Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Money in Politics - Why Sweden and Denmark Chose Different Paths

Andreasson, Lukas LU (2019) STVK02 20191
Department of Political Science
Abstract
This paper poses the question: Why did Sweden shift its stance on private money in politics in
compliance with GRECO’s recommendations between 2009 and 2014, whereas Denmark did
not? It aims to explain the change and non-change through analyzing the countries’ legislation,
reports on the countries made by international organizations, and the debates which took place in
the countries themselves. The theory of accountability, presented by Tero Errkilä, aids in
showing that the key difference between the two countries was their accountability method, and
that this ultimately lead to different outcomes in the countries. Sweden, which relied on personal
accountability drastically changed their legislative system and incorporated both... (More)
This paper poses the question: Why did Sweden shift its stance on private money in politics in
compliance with GRECO’s recommendations between 2009 and 2014, whereas Denmark did
not? It aims to explain the change and non-change through analyzing the countries’ legislation,
reports on the countries made by international organizations, and the debates which took place in
the countries themselves. The theory of accountability, presented by Tero Errkilä, aids in
showing that the key difference between the two countries was their accountability method, and
that this ultimately lead to different outcomes in the countries. Sweden, which relied on personal
accountability drastically changed their legislative system and incorporated both bureaucratic
accountability and deliberation. The reason for the change lies in the personal accountability
method sparking legitimacy issues, which in turn led to a debate on the subject in Sweden.
Denmark, on the other hand, relied on deliberation and did not feel pressured to change
whatsoever. This is due to deliberation being experienced as a satisfactory accountability system.
Thus no debate or concerns of the legislation were raised in Denmark, leaving it unchanged. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Andreasson, Lukas LU
supervisor
organization
course
STVK02 20191
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Denmark, Sweden, accountability, legitimacy, GRECO, deliberation, personal accountability, bureaucratic accountability.
language
English
id
8976105
date added to LUP
2019-09-06 12:49:26
date last changed
2019-09-06 12:49:26
@misc{8976105,
  abstract     = {{This paper poses the question: Why did Sweden shift its stance on private money in politics in
compliance with GRECO’s recommendations between 2009 and 2014, whereas Denmark did
not? It aims to explain the change and non-change through analyzing the countries’ legislation,
reports on the countries made by international organizations, and the debates which took place in
the countries themselves. The theory of accountability, presented by Tero Errkilä, aids in
showing that the key difference between the two countries was their accountability method, and
that this ultimately lead to different outcomes in the countries. Sweden, which relied on personal
accountability drastically changed their legislative system and incorporated both bureaucratic
accountability and deliberation. The reason for the change lies in the personal accountability
method sparking legitimacy issues, which in turn led to a debate on the subject in Sweden.
Denmark, on the other hand, relied on deliberation and did not feel pressured to change
whatsoever. This is due to deliberation being experienced as a satisfactory accountability system.
Thus no debate or concerns of the legislation were raised in Denmark, leaving it unchanged.}},
  author       = {{Andreasson, Lukas}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Money in Politics - Why Sweden and Denmark Chose Different Paths}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}