“…It is often associated with some kind of virtuous leadership with strong moral overtones. As is explored below, this type of directional leadership resonates closely with Sweden's pioneer character (Zannakis, ) and its ambition to set a moral example on international policy issues (Lawler, ).…”
Section: The Informal Side Of Europeanizationmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…From this perspective, Sweden did not break ranks with the EU, but took the lead in trying to break the impasse and keep the vision of a two‐state solution alive: [A]s the first EU member state, Sweden recently decided to recognise the State of Palestine … it aims to provide a positive injection to the Middle East Peace Process.… I am heartened by the fact that our step is inspiring a renewed debate ( Wallström, ).The ambition to lead by setting a virtuous example has a long pedigree in Swedish foreign policy and so has Sweden's long historical engagement in seeking a resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Zannakis () points to Sweden's pioneer character and ‘urge to act’ as a norm setter on international issues. Others have talked of the belief in Swedish exceptionalism (Brommesson, ; Lawler, ).…”
Section: Sweden and The Recognition Of Palestinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ambition to lead by setting a virtuous example has a long pedigree in Swedish foreign policy and so has Sweden's long historical engagement in seeking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Zannakis (2013) points to Sweden's pioneer character and 'urge to act' as a norm setter on international issues. Others have talked of the belief in Swedish exceptionalism (Brommesson, 2016;Lawler, 1997).…”
Section: Sweden: Breaking Away In Order To Lead the Waymentioning
This article explores new patterns of interaction in foreign affairs among European Union (EU) Member States post‐Lisbon, which have increased reliance on horizontal and informal practices. It argues that cross‐loading among Member States outside EU institutions has moved centre stage and contributed to smaller groups of like‐minded Member States working together. This shift challenges much of our understanding of Europeanization, which is based on vertical forms of uploading and downloading. We illustrate these dynamics using the case of Sweden's recognition of Palestine in October 2014. While this seemed to break away from the established EU consensus, Sweden's decision aimed at leading the way and imparting momentum, especially within the like‐minded group of EU countries. Rather than being an example of de‐Europeanization, this case shows how Member States can seek new ways of exerting influence in the post‐Lisbon environment.
“…It is often associated with some kind of virtuous leadership with strong moral overtones. As is explored below, this type of directional leadership resonates closely with Sweden's pioneer character (Zannakis, ) and its ambition to set a moral example on international policy issues (Lawler, ).…”
Section: The Informal Side Of Europeanizationmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…From this perspective, Sweden did not break ranks with the EU, but took the lead in trying to break the impasse and keep the vision of a two‐state solution alive: [A]s the first EU member state, Sweden recently decided to recognise the State of Palestine … it aims to provide a positive injection to the Middle East Peace Process.… I am heartened by the fact that our step is inspiring a renewed debate ( Wallström, ).The ambition to lead by setting a virtuous example has a long pedigree in Swedish foreign policy and so has Sweden's long historical engagement in seeking a resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Zannakis () points to Sweden's pioneer character and ‘urge to act’ as a norm setter on international issues. Others have talked of the belief in Swedish exceptionalism (Brommesson, ; Lawler, ).…”
Section: Sweden and The Recognition Of Palestinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ambition to lead by setting a virtuous example has a long pedigree in Swedish foreign policy and so has Sweden's long historical engagement in seeking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Zannakis (2013) points to Sweden's pioneer character and 'urge to act' as a norm setter on international issues. Others have talked of the belief in Swedish exceptionalism (Brommesson, 2016;Lawler, 1997).…”
Section: Sweden: Breaking Away In Order To Lead the Waymentioning
This article explores new patterns of interaction in foreign affairs among European Union (EU) Member States post‐Lisbon, which have increased reliance on horizontal and informal practices. It argues that cross‐loading among Member States outside EU institutions has moved centre stage and contributed to smaller groups of like‐minded Member States working together. This shift challenges much of our understanding of Europeanization, which is based on vertical forms of uploading and downloading. We illustrate these dynamics using the case of Sweden's recognition of Palestine in October 2014. While this seemed to break away from the established EU consensus, Sweden's decision aimed at leading the way and imparting momentum, especially within the like‐minded group of EU countries. Rather than being an example of de‐Europeanization, this case shows how Member States can seek new ways of exerting influence in the post‐Lisbon environment.
“…From an international perspective, Sweden and Norway are often described as environmental frontrunners, with a tangible national consensus on both problem description and political solutions (Lundqvist, 2004;Sarasini, 2009;Scruggs, 1999;Zannakis, 2015). In both countries, carbon taxes on private consumption have also been in place since the early 1990s (Jagers & Hammar, 2009;Steentjes et al, 2017).…”
While many countries have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the choice of national climate policy measures demonstrates widespread variation. Although system of government, path-dependency and economic entanglements can explain a certain amount of variation in policy choice, research also points specifically towards the highly politicized nature of climate policy instruments and their sensitivity to public support as explanatory factors for cross-national differences. Previous studies hypothesize that various country-specific contextual factors determine both general preferences for environmental protection and the public's preferences for different types of policy instruments. One suggestion is that countries' prevailing political cultures have significant consequences for such public support. Another supposition is that, since countries differ in their economic dependency on climate detrimental industry such as fossil fuel production, this should be a significant factor determining both public attitudes and subsequent political decisions. This paper applies unique, original data from four countries with significant variation in (i) political-cultural contexts (Sweden and Norway vs New Zealand and Australia and (ii) economic dependency (Norway and Australia vs Sweden and New Zealand) to analyze how, and to what extent, these two contextual variables interact with, and moderate, the effect of individual-level factors on support for climate policy measures in the four countries. Furthermore, the paper explores variations in support for different types of CO 2 taxes (directed towards individual consumers, industry, and fossil-fuel producers) in the four countries. Key policy insights. Across contexts, public policy support is lower for taxes directed towards private consumption than for taxes directed towards industry, and the strongest for CO 2 taxes on fossil fuel producing industry.. Political culture and economic context influence the effect of individual-level factors on policy support.. In a context of high economic dependency on the fossil-fuel industry, people are less likely to support the introduction of CO 2 taxes.. The effect of left-right ideology on policy support is sensitive to political-cultural context.
“…Sweden is used as a case study because it is a typical example of an advanced welfare state with corporatist traditions, while at the same time being viewed as a progressive case of contemporary climate governance. As a progressive environmental state, Sweden has successfully addressed environmental management and sustainability objectives (Hildingsson, ; Lundqvist, ), including ambitious climate policy targets (Tobin, ; Zannakis, ). It is often viewed as an exemplar case of climate governance and scores high on environmental performance (Burck, Hagen, Marten, Höhne, & Bals, ; OECD, ).…”
This article focuses on the role of actor relations in advancing climate policymaking and argues that attempts to understand decisions to decarbonise in a green state should explore the institutional conditions for policymaking. The article explores the climate policy model in Sweden in terms of the societal actors included in the policy process, the nature of this inclusion, and its relevance for the prospects of decarbonisation. It uses three perspectives in the analysis: corporatism, sustainable transition studies, and ecological democracy. The findings largely support existing research that states characterised by corporatist policymaking are suited for environmental governance and for climate policymaking. However, as a model of governance of actor relations, the Swedish climate policymaking model has both its merits and demerits. Although it has potential to reach decarbonisation objectives, it does this in the context of including mainly established economic interests, that is, incumbents. This stands in contrast with what is argued in sustainable transition studies that incumbents obstruct change, in the Swedish case they are viewed as potential change agents. Finally, although the character of the actor relations is deliberative, it is a top-down exclusive kind of deliberation that remains far from ideals of ecological democracy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
