Enklaver i staten : Internationalisering, demokrati och den svenska statsförvaltningen
The thesis has two purposes. The first is to understand the organizational forms of the public administration when it participates in international rule making processes. The second purpose investigates democratic implications of internationalization of the Swedish state administration. A theoretical framework, combining theories of governance with ideas on resource dependence and a neo-institutional approach, is applied to three empirical cases. The cases follow decision making processes within the European Employment Strategy, The Kyoto Protocol for reduction of green house gasses and negotiations on trade facilitation within the WTO. The studied processes can be described as complex and fragmented, containing multiple types of actors and parallel arenas, complex technical material and bureaucratic processes. They were also characterised by the fact that policy was created throughout the course of the processes. They also seemed to lack an ending and were to a high degree bound by their history. The administrations' response resulted in an organisational form that is theoretically developed in the study – enclaves. Enclaves contain members from different organizations, both private and state organizations and the work within them is carried out in an informal and interactive way. They are de-coupled units with stable membership that is related to positions in the hierarchy. As opposed to networks, enclaves are not self-organizing but the membership is mainly controlled by state-actors. The second aim of the study is carried out through a number of indicators derived from the deliberative and the representative models of democracy. The blurring of responsibilities, the lack of transparency and the barriers for entrance into the enclaves made the organisational forms of the administration seem problematic in relation to the representative model. However other features of the enclaves seemed to support a more communicative logic of action, leaving the deliberative model more promising as a way of understanding the administrations' work as democratically legitimate. Still, the analysis showed that the deliberative model also faced some challenges in terms of lack of openness and inclusion of all relevant stake holders.