Suchergebnisse

How corporatist arrangements actually work has not been empirically demonstrated, despite the theoretical focus on interest intermediation. This article investigates whether corporatism affects trust and deliberation in state activities, using Swedish public administration as a case study. First, it is doubtful that corporatism directly promotes trust among citizens, but it very likely promotes trust within and between the represented organizations. Second, interest–group representation cannot be understood as a process of strict delivering of positions adopted in advance. Preferences are often transformed in discussions where other interests are involved. Furthermore, the case investigated here shows that the decision–making process within a corporatist arrangement resembles deliberation, rather than negotiations between "contesting interests."

"Deliberative activism" refers to the integration of two ideals of citizen participation: deliberation and activism. While there are strong arguments for bridging the gap between the two ideals, it is equally important to keep what is distinct about deliberative activism because all activism is not (and presumably should not aspire to be) deliberative. In this article, we claim that there are certain ethical and epistemic norms of deliberation that can inform our understanding of "deliberative activism", thereby help to draw the boundary between activism and deliberative activism. By looking at a particular form of activism—provocative art—that is intuitively antithetical to the deliberative ideal, we argue that simple activism can be differentiated from deliberative activism by considering to what extent activists' adhere to principles of reasonableness and dialogic responsiveness. Using four cases of controversial, provocative art exhibitions in Sweden that challenges the boundaries of public deliberation we conclude that that it is important to distinguish acts that initiate deliberation from those that are acts of deliberation in themselves. The distinguishing factor must be at the heart of deliberation namely an ethical commitment to dialogue. To the very least, actors must explain their claim as if they were in dialogue.

When important public issues are debated, many options for government action should be subjected to serious reflection. Constrained discussions over policy options may hamper democratic legitimacy and accountability, and produce decisions that ignore relevant reasons and facts. Hence, constrained deliberation has important consequences for knowledge construction and utilization. We advance theory on 'epistemic policy learning' by showing mechanisms that promote expert consensus in external arenas, and that these can hamper deliberation on public policy. Government-appointed experts, in combination with mass media, can 'freeze' deliberation by presenting one unified front. Comparison of national print media coverage in Sweden and Denmark during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic offers support. The similar polities enacted different policies: Sweden sought to vaccinate its full population while neighbouring Denmark targeted small groups. Yet experts dominated both public discourses and echoed each other's support of national policy. In turn, public policy debates were scant in both contexts. ; Civila samhället och den upplysta välfärdsstaten

Increased citizen participation is proposed to remedy democratic deficits. However, it is unclear whether such participation improves reason‐based discussions or whether it serves mainly as a safety valve for discontented citizens. To what extent does citizen‐initiated participation involve reason‐based arguments? This study examines citizens' reason giving based on unique data on citizens' contacts with local authorities in Sweden. It provides support for proponents of deliberative participation, as an unexpected amount of contacts provided reasons for clearly stated positions and invitations to a constructive dialogue with authorities. There is variation across issues. More conflictual issues involve fewer intentions to participate in a reasoned exchange of arguments. The study shows that citizens deliver more reason‐based input to democratic decision making when they prepare their position in groups than when they participate as individuals. Findings are preliminary but clearly illustrate the fruitfulness of widening the research agenda on civic engagement in politics and public administration.

This article examines expert knowledge utilization in public policy processes. We study how much expert knowledge is employed and the extent to which decision-makers deliberate on the information provided by the experts, under various conditions of political disputes and public attention. We suggest four hypotheses. It is proposed that expert knowledge will be used more, but that there will be less deliberation in situations of political disputes. It is also suggested that expert knowledge will be consulted more and the decision-makers will take a more deliberative approach when there is a lot of attention from citizens. Our empirical findings, based on original data from local politics in Sweden, are in line with the hypotheses. The findings highlight the importance of both studying the extent of expert knowledge use and the way expertise is utilized. Another important insight is that politics seem to matter in relation to the role expert knowledge plays in public policymaking.

Unions and employers are political actors. Besides defending their interests on the labour market they act in the political arena. In order to weaken the trade unions, neoliberal parties and employers' organisations have tried to change existing systems in Sweden and elsewhere. Hence, the general questions being asked in this article are: Do Swedish labour market organisations still participate in (i.e. try to influence) public policy–making on a large scale? Are there any substantial differences in the degree to which unions and employers' organisations participate or in their access and strategies of participation? In this article it is argued that while participation of labour market organisations in the old institutionalised framework has decreased, it has not vanished. Labour market organisations are also very much involved in public policy–making by informally contacting politicians and public servants. The unions have extensive contacts with politicians on all levels, but especially with the Social Democratic Party, while employers' organisations have more intense contacts with the public administration and public servants. The overall picture being presented in this article is that labour market organisations in Sweden have not at all been left out in the cold. It is clear that Sweden is far from the British situation and still remains similar to its Scandinavian neighbours.

The article focuses on the following aspects of labour market relations: To what extent do main actors share key opinions? Which actors are considered influential? Who is trusted by whom, and how much? Does communication take the character of deliberation? Since relational data in industrial relations are rare, 71 Swedish organizations involved in industrial relations were asked about each other (representing a total of 770 individuals in key positions in these organizations). Asserted changes as regards power in the Swedish industrial relations system seem overestimated. The state still holds the key positions. The principal labour relations organizations and the Social Democratic Party are also influential, although less than the ministries. All these powerful actors are trusted less over class borders, while the Labour Court and the Conciliators' Office are considered trustworthy, rational 'deliberators'. It is hypothesized that they produce 'the cement of society' that holds the system together.