning In:
UTREDNINGAR, S. O. (ed.). Stockholm: Allmänna förlaget.
SØRENSEN, E. & TORFING, J. 2007. Theories of democratic network governance Palgrave Macmillian.
TARROW, S. & MEYER, S. D. 1998. The social movement society, contentious politics for a new century
Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
THÖRN, H. 1998. Nya sociala rörelser och politikens globalisering: demokrati utanför parlamentet? In:
AMNÅ, E. (ed.) Civilsamhället Demokratiutredningens forskarvolym VIII. Stockholm.
TRANVIK, T. & SELLE, P. 2005. State and citizens in Norway: Organisational society and state – municipal
relations. West European Politics, 28, 852 - 871.
TRÄGÅRDH, L. 2007a. The "Civil society" Debate in Sweden: The Welfare State Challenged. In:
TRÄGÅRDH, L. (ed.) State and Civil society in Northern Europe, The Swedish Model Reconsidered.
New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
TRÄGÅRDH, L. 2007b. Democratic Governance and the Creation of Social Capital in Sweden: The
Descrete Charm of Govermnental Commissions. In: TRÄGÅRDH, L. (ed.) State and Civil Society in
Northern Europe. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
WIJKSTRÖM, F. 2004. Changing focus changing role? In: ZIMMER, A. & STECKER, C. (eds.) Strategy mix
for nonprofit organizations, Vehicles for Social and Market integration. New York: Plenum
Publisher.
WIJKSTRÖM, F. 2010. Svenskt organisationsliv, framväxten av en ideell sektor. In: WIJKSTRÖM, F. (ed.)
Civilsamhällets många ansikten, en samling essäer 1995-2010. Stockholm: Handelshögskolan
Stockholm.
WIJKSTRÖM, F. & LUNDSTRÖM, T. 2002. Den ideella sektorn, organisationerna i det civila samhället,
Stockholm, Sober förlag.
WOLLEBÆCK, D. & SELLE, P. 2002. Det nye organisasjonssamfunnet, Demokrati i omformning, Bergen,
Fagbokforlaget.
WOLLEBÆK, D. & SELLE, P. 2008. A social democratic model of civil society? In: JOBERT, B. & KOHLERKOCH, B. (eds.) Changing images of civil society, from protest to governance. London and New
York: Routledge.
ZETTERBERG, K. 1990. Det statliga kommittéväsendet. In: DEPARTEMENTSHISTORIEKOMMITTÉN (ed.)
Att styra riket, regeringskansliet 1840-1990. Uddevalla: Allmänna förlaget.
19
For example: Svenska Jägareförbundet, Svensk Handel, LO, TCO, SACO, LRF, Sportfiskarna, Svenska Biodlares
riksförbund, De Handikappades Riksförbund (DHR), Sveriges skogsägares riksförbund, Sveriges Pensionärsförbund,
Lärarförbundet, PRO, Riksförbundet för utvecklingsstörda barn och ungdomar (FUB), Föreningen Sveriges
ii For example: Fredrika Bremer förbundet, Verdandi, Förbundet mot droger, Folkparkernas Centralorganisation,
Sveriges Blåbandungdom, Motorförarnas Helnykterhetsförbund, Unga Örnars Riksförbund, Tjänstemännens
Bildningsverksamhet (TBV), SENSUS studieförbund, IOGT-NTO, Invandrarnas kulturcentrum, Järnvägsfrämjandet,
SIOS, Riksförbundet mot alkoholmissbruk, Miljöorganisationernas kärnavfallsgranskning.
iii Greenpeace, Medborgarrättsrörelsen, Demokratisk Aktion, Jönköping, Nygatans Föräldragrupp, Föreningen Stoppa
Gatuvåldet.
iv Filadelfiakyrkan, Pingstkyrkan, Jaktvårdskretsarna i Norrbotten, Jönköpings läns jaktvårdsförening, Örebro läns
jaktvårdsförbund, Historielärarnas riksförening, Biologilärarnas förening, Sveriges Allmänna patientförening,
Tvåspråkiga lärares förening, Svenska kyrkan, Friluftsfrämjandet, Svenska kennelklubben, Sveriges Ornitologiska
Förening, Föreningen Munskänkarna, Blekinge kust och skärgårdsförening,
v For example: Röda korset, Sociala Missionen, Hela Människan, Länkarnas Kamratförbund, Bosses råd och stöd,
Demensförbundet, Afrikanska riksförbundet i Sverige, Pingstskolornas handikappverksamhet, Kooperativet EMIL,
Anhörigrådet, RFSU, Fritidsforum.
i
20