The Political Distance between Citizens and Planners in Swedish Ecological Governance
1. Introduction
Known to most Japanese readers as welfare state, Sweden is also increasingly regarded in Japanas a leader in environmental issues. Ecological rational governance is defined as the governancetoward ecological sustainability, while also securing autonomy and democracy. For the balance of
the autonomy and democracy, citizen participation and involvement are important and enhancedeliberative democracy. The citizens must be involved in ecological governance, since a change inpublic attitudes toward sustainability is necessary to establish a truly sustainable society, as
Lundqvist (2004) argues.
However, in the reality of Swedish ecological modernization, citizen participation has become
looked down on, in that especially in planning citizens are rarely involved. This paper clarifies how
planners regard citizen involvement in environmental projects in Swedish municipalities, whichhave the wide range of autonomy. The analysis examines the image that planners have of citizens,
or in the terminology of Feichtinger and Pregernig, imagined citizen, classified as instructive,
judicious and enlightened (Feichtinger and Pregernig 2005).
This paper will begin by discussing the background of this research to explain why Sweden is
an interesting case study, and a literature review to explain why this research is important. The third
section presents the framework and the method for the research. The final section presents theresults about imagined citizens in Swedish municipalities and the conclusions, which illustrate thedilemma in Swedish ecological governance.

12. Background
Sweden is generally regarded as a ‘forerunner’ in sustainable development in the world, ranked
in first place in environmental performance in Europe (Yale Center 2006), and Sweden is mostcertainly a ‘driving force’ for the EU to be more ecologically sustainable (Liefferink and Andersen1998).
Swedish government, under the leadership of a Social Democratic majority, proclaimed in
1997 to aim toward attaining a “Sustainable Sweden,” combining a revitalization of the economy,
green job creation, and environmental protection. This proclamation, which was the very beginningof ecological modernization, continued and accelerated with a program called LIP (Local
Investment Program, Lundqvist 2000). The Swedish government recently organized the unit for
Sustainable Development in 2003 aiming at developing a Green Welfare State and continuing
ecological modernization with the huge investments of a new program known as KLIMP (Climate
Investment Program) and a green tax system. Environmental issues are regulated in theEnvironmental Code and the Planning and Building Act, which stipulate the importance of citizen
consultation, as well as the 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs), which set priorities in thenational objectives in environmental issues.
The 290 Swedish municipal governments have the right to levy taxes and have responsibilities
in physical planning. This decentralized system was established so as to bring politics andgovernment closer to the citizens and to make polices more legitimate and based on citizens’

2opinions. Considering the decentralized system and Sweden’s willingness to be the driving force inenvironmental issue, Sweden is close to the ideal of institution for “ecological rational governance”(Lundqvist, 2004). The analysis of the Swedish case is useful to test the dilemma of the theory of
ecological rational governance. Lundqvist, one of Sweden’s prominent political scientists, defines
the norms of ecological rational governance as “set by the limits of democracy and individualautonomy” (Lundqvist 2004, 148).

3. Theoretical Review
Dryzek argues “the main reason for the democratization of environmental administration has
been a felt need to secure legitimacy for decisions by involving a broader public” (Dryzek 1997,
86). According to this normative idea, the administrations of the municipalities should be
encouraged to deal with environmental problems within the framework of democracy andindividual autonomy. Communication between citizens and planners is especially important.
Lundqvist argues that in successful ecological governance, citizen participation is necessary, since
comprehensive value change is presupposed (Lundqvist 2004). Also Agenda 21 adopted at Rio
Summit in 1992 encourages citizen participation through fostering local government initiatives.
Citizen participation is one of the methods of deliberative democracy, which broadly advocatesthat deliberation or dialogue brings legitimacy to a decision (Grimes 2006). Grimes found that
especially the Swedish national report of democracy in 2000 argued for a need for citizen
involvement so as to revitalize citizens’ political interest and democracy (Grimes 2005, 39). She3

also argues the importance for local governments to have discursive relationship with citizens.
Considering the above, it is important to investigate planners’ willingness to initiate deliberation
with citizens, which enhances citizens’ political trust, interests in politics and the legitimacy ofpolitical decisions. As Grimes (2005) writes, guaranteeing the freedom and opportunity to criticize
policy decisions mobilizes public consent, and that administrations must justify their policies, thateases the “implementation from above”. Thus, this paper will examine the willingness ofenvironmental administrators in Sweden to listen to broader opinions and to try to refer or reflect
citizens’ opinions in the policy process. Education and training are assumed as main goals of theprocess of deliberative democracy (Elam and Bertilsson 2003, 16). Education of all parties
involved is the starting point of the deliberation.
In sum, to achieve ecological rational governance, it is important for environmental
administrators to encourage public participation including education to public, as Sweden aims to
be a sustainable society and acknowledges the necessity of the citizen involvement.

4. Empirical Discussion
Citizen has not easily involved in not only in planning but also in projects themselves. A 1997
report entitled Local Agenda 21 (LA21) in Sweden showed that all Swedish municipalities hadcommenced active work to implement LA21 (SOU 1997, 82). Eckerberg found, however, that
only 3% of citizens reported that they were engaged in LA21 projects (Eckerberg, Forsberg, andWickenberg 1998, 56). Lundqvist argues that in preparing LIP applications, local network4management thus become “governance without the people”, and – in effect – also local“implementation from above” (Lundqvist 2001, 332; 2004, 173). Both he and Eckerberg point out
the lack of citizen participation in LIP. At the same time, Lundqvist found that the government
tended to regard citizen much more as customers than as political actors, in that Swedish ecologicalmodernization is based on encouraging green consumption and green production (Lundqvist
2004).
Also, Lundqvist points out the difficulties of citizen involvement in decision-making, forexample that citizens tend to be interested in “neighborhood issues” not in the abstract policy
agenda (Lundqvist 2004, 171). That is why citizens must be empowered to participate in thepolitical decision. In a nutshell, on the ecological modernization in Sweden, citizen participation isseen rare and difficult to increase. The following text will indicate that administrators tend to see
citizens as static rather than proactive and leading.

5. Framework for analysis
These are two distinct viewpoints on citizens. While Lundqvist sees the two types of views of
the citizen as being consumer and political citizen, in this paper citizen is classified as either
educative, judicial or enlightened (Feichtinger and Pregernig 2005).
Feichtinger and Pregernig (2005) suggest these three types of “imagined citizen”, which does
not refer to kinds of citizens in reality, but rather to policy makers’ perception of citizens. Instructive
citizens cannot recognize their own interests, so policy makers have to make decisions for them that5

protect their interests. Judicious citizens can perceive their interests but need others’ help to put
them into practice, so their opinions are made use of during policy making but after that, decision
making and implementation is handed over to administrators. Enlightened citizens can recognize
their interests and put them into practice, so citizens should work along side administrators in thepolicy-making process.
According to them, the difference between the first and second type of imagined citizen iswhether citizens are at least invited to articulate their attitudes, wishes and needs. The difference
between the second and third type of imagined citizen is whether citizens have the capacity forautonomous action. Instructive citizen can have the “one-sided exchange of information”, judicious
citizens can have “two-sided exchange of information”, and enlightened citizen can have“discourse” which means that citizen can control the administrators (Feichtinger and Pregernig
2005, 236).
Among these three conceptualizations of the citizen, the citizen as consumer in Lundqvist’s
finding can be categorized as instructive citizens, in that they are not regarded as political agents but
as individuals who should be educated and influenced by political decisions.
Sociologists perceive that scientific experts should interact closely with lay people and argue
that science should be highly integrated in citizens’ daily lives to acquire “scientific citizenship”(Mark and Bertilsson 2003). This perspective can be applied to the relation between citizen andpolicy makers in environmental issues, since decisions often rely on scientific knowledge.
Especially in ecological modernization, scientific knowledge is crucial. Policy makers can be6compared to scientific experts as planners of environmental projects at Swedish local governments,
because they are biologists or electrical engineers, among other things. The point is that sociologists
more consider the extent of the involvement between lay people and experts, and in a similar way,
this paper considers the political distance between citizens and planners. In political decisions,citizen and planners must always interact in a democratic political system.
Even though Agenda21 assumes that the public has a consultative role in the planning process,and citizen should hopefully be recognized as at least judicious citizens, ecological modernization
seems instead to have caused a widening knowledge gap between the public and experts.
Education becomes all the more crucial. Thus, it seems that on the procedure of ecologicalmodernization, the distance between citizen and planners in the administrative process has become
wider.
This paper will clarify how planners of environmental projects regard citizens in Swedishmunicipalities in reality, and the effect these views have on the extent that Swedish municipalities
have taken measures of citizen involvement.

6. Method
For this research, the author interviewed administrators in 6 Swedish municipalities. The
studied municipalities are three biggest municipalities: Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö, and theother three municipalities: Örebro and Gotland (both quite famous as pioneers in environmental
projects and democratization), and Katrineholm, a small municipality that succeeded in getting a

7

KLIMP grant, while other small municipalities have had difficulties to get such grants.
The details of the deliberation methods taken by planners will not be discussed in this paper, but
my interviews include questions about measures taken by LA21 coordinators, LIP or KLIMP
planners and other environmental strategists in the municipalities studied. Instead of the descriptionof measures, my analysis will focus on the extent that the municipalities have been active inencouraging citizen involvement, as well as on administrators views of local citizens along the linesof the theory of “imagined citizens” mentioned above.

7. Results
From the interviews with administrators, various imagined citizen have been captured. Twoadministrators articulated that citizens are knowledgeable enough to be involved in theirdecision-making. Andersson, J. (2006) in Malmö has not been engaged in the citizen targeting
projects but he has targeted companies, and he regards employees at companies involved in
KLIMP also as ‘citizens’. Järliden (2006) in Örebro is also passionate about equality in society as
the basis of the development of sustainability. Both of these planners imagine citizens as‘enlightened’.
Müllerström (2006) and Sandström (2006), two KLIMP planners in Göteborg andKatrineholm consider themselves experts in environmental issues and good at making “abstract”
plans, which they think citizens usually are not interested in. They have tried to involved citizens
mainly and actively through education to public. They can be said to view citizens as ‘educative’.

8Rosendahl (2006), the Environmental Coordinator in Örebro, thinks that specific issues, not anational framework such as the EQOs, are more interesting to citizens. She has herself involved
citizens in the decision-making in the implementation of EQOs. This indicates that she views thosecitizens interested in the issue as judicious citizen, and others not involved in planning as educative.
It makes sense that in the EQOs implementation, the citizens interested are invited to the meetingfor reviewing the plans for local EQOs (Rosendahl 2006). Ramberg (2006), the Environment andDevelopment Manager in Göteborg, thinks that when the issues start to affect citizens’ materialinterest in reality, then that issue will become interesting for citizens, otherwise she regards citizens
are indifferent to what administrators are doing.
From those opinions, their imagined citizens are in-between the categories of instructive andjudicious citizen, in that they think some citizens can perceive their interests but their interests might
be wrong or misled, and that some citizens can recognize their immediate interests, but not abstract
and long-term interests, so it could be better to classify this view of citizens as educative. The city of
Göteborg tends to see developing deliberation as not comparatively important, but more tends to
put emphasis on educating citizens locally through LA21 (Friberg 2006; Müllerström 2006;
Ramberg 2006; Rohdin 2006).
In Malmö, Fossum (2006), LIP project leader thinks that citizens are the experts of their needs
or situations of their neighborhoods, while they lack the knowledge that administrators have. Also
Eriksson (2006), LA21 coordinator in Malmö thinks that citizens are not experts but they do havepatchy knowledge and that they know their needs and those of their neighborhoods. Eriksson also9

thinks social equality is crucial, so she feels the necessity to approach as many citizens as possible.
In a similar way, Gunnarsson (2006), a vice major in Stockholm thinks that citizens can express
their needs but cannot suggest policies, and that they sometimes do not understand theincompatibility of their needs and their bad influences to environment.
These opinions clearly show their imagined citizen as judicious citizen, in that citizens canrecognize their interests, but they cannot put those into practice, and administrators need to make itinto policies. From this image, the two-way-deliberation can start. It makes sense that Malmö andStockholm have experienced various deliberation methods, but the efforts in Stockholm have been
more developed than those in Malmö (Andersson, J. 2006; Eriksson 2006; Forsell 2006; Fossum
2006; Gunnarsson 2006; Möller 2006; Saar 2006).
However, in the KLIMP procedure in Stockholm, citizens tend not to be involved in planning,but the KLIMP projects themselves are quite deliberative, with one encouraging and educating
citizens about ecological consumption (Saar 2006). Back to Lundqvist’s opinion that ecologicalmodernization entails viewing the citizen as consumer, Saar’s project proves Lundqvist’s argumentin that Saar’s imagined citizens are instructive consumers whose behaviors can be changed byeducation. Even though the consumption project used a deliberative style, this Stockholm
administrator is more interested in citizens not as political citizens but as those to be influenced byeducation. This KLIMP planner sees citizens are educative.
Andersson, H. (2006), a Gotland ecostrategist thinks that People do not usually have many
opinions and citizens think that issues are too complex for them to tackle, so that they do not want10

to be involved. She worries that citizens’ interest in the environmental issues has declined, while
local governments have started to have better policies than before. This clarifies the image of citizen
as educative. Gotland municipality has tried active deliberation in the form of education, since theyfelt that it was crucial to raise citizens’ awareness. They have actively involved advisors inenvironment from each department at the municipality, but not citizen in the decision-making.
Sandström (2006), the Katrineholm energy advisor and Axelsson (2006), Head of Environmentand Health think that citizens are not knowledgeable, and Sandström thinks that it is easier to focus
on some interested group than to try to disseminate information to everyone. The reason why hethinks that citizens are not knowledgeable enough was that citizens do not have time (Sandström
2006). This is very similar to Gotland in that imagined citizen is educative, but they have different
reasons for seeing citizens as educative; in the one case citizens are seen as lacking time and in theother as lacking true ability.
In sum, most administrators see citizens as quite passive; among 12 opinions of the planners, 2
envision citizens as enlightened, 3 as judicious, and 7 as instructive. And even among those who
regard citizens as instructive, in two municipalities the administrators tend to talk of two types ofcitizen, regarding some citizens as judicious and while others as educative. It makes sense that these
attitudes among administrators explain the quite weak proactive deliberation, despite the various
experiences in deliberation methods in most of the municipalities. Planners’ images surely
influence what measures of deliberation the municipalities have had and their willingness toencourage citizen involvement.

11

8. Conclusion
Almost half of the planners interviewed had a view of citizens that the theory of imagined
citizens would classify as educative, while the other planners regard citizens as judicious or
enlightened. In reality, most municipal administrators seem to see deliberation with citizen as a
useful way to educate. Also as Lundqvist points out, the one example in KLIMP conveys the imageof citizens as consumer and educative, and not actors to be involved in the decision-making inplanning. It makes sense that as long as municipal administrators view citizens as educative, they
will lack the means for the transmission of citizens’ direct opinion to planning.
Planners’ views of citizens influence the tools that they choose for deliberation. Unless theofficials in municipalities have the positive image to involve citizens into policy planning, they will
not try proactive deliberation. Swedish municipalities have involved citizens mainly throughoffering education, or in reviewing, but not in the planning process as actors that can have thetwo-way deliberation with planners.
In sum, Lundqvist’s argument of “implementation from above” is seen because ecologicalmodernization is accelerated at the governmental level mainly at local governments, not always at
citizens’ level. The deliberation between planners and citizens has rarely established as a two-way
deliberation.
Even in Sweden that is the forerunner in ecological governance, considering deliberation
measures and imagined citizens, the way towards sustainable development as is written in Agenda

1221 and in the theory of ecological rational governance seems to be long. And in ecologicalmodernization, the political distance between citizens and planners must be closed since theindividual value change is required before we can attain a sustainable society.

9. References
Literatures
Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Eckerberg, Katarina, Björn Forsberg, and Per Wickenberg. 1998. Sweden: Setting The
Pace With Pioneer Municipalities and Schools, 45-75. In From Earth Summit to Local
Agenda 21: Working towards Sustainable Development. Lafferty, Willam M. (ed.)
London: Earthscan.
Elam, Mark and Margreta Bertilsson. 2003. Consuming, Engaging and Confronting
Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship. European Journal of Social
Theory. 6(2).
Feichtinger, Judith and Michael Pregernig. 2005. Imagined Citizens and Participation Local
Agenda 21 in Two Communities in Sweden and Austria. Local Government 10: 3: 229242.
Grimes, Marcia. 2005. Democracy's Infrastructure - The Role of procedural Fairness inFostering Consent. Gothenburg: Department of Political Science at Gothenburg
University.
Liefferink, Duncan and Mikael Skou Andersen. 1998. Strategies of the “green” member states in
EU environmental policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy 5:2:254-70.
Lundqvist, Lennert J. 2000. Capacity- Building or Social Construction? : Explaining Sweden's
shift towards ecological modernization, GeoForum 31; 21-32.
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿. 2001. Implementation from above? : The Ecology of Sweden's New
Environmental Governance, Governance 14: 319-37.
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿. 2004. Sweden and ecological governance: Straddling the fence.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
SOU 1997, National Report on the implementation of Agenda 21: From Environmental
Protection to Sustainable Development. Stockholm: Ministry of the Environment.
Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and Center for International Earth Science
Information Network. 2006. Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index.

13

Interviewees
Andersson, Helena, Eco Strategist, 2006. Interviewed by author, 19 June, Gotland, recorded. Executive
Office, Gotland.
Andersson, Jon, Project Manager Energy, Environmental Strategy Unit, 2006. Interviewed by author, 22June, Malmö, recorded. Environmental Department, Malmö.
Axelsson, Lennert, Head of Environment and Health, 2006. Interviewed by author, 16 June, Katrineholm,
recorded. Environmental Department, Katrineholm.
Eriksson-Russell, Rebecka Local Agenda 21 Coordinator of Malmö, 2006. Interviewed by author, 22 June,
Malmö, recorded. Environmental Department, Malmö.
Fossum, Tor, Project Manager, 2006. Interviewd by author, 22 June, Malmö, recorded. Environmental
Department, Malmö.
Forsell, Staffan, Project Manager of Stockholm Mobility. 2006. Interviewed by author, 15 June, Stockholm,
recorded. Department of Infrastructure, Stockholm.
Friberg, Annika, Local Agenda 21 Coordinator of Göteborg, 2006. Interviewed by author, on the emails,
June.
Grimes, Marcia, Assist Researcher, 2006. Interviewed by author, 13 June, Göteborg, recorded.
Center for Public Sector Research, Göteborg University, Göteborg.
Gunnarsson, Vivian, vice mayor of Stockholm. 2006. Interviewed by author, 14 June,
Stockholm, recorded. Environment and Consumer Division, Stockholm.
Järliden, Eva, Public Health Strategist, 2006. Interviewed by author, 23 May, Örebro, recorded. City
Administrative Office, Örebro.
Möller, Jon, Local Agenda 21 Coordinator of Stockholm. 2006. Interviewed by author, 16 June
Stockholm, recorded. Environment and Health Administration, Stockholm.
Müllerström, Johan, Environmental planner. 2006. Interviewed by author, 9 June and 21 June, Göteborg,
recorded. Environmental Department, Göteborg.
Ramberg, Christina, Environmental Development Manager. 2006. Interviewed by author, 24 May and 5 July,
Göteborg, recorded. Environmental Department, Göteborg.
Rohdin, Barbro, Environmental Coordinator of Lundby District, 2006. Interviewed by author,
15 June, Göteborg, recorded. Environmental Department, Göteborg
Rosendahl, Susanne, Environmental Coordinator, 2006. Interviewed by author, 7 June, Örebro,
recorded. City Administrative Office, Örebro.
Saar, Martin, Project Manager of Stockholm's Action Programme on Climate Change. 2006.
Interviewed by author, 20 June, Stockholm, recorded. Environment and Health Administration,
Stockholm.
Sandström, Johan, Energy Advisor, 2006. Interviewed by author, 16 June, Katrineholm, recorded.
Environmental Department, Katrineholm.

14