The Kingdom of Sweden is the fourth largest country in Europe in terms of land area. Ten per cent of the land is cultivated and 50 per cent is covered by forest. The population is close to nine million, with a density of slightly more than 20 inhabitants per square kilometre. This low population density and the abundance of timber resources may lead one to expect sprawling settlements and spacious wooden single-family houses. This is, however, not the case. The population is largely concentrated in the metropolitan areas of Stockholm on the east coast, Gothenburg in the west and Malmö in the south, and is housed for the most part in compactly built multi-family houses. Among the factors contributing to this pattern of population distribution are transportation, strong government control over planning and building and a national goal of making social services easily accessible.

For decades Sweden has been regarded as the epitome of the welfare state— concrete proof that a sensibly governed, large public sector can make it possible to combine ambitious equity concerns with ever increasing levels of income. Some may still nurture this image of Sweden, but the facts tell a different story. As illustrated in Table 1, since 1970 Sweden has steadily regressed in the ‘income league’ of OECD countries. In the 1990s this trend accelerated and was accompanied by huge public deficits, rapidly increasing unemployment and widening income gaps.

The economic recession in Sweden has led to a rethinking of the role of national planning. As in other countries, the increased scarcity of resources has led to cutbacks in public undertakings and also to a questioning of the efficiency with which national planning has been carried out. In addition, the relevance of the traditional ‘Swedish model’, with its broad definition of social policy and planning, has been questioned and found wanting. Fundamental changes are clearly needed in the Swedish planning system.

The Emergence of National Planning

In Sweden, land-use decisions have traditionally been strongly related to land ownership. During the first decades of the twentieth century, rapid urbanisation together with industrialisation and the exploitation of natural resources demanded more efficient methods of planning and conservation. The prevailing social conditions also called for public intervention and planning.