Governing emergency management of technical
infrastructure
- Efficiency and democracy through leadership and responsibility
Paper to ECPR joint session in Nicosia 2006, workshop 21 “Efficiency versus Democracy:
Towards a New Synthesis”.
PHD ELIN WIHLBORG
PHD JENNY PALM
Department of Politics
School of Management
Linköping University
eliwi@eki.liu.se
+46 (0)13-281578
Technology and Social Change
Department of Tema
Linköping University
jenpa@tema.liu.se
+46 (0)13-285615
Governing emergency management of technical infrastructure ........... 1
- Efficiency and democracy through leadership and responsibility .................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
Management in government and governance structures ........................................................ 4
Democracy and efficiency ............................................................................................... 6
Leadership and responsibility – an analytical model ......................................................... 7
Governing sociotechnical systems in local contexts .......................................................... 8
Emergency management in local contexts ............................................................................. 9
Municipal energy companies ........................................................................................... 10
Delivering energy and broadband .................................................................................... 11
Emergency management .................................................................................................. 12
Conclusive discussion .......................................................................................................... 13
References ............................................................................................................................ 15
Acknowledgement.
The work undertaken in preparation of this article forms part of two research programs.
“Emergency management for technical infrastructure – regional and municipal strategies for
coordination and implementation” which is funded by the Swedish Emergency Management
Agency (SEMA) and “Innovative municipalities and regions”, which is funded by the
research council at Swedish Association of municipalities and regions. The views expressed
in the paper reflect only those of the authors.
1
Introduction
In the Scandinavian countries, as well as others, there are expressions of increased
expectations on the potential of governance to meet the still basic demands of sustained
efficiency and democracy. Due to several natural disasters more and more attention has been
drawn to society’s emergency management capability. Recently Sweden has faced two such
crises. There were many Swedish tourists that were affected by the Asian Tsunami and at the
same time a big storm named Gudrun caused total devastation and led to power cuts in most
south and middle regions of Sweden. Citizens and media in Sweden were critical to how
governments and authorities on all levels handled these crises and not least the efficiency of
regional and local emergency managements systems was discussed.
Society’s emergency management capability is its ability to handle emergencies such as
natural disasters, terrorist actions and technical collapses in electricity and IT systems.
Emergency management includes measures against events that occur suddenly and
unexpectedly and entails serious consequences for fundamental functions in society. The
serious consequence of these events requires preparation from authorities on all level and the
national Swedish Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) were given increased resources
and extended responsibilities (KBM 2005). Society’s emergency management capability also
requires coordination and cooperation between public and private actors. Designing and
developing emergency management capability in local technical infrastructure need to be
done in close cooperation with a lot of different actors and not least with private firms
familiar with handling the technology. Thus, there are potential and often open conflicts
regarding the different interpretations of efficiency and system designers often lack
understanding for the implications of a democratic ambition. The competence to express such
ambitions is commonly weak within the public administration, not least in municipalities that
hugely various in size and resources. Thus there is a demand for clarifying responsibilities and
develop leadership for policy developed in governance structure both on a conceptual and
theoretical level as well as for implementation.
Emergency management on all levels in society is an activity that includes a lot of different
actors with different motives and interest to why they want to be involved in processes
concerning emergency management. Our focus is on actors on regional and local levels that
2
are engaged in emergency management for technical infrastructure and more specific IT and
energy systems.
This paper discusses the possibilities for governance of regional and local management of
crises in energy and IT-systems. The aim is to focus on consequences for leadership and
responsibility in regional and local public administration when new forms of governance are
developed. We will argue that the mixture of the more open governance and the internal
government steering in policy areas makes leadership and management obtuse. Governance
steering demands and leads to a clear division of responsibility regarding what a network is
responsible for but not regarding who is accountable for the decision and implementation. On
the other hand in a context of government steering it is clarified who is responsible and
accountable for a decision, but not what specific issues different actors are responsible over.
Our thesis is that these different steering approaches aren’t clarified in the organising of
Swedish emergency management for technical infrastructure. We will discuss how Swedish
emergency management coordination is challenged by different governing traditions and
principle for local IT and energy systems. How will local and regional authorities coordinate
activities and actors within the infrastructure sector that include two different technical
systems with different steering traditions such as IT and energy?
This theoretical argument emanates from several intensive municipal-level field studies
regarding IT and energy in broad terms. Our research have included examination of written
primary sources, such as government bills and Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU),
local and regional investigations, minutes, and notes, as well as field work, such as interviews
with local actors (e.g., local politicians, municipal officials, and representatives of the local
energy company), private firms, and other related organizational bodies. The case studies are
thus not analyzed per se.
The first part of the paper focuses on a conceptual discussion of how leadership and
responsibility are challenged by governing principles in theory and practice. The second part
of the paper discusses different steering traditions for local IT and energy systems in Sweden
and implications for societies emergency management capability. The paper ends with
conclusive discussions and some brief policy implications.
3
Management in government and governance structures
In political science today two main theoretical approaches of steering is identified and often
discussed in the literature. The common and here used division into two separate approaches
is not problematic since both approaches include several different models. It is also important
to notice that these models are both analytical and at the same time used by policy makers to
change the policy process. Thereby the meanings of the concepts are even more indistinct.
It is a traditionally government approach that highlights the formal steering chain of public
organisations and decision-making by political actors. In a government perspective the role of
formal institutions and the states monopoly on legitimise coercion is in focus. State
institutions can make decision and also have a capacity to force these decisions through
(Stoker 1998).
The other perspective is the governance approach that identified a more open and network
oriented way of decision-making, including an intricate interplay among public, private and
non-profit organisations. Peters and Pierre (2001:5) mean that governance:
”…refers to the process through which public and private actions and
resources are coordinated and given a common direction and meaning.”
The governance approach focuses on how and why actors continue to participate and develop
interactions in relatively stable networks. Networks are considered as non-hierarchies with
mutual dependent actors. The explanations are in the needs of involved actors to exchange
resources and negotiate shared purposes. Cooperation and coordination in networks are seen
as the best way to achieve common interests (Börzel 1998). Governance has developed
according to the increased globalisation, de-regulation and ideological liberalisation. There is
a demand for policy instruments to meet increased complexity partly made by New Public
Management (Pierre & Peters 1998).
Development of governance structures is seen as a consequence of the states increased need to
mobilise resources from actors outside their formal control to be able to formulate and
implement public policy. One way to coordinate these actors that the state has no formal
steering power over is through so called policy networks, where the state is one among
several actors (Rhodes 1997; Björk et al 2003). These two concepts of steering can be used
for a principle discussion of the basic differences in steering approaches, even if there are few
4
real examples when they are applied purely. Analysing management and policy making
generally as governance or government also have to be made through the actual outcome in
the interplay of structures and actors. The interplay among structures and actors is in the
governance literature identified as networks (Rhodes & Marsh 1992) and agenda setting
processes (Kingdon 1995).
The main differences between the two approaches governance and government occur
regarding their structure and the action by participating actors.
Structure
Actor
Governance
Openness and networks
Negotiations and resources change
Government
Closed and formal
Roles given by institutional settings
structures
Figure 1: Meaning of structure and actor in two steering approaches
(Palm & Wihlborg, 2006, p 689)
Significant for governance is the network organisational form including both private and
public actors. Together they design, fund and implement public policy. The construction of
limits between public and private actors is central and an important concern for analysis
(Stoker 1998). Networks are self-organizing and not fully accountable to the state in the
governance approach (Rhodes, 1997:53). But all networks act in a context of public
institutions and thus the states interrelate and participate in networks. Governance enforces
cooperation and open networks, and therefore no decision will be legitimate just by being so
within one organisation or institution. Legitimacy emanates through the interplay between
legal interpretations, common understanding and trust within the network.
Based on the extensive literature on policy networks one can conclude that in a government
context participating actors are tighter and have more clearly defined roles and access to
specific legal resources. When they form a network it can only include actors with formal
professional or political positions. In a government context networks are set up mainly after
pressure on cooperation and there few spontaneous initiative for networked cooperation. In
governance context networks are usually open and flexible. Network resembles more likes
what in governance literature is called issue network where resources are not shared, since this
type of networks instead is open for almost anyone. However, the characteristic of the
network as such is far from enough to define the approach of steering.
5
The policy agenda in itself is also steering how different problems are handled and how policy
develops. The agenda is formed in interplay of participating actors and institutional
arrangements. The steering activities of the public agenda influence who, what, where and
when decisions are made. Here the power relations among actors are made visible (Kingdon
1995; Hinnfors, 1995). Thereby the agenda also has power to give actors opportunities to act
and develop policy but just within a limited period.
... the opportunities for action on given initiatives, present themselves and
they stay open for only short periods.
(Kingdon, 1995:166)
The understanding of timing points at the continuous re-construction of the issue. The
institutional arrangement usually defines time limits for the opportunities to act (Kingdon
1995). The agenda setting process is much more open and competitive in a governance
structure compared to the closed government styled agenda with defined procedures and
specific action spaces for different roles given to actors. The latter do neither invite nontraditional political actors; they are rather just inviting them on a specific undertaking as in the
corporatist model that for long did characterize Swedish politics (Rothstein 1992). The agenda
setting shows which networks has power to define the interpretation of an issue, as shown by
Wihlborg (2000) regarding regional development in rural areas.
Both approaches of steering – government and governance – are although in use at the same
time in policy practice (Rhodes 1997). Therefore conflicts may appear. The two approaches of
steering can than be used to explain the reasons for conflicts, since the different approaches
influence how public organisation cultures are designed. Notifying is also that development of
governance steering has not been adjusted by changes in legal frameworks (Peters & Pierre
2000, p17).
Democracy and efficiency
Both networks and agenda setting as aspects of the policy process do indicate the democracy
and efficiency. Networks are both criticized for exclusions and decreased democratic
influence and also seen as organisational forms taking other issues and arguments than
traditional political into account and thereby extending the understanding of democracy. The
idea of de-liberative democracy can be seen as a democratic theory applied on (to legitimate?)
the complex network society. The concept of political efficiency almost disappears in a
governance context.
6
Within the governance approach Hill (2005, pp275-276) has developed models distinguish
aspects of management by separating authority, transaction and persuasion. Authority is a
main characteristic of the government approach. Transaction is the basic mode of the market.
Persuasion emerged when actors collaborate in networks. For Hill all these are seen as
governance approach, however, the mainly authoritarian model was for long the only political
recognized form of governing.
The diffusion of increased governance on the expenses of government steering is often
motivated by efficiency arguments. When seeing governance in a New Public Management
(NPM) perspective it gives politicians a goal-setting role and service production should be
done in a market-like structure. This will ensure efficiency and lower costs in the NPM
approach (Pollitt 1990; Hood 1995). Governance has recently also, not least in local policy
making become, an argument for increased democracy since the participation in political
parties has decreased. New steering strategies opening for increased participation in
municipalities have been identified, where local politicians and administration are demanded
to discuss and develop politics together with individual and groups of citizens. Some mean
that there is a shift from a service democracy where citizens are passive receivers of services
to a society, where citizens both are involved and can exercise influence over policy. Citizens
are involved as both producers and become responsible together with authorities in planning
and production of local public services (Montin, 2006; Denters & Rose, 2005). This
involvement of citizens is supposed to promote both democracy and efficiency.
Leadership and responsibility – an analytical model
By analyzing public actors in a policy area by a governance approach makes it possible to
better understand the new role of local governments and administrations. The role of local
governments in governance differ and governments been described as key actors as well as
just one participant among several others. We argue that the role of local governments and
administration will differ between different policy areas and depend on historical patterns of
regulation and control, established institutions, existing power relations between actors etc.
The local policy process has to be related to national, regional, and even international policies
and system preconditions that define the limits and openings for policy making.
7
In governance literature not much is said of who defines the objectives of governance (Pierre
and Peters p 23). We will discuss both who is govern as well as what is governed in a
governance and government structure, see figure 1.
Governance
Government
WHO?
NO
YES
WHAT?
YES
NO
Figure 2: Leadership and responsibility
We will however not argue that this is a new synthesis, but rather a new division of concepts.
In a governance structure where actors gathering in network to solve a problem it is often
obvious what the common issue consists of. The actors have gathered in a network to
exchange resources for achieving a specific goal, for example to build a broadband system in
the neighbourhood. However, in a more open network participation is voluntarily and no actor
is responsible or accountable for the outcome - which the cooperation actually leads to a
specific result. The understanding of who is responsible for a decision is in this case vanished.
In a government structure on the other hand the responsibility issue is made clear. It is
relatively easy to identify the actor formally responsible for an issue. However, in a
government structure it is not obvious what issues an actor are responsible for.
Before turning into an analysis of energy and IT we will also show that the issues in focus
here relates to sociotechnical systems that might need a short comment. These policies regard
socio-technical systems including both technical and social agencies.
Governing sociotechnical systems in local contexts
As mentioned above, the interplay of structures and actors are crucial when analysing
management as governance and government. Local and regional emergency management
systems for energy and IT are developed within the limits and possibilities these
sociotechnical systems give. These systems defines the physical structure within emergency
management can be developed and governed. As sociotechnical systems, IT and energy
systems consist of the technical components, individual actors and organizations, legal
frameworks, and institutional and political structures. The system is interwoven with the
societal context, cultural values, and specialized professional know-how by which it operates.
The term sociotechnical indicates that we are including the social and human as well as
8
technical components in the system and considering them to be interdependent.
Sociotechnical systems are, from this perspective, regarded as seamless webs of tightly
interconnected components. Changes made to one part of the system must be adjusted to the
other existing parts to obtain a working whole. According to this view, governing the
innovations and policies that affect technology requires both social and technical knowledge
of the system (Hughes 1983, 1986; Summerton 1992; Palm 2004).
The sociotechnical concept technology style emphasizes that both technical systems and their
applications are human constructs. They interact with their environment and are subject to
varied influences, characterized by specific contextual and circumstantial factors. A wide
range of local conditions external to the technology affects its style, for example geographical,
political, economic, social, legal, cultural, and historical conditions (Hughes 1983; 1986).
Technological style is always time–spatial delimited, and grounded in the social and physical
context in which it is formed. The geographical context has to be problematized when the
focus is on municipalities, since they are both organizational and specific physicalgeographical entities. Technological style is contextual and thus dependent on what the actors
experience as locally constraints and available resources both physical and social (Gullberg &
Kaijser 2004; Wihlborg et.al. 2003). The technology style is the outcome of former policy
decisions (path-dependence is strong regarding sociotechnical systems) regarding the system
and the opportunities thereby given to form new policies when it comes to the system design.
Emergency management in local contexts
Emergency management of sociotechnical systems is unique since it has to integrate both
technical and social competences and approaches. There is both an unadulterated technical
system emergency management of how to handle the risks of failures in a technical meaning
and there are social failures and solutions and these do not always work together.
Our focus is on emergency management in the coordination area infrastructure and especially
IT and energy systems. These systems are constitutes a main part of the technical
infrastructure and most other infrastructures do also relies on and is mutually integrated
within these technical systems. Both systems are also indeed visible on local levels.
9
Swedish municipalities have a strong indecency according the Swedish constitution (RF ch1,
§1). The municipalities are expected to play important roles in implementing national IT and
energy strategies and formulating municipal ones. The municipalities have legal right to
establish municipal companies (SFS 1990:900, ch 3, § 16-18) and sociotechnical systems
such as water, sewage, IT and energy have usually been organized in municipal owned
companies. This legislation is, however, formulated on an idea mainly government steering
even if the local reality today is characterized mainly by governance.
“The shift from government into governance has clear implications for the
nature of local democracy. Traditionally efforts to understand local
democracy have almost exclusively focused on the role of directly elected
municipal councils…”
(Denters & Rose 2005:255)
Even if Denters and Rose (2005) identifies and highlight this relevant aspect they do not offer
any analytical approaches nor further discuss the underlying reasons and the implications for
policy making given by this shift. Therefore we will apply the model as shown above on the
case of emergency management for technical infrastructure in Swedish municipalities to
discuss some aspects of this general change.
The technical infrastructure, such as energy and IT, are in most Swedish municipalities
managed through municipal energy companies. This in order for the municipality to be
competitive on the market where they compete with private firms when delivering energy and
broadband to customers. In some municipalities the municipality is mainly acting as consumer
of energy and IT and buys related services from private companies such as E-on or Vodafon.
In these cases their main steering capacity, except the possibilities to steer as a consumer, lies
in the municipalities planning monopoly and its ability to steer through and in networks.
Municipal energy companies
Many municipalities have gathered their competence on energy and IT as well as on large
technical systems in general in municipal owned energy companies. These companies are
limited companies and have to follow the legislation for private limited companies and as
such they have a board. Municipal owned energy companies are subject to guidelines and
regulations drawn up by municipal decision-making bodies such as the Municipal Council
and Municipal Board. As limited companies municipal steering takes place through the role of
owner (of all or at least the majority of stocks) and owner instructions. The companies can act
both as a private and a public organisation. A municipal company is a profit maximising
limited company and is in the energy case competing at the Swedish deregulated electricity
10
market. At the same time it is a public organisation that has public duties such as collect and
treats households’ waste without profit according to the average cost charge principle (SFS
1990:900, ch 2, § 2). They thereby both can and have to focus on and relate to economic as
well as democratic values (Palm & Wihlborg, 2006).
The local energy company acting as a market provider is a common European model and in
many countries it has been an important source of economic resources for municipalities
(Plees 2005:55). The local energy companies for long had a monopoly position and could act
within a government structure. Recently in the Nordic states have been role models in the deregulation of the electricity market has given citizens opportunities to shop around for
electricity providers (Rose & Ståhlberg 2005:95). Thereby the citizens have become
consumers acting on a market rather than as voters in a political organisation as they had to do
in the government context.
These companies are strong actors in both the energy and IT area in their municipality. They
have easy access to the costumers and internal financial strengths. These municipal owned
companies also had competence to implement and organise a large technical infrastructural
system through their legal ability and knowledge of large technical systems. The companies
are both an innovative construction combining public interest and market action and in
themselves a context for policy making (Palm & Wihlborg, 2006).
Delivering energy and broadband
Even if both energy and IT systems often are handled by these municipal owned energy
companies the governing structures in these systems are different. Independent of if the
municipality own an energy company or if the municipality buy these services from a private
actor it has been difficult to influence an established energy system by governance steering.
The energy company is a key actor defining the changes of the energy system and the
company has mainly excluded influences from networks such as local Agenda 21-networks
(Palm 2004). Acting in the energy system these energy companies act in a structure very
much resemble a traditional governmental structure, with a closed decision process involving
few actors. The energy company’s decision-making process regarding energy is relatively
closed and few actors had the possibility to influence the actual outcome. In the energy
11
system dominant networks resemble a policy community with a given agenda that is not open
for negotiation (Palm & Wihlborg 2006).
However, in the IT case, and more specifically in the case of broadband expansion we have
identified different organisation and steering structures. Broadband has been implemented in
an open process including many different actors, where there was no clear definition of how
and why the technological changes should take place – it was an issue network (Wihlborg et
al 2003; Palm & Wihlborg 2006). This shows that the interdependence of actors can take very
different forms (irrespectively of organisational structures).
The outcome of the decision process therefore has to be analysed in a steering perspective to
understand the types of networks of actors. A more open issues network gives more
opportunities to be open for new solutions in problem solving than in closed and more rigid
policy community with one defined understanding of the issue. We have seen that the ability
to act in local IT and energy policy processes were not defined by resources or organisations
but rather by openness for change and co-operation with many different actors
Emergency management
Swedish emergency management is rested on geographic area responsibility. Municipalities,
the county administrative boards and the government have geographic area responsibility on
local, regional and national levels which mean that they are responsible for that coordination
among actors on their level before, during and after a crise occur. But they never take over
responsibility from another actor.
In addition three fundamental principles are guiding Swedish emergency management: the
principle of responsibility, the principle of parity and the principle of proximity. The principle
of responsibility means that the actor normally responsible for an activity will ha
corresponding responsibility in crises. The responsible actor will than cooperate to solve
common issues and problems. According to the principle of parity authorities localisation and
organisation will as far as possible is the same during crises as under normal conditions. The
principle of proximity means that a crise should be dealt with at the lowest possible level.
Where the crises occur and of those affected and responsible of its consequences
(www.kbm.se).
12
Local emergency capability for the technical infrastructure is very much a result of local
actors react on central actors regulatory decisions and solve the problem within the public
organisation. Limiting and giving meaning to the issue is the first critical phase of the
governance process.
When regional and local authorities are going to develop emergency management systems for
energy and IT systems they are dependent on public and private owned companies. They need
to find strategies that appeal to both actors in the energy and in the IT sector. The different
governing traditions in these two systems imply that the authorities need different strategies
for the two systems. Actors in the IT-area have traditions of coordination and cooperation and
can be assumed to response positive on governance steering. Actors in the energy area on the
other hand will probably need a formal assignment on their duties in the emergency
management system that also can be treated in a traditionally way, in their formal decision
process.
Conclusive discussion
We have emphasised the different steering traditions for local energy and IT policy in
Sweden. In the energy area it is obvious that in cases with municipal owned energy
companies the energy companies manage and are responsible for the energy system, but it is
not clarified what the management consist of. The formal decision making process only
include actors legally included in the policy process. This closed process makes it hard for
other interested actors to influence the company’s decision agenda and in the end the
municipal energy policy that often in practice is formulated by these companies. The actors in
the IT sector have on the other hand traditions of cooperation in networks and are not used in
the same way to be directed by different means of control. The quick establishment of
broadband in Sweden can also be explained by the open governance approach involving many
different actors with similar ambitions. The agreements between the municipal company and
market actors created a quasi-market. There were no need for coordinating recourses and
decision and implementation took place in different organisations. In figure 3 we have
summarized these results by integrating these in the figure presented earlier.
Responsibility
regarding emergency
WHO?
WHAT?
13
management of energy
and broadband in
Swedish municipalities
Governance
The broadband case
The division of responsibility is
obtuse between market actors, the
state and the municipalities.
Government
The energy case
The municipal energy company is
responsible and takes on a
general leading responsibility
based on the municipal council.
When gathering in networks parts of the
system becomes obviously visible
through negotiations and contracts, but
not which party in the contract that are
final responsible.
The comprehensive responsibility hides
the practical and concrete definitions of
the limits of the responsibility.
Figure 3: Leadership and responsibilities in local energy and IT systems.
This paper has discussed the possibilities for governance of regional and local management of
crises in energy and IT-systems. The organisation of Swedish emergency management are
structured in the same way regardless of policy area. The focus in the emergency management
system on co-ordination between actors in network will suit the IT area better than the energy
area that have long traditions of government steering. When local authorities will implement
this emergency management system it is important to consider the steering tradition in
different policy areas and how different sociotechnical systems have adapted and developed
in interdependency with the local society, i.e. consider the technology style of the system.
14
References
Björk, P et al (2003), Governance. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Börzel, T.A. (1998), “Organizing babylon – on the different conceptions of policy network,
Public Administration, 76 (2), pp 253-273.
Denters, B & Rose, L E. (2005) “Towards Local Governance?” In: Denters, B. & Rose, L.
(ed.) Comparing Local Governance. Trends and Developments. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gullberg, A and Kaijser, A (2004), “City-Building Regimes in Post-War Stockholm” Journal
of Urban Technology, 11, pp 13-39.
Gustavsson, A (1999), Kommunal självstyrelse [Municpal independence]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Hill, M. 2005), The public policy process. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Hinnfors, Jonas (1995) På dagordningen. Svensk politisk stil i förändring. [At the Agenda.
Swedish Political style in change]. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus.
Hood, C (1995), “Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm?”, Public
Policy and Administration, vol 10 no 2, pp 104-17.
Hughes, T.P. (1983), Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930,
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hughes, T.P. (1986), “The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, etcetera, etcetera”, Social
Studies of Science, (16), pp281-292.
Ingelstam, L. (2002), System – att tänka över samhälle och teknik, Eskilstuna:
Energimyndighetens förlag.
Kaijser, A, (1994), I Fädrens spår. Den svenska infrastrukturens historiska utveckling och
framtida utmaningar. [Swedish infrastructure historical development and future
challenges], Stockholm: Carlssons förlag.
Khan, J (2004), Local Politics of Renewable Energy: Project Planning, siting conflicts and
Citizen Participation, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University.
Kingdon, J W. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Boston: Little Brown and
Company.
Krisberedskapsmyndigheten (2005), Samhällets krisberedskap. Inriktning för verksamheten
2007, Planeringsprocessen 2005:3, Stockholm: Krisberedskapsmyndigheten.
Montin, S (2006, forthcoming), ”Från servicedemokrati mot ett medskaparsamhälle?”, in
Jonsson, L (ed.) Kommunledning och samhällsutveckling.
Palm, J (2004), Makten över energin policyprocesser i två kommuner 1977–2001[Energy
Powerpolicy processes in two municipalities 1977–2001], Linköpings Studies in Arts
and Science no 289, Linköpings universitet.
Palm, Jenny & Wihlborg, Elin (forthcoming 2006) ”Governed by technology?
Urban management of broadband and 3G systems in Sweden.” Submitted to Journal of
Urban Technology.
Palm, Jenny & Wihlborg, Elin (2006), “Governing Local Innovation Systems – Swedish
Municipalities as Structures and Actors for Energy and Broadband Development”,
Procedings from Uddevalla Symposium, sept 2005, p. 685-699.
Peters, G & Pierre, J (1998), “Governing without government: Rethinking Public
Administration”, Journal of Public Administration and Theory, vol 8 pp223-242.
Pierre, J (2000), “Introduction: Understanding governance”, i Pierre, J (ed), Debating
Governance, Authority, steering and democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plees, Y (2005), “Belgium: the changing world of Belgian municipalities” In: Denters, B. &
Rose, L. (ed.) Comparing Local Governance. Trends and Developments. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
15
Politt, C (1990), Managerialism and the Public Services, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rhodes, R.A.W (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy networks, Governance,
Reflexivity and Accountability, Open University Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. & Marsh, D (1992), ”New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks”
European Journal of Political Research 21: 181-205.
Rose, L. E. & Ståhlberg, K (2005), “The Nordic Countries: still the ‘promised land’?” In:
Denters, B. & Rose, L. (ed.) Comparing Local Governance. Trends and Developments.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rothstein, B (1992) Den korporativa staten (The corporatist state) Stockholm: Nordstedt.
SFS 1990:900 (Swedish code of statements), Municipal Act.
Stoker, G (1998), “Governance as theory: five propositions, International Social Science
Journal, 50 (1), pp 17-28.
Summerton, J (1992), District heating comes to town. The Social shaping of an Energy
company, Linköping Studies in Arts and Science no 80, Linköpings universitet.
Wihlborg, E (2000), En lösning som söker problem. [A solution looking for problems],
Linköping Studies in Arts and Science no 225, Linköpings universitet.
Wihlborg, E et al (2003), Kommunala Bredbandsbyggen. Lokal politik för IT-samhället
[Building Municipal Broadband, Local policy for IT-society], Tema-T Report 40, Tema
Teknik och social förändring, Linköping university.
www.kbm.se
16