Suchergebnisse

I artikeln analyseras Bo Smith-utredningens problembeskrivningar och förslag till lösningar avseende statstjänstemännens rådgivning till politikerna utifrån ett svenskt perspektiv. Det konstateras att den typ av problem som utredningen diskuterar inte har varit framträdande i svensk debatt och forskning. I artikeln pekas på olikheter i de båda ländernas förvaltningstraditioner som kan förklara denna skillnad. För det första att de politiska ledningarna är större i Sverige än i Danmark, för det andra att det i Sverige finns krav på kollektivt beslutsfattande i regeringen medan det i Danmark råder ministerstyre, och för det tredje att de fristående myndigheterna och kommittéerna i Sverige har en klart uttalad roll att förse regeringen med beslutsunderlag medan styrelserna i Danmark inte deltar särskilt aktivt i rådgivningsarbetet till ministrarna.

This article analyzes the Bo Smith Commission's problem descriptions and solutions regarding state officials' advice to politicians from a Swedish perspective. It is claimed that the kind of problems that the Commission discusses have not been prominent in Swedish debate or research. The article points at dissimilarities in the two countries' administrative traditions that might explain this difference. First, there are more politically appointed officials at the top in Sweden than in Denmark. Second, in Sweden there are requirements for collective decision-making in government, while in Denmark there is ministerial rule. And third, the independent agencies and committees in Sweden have a clearly articulated role to provide the government with advice for its decision-making, while the agencies in Denmark do not participate very actively in the advisory work for the ministers.

This article analyzes the Bo Smith Commission's problem descriptions and solutions regarding state officials' advice to politicians from a Swedish perspective. It is claimed that the kind of problems that the Commission discusses have not been prominent in Swedish debate or research. The article points at dissimilarities in the two countries' administrative traditions that might explain this difference. First, there are more politically appointed officials at the top in Sweden than in Denmark. Second, in Sweden there are requirements for collective decision-making in government, while in Denmark there is ministerial rule. And third, the independent agencies and committees in Sweden have a clearly articulated role to provide the government with advice for its decision-making, while the agencies in Denmark do not participate very actively in the advisory work for the ministers.

This article takes its stand in an international discussion about how NPM reforms affect public servants' notions about core public values. More specifically, it analyses how school leaders relate to the values of political control, rule of law, economic efficiency, professionalism and users' influence. It raises the question whether it matters, in terms of how they embrace these values, their organisation is public or private. 975 school leaders (481 working for public schools and 472 for private schools) have completed a written questionnaire containing 15 postulations linked to the five core values. The study's main finding is that the differences between the two categories of school leaders are quite small although differences exist. The similarities could reflect a development in recent decades where private schools have undergone politicisation and public schools companyisation. The study indicates that school leaders on both sides try to defend all values simultaneously, in some way. Furthermore, when trying to handle value conflicts they seem to avail themselves of other strategies than those connected to dominating models of rationality, which often conceptualise public actors' response to value conflicts as a matter of balancing or striking trade-offs.