Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T11:00:52.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Making and Rationality in Sweden: The Case of Transport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

J. J. Richardson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not uncommon for the case-study approach to the study of policy making to be criticized for failing to produce broad generalizations or concepts applicable to systems as a whole. For example, in discussing policy making and political culture in Sweden, Anton argues that case-studies of decision making do not offer an adequate or realistic view of the process. In doing so he suggests that we should shift our focus of concern ‘from the single decision (whatever it is), to the structure of relationships between participants and the norms which serve to maintain or change those relationships through time. The focus shifts, in other words, from decisions to systems of decision-making’. Whilst not disputing the need for studying the general properties of decision making in a given political system (or indeed the need for the comparative study of policy making in different systems), this article will suggest the value of studying individual policy areas – in this case, transport – as opposed to both individual decisions and entire political systems, as a means of testing broader propositions such as those formulated by Anton.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1979 , pp. 341 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Anton, Thomas J., ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, Scandinavian Political Studies, IV (1969), 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 91.Google Scholar

3 See Feldman, E. J., ‘Comparative Public Policy: Field or Method’, Comparative Politics, X (1968), 287–305.Google Scholar

4 See Richardson, J. J., Jordan, A. G. and Kimber, R. H., ‘Lobbying, Administrative Reform and Policy Sty les: The Case of Land Drainage’, Political Studies, XXVI (1978), 47–64, pp. 62–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See Hayward, J. E. S., ‘National Aptitudes for Planning in Britain, France and Italy’, Government and Opposition, IX (1974), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 88.Google Scholar

7 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 94.Google Scholar

8 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 94.Google Scholar

9 Castles, Francis G., ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, British Journal of Political Science, VI (1976), 203–16, p. 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Rokkan, Stein, ‘Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism’, in Dahl, R. A., ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 70–115.Google Scholar

11 Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, p. 214.Google Scholar

12 Elvander, Nils, ‘Interest Groups in Sweden’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 413 (1974), 27–43, P. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Elvander, , ‘Interest Groups in Sweden’, p. 43.Google Scholar

14 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 94.Google Scholar

15 Meijer, Hans, ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’, Scandinavian Political Studies, IV (1969), 103–16, p. 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Tomasson, Richard F., Sweden: Prototype of Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1978), quoted by Castles, p. 207.Google Scholar

17 Meijer, , ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’, p. 106.Google Scholar

18 Meijer, , ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’, p. 114.Google Scholar

19 Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, p. 206.Google Scholar

20 Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, p. 206.Google Scholar

21 Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, p. 208.Google Scholar

22 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 100.Google Scholar

23 For a detailed discussion of Swedish transport policy see Kritz, Lars, Transportpolitiken och lastbilarna (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1976).Google Scholar

24 Kritz, , Transportpolitiken och lastbilarna, p. 219.Google Scholar

25 Trafikpolitikiska utredningen.

26 See Rose, R., ‘On the Priorities of Government: A Developmental Analysis of Public Policies’, European Journal of Political Research, IV (1976), 247–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 For a discussion of the multiple roles which may be performed by pre-policy commissions in the British context see Jordan, A. G. and Richardson, J. J., ‘Outside Committees and Policy-Making: The Central Advisory Water Committee’, Public Administration Bulletin, XXIV (1977). 41–58.Google Scholar

28 Trafikpolitik-Behov och möjligheter (Stockholm: SOU 1975 66).Google Scholar

29 See Traffic in Sweden 1976 (Stockholm: Association of Swedish Automobile Manufacturers and Wholesalers, no date), p. 12.Google Scholar

30 Kritz, , Transportpolitiken och lastbilarna, p. 222.Google Scholar

31 Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York: Holt, 1960), p. 71Google Scholar and Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S., Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford, 1970), Chap. 1. pp. 3–16.Google Scholar

32 See Braybrooke, David and Lindblom, Charles E., A Strategy of Decision (New York: Free Press, 1970).Google Scholar

33 For example, see the letter from the Association of Swedish Automobile Manufacturers and Wholesalers to the Prime Minister, Olaf Parme, October 1975, in which the Government is reminded of the need to co-ordinate environmental and energy developments.

34 Trafikpolitik-kostnadsansvar och avgifter (Stockholm: SOU 1978 31), 1–190.Google Scholar

35 Latham, Earl, The Group Basis of Politics (New York: Octagon Books, 1965), p. 35.Google Scholar

36 See Simon, H. A., Administrative Behaviour, 3rd ed. (New York: Free Press, 1976), p. 67.Google Scholar

37 See Lindblom, C. E., ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, XIX (1959), 79–88, p. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of the concept of rationality in the policy process see Gustafsson, Gunnel and Richardson, J. J., Concepts of Rationality and the Nature of the Policy Process: Some Problems (Umeå, Västerbotten: University of Umeå, 1978).Google Scholar

38 Hayward, , ‘National Aptitudes for Planning in Britain, France and Italy’, pp. 398–9.Google Scholar Hayward's formulation is in the context of planning.

39 Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, p. 208.Google Scholar

40 Elder, Neil, Government in Sweden (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970), pp. 186–92.Google Scholar

41 Hayward, , ‘National Aptitudes for Planning in Britain, France and Italy’, p. 399.Google Scholar

42 Meijer, , ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

43 Meijer, , ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’, p. 115.Google Scholar

44 Stjernquist, Nils, ‘Sweden: Stability or Deadlock?’Google Scholar, in Dahl, , ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, p. 139.Google Scholar

45 Anton, , ‘Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden’, p. 94Google Scholar (my emphasis). For a discussion of the possibility that this type of description also fits most Western European countries see Richardson, J. J. and Jordan, A. G., Governing Under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979), Chap. 8.Google Scholar

46 Elvander, , ‘Interest Groups in Sweden’, p. 272.Google Scholar

47 Ruin, Olof, ‘Participatory Democracy and Corporativism: The Case of Sweden’, Scandinavian Political Studies, IX (1974), 171–84, p. 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Rokkan, , ‘Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism’, p. 107.Google Scholar

49 Hayward, J. E. S., ‘Institutional Inertia and Political Impetus in France and Britain’, European Journal of Political Research, IV (1976), 341–59, p. 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 See Castles, , ‘Policy Innovation and Institutional Stability in Sweden’, pp. 213–16.Google Scholar

51 Meijer, , ‘Bureaucracy and Policy Formulation in Sweden’.Google Scholar

52 SirVickers, Geoffrey, The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy-Making (London: Chapman and Hall, 1965), p. 14.Google Scholar