| 1. |
- Bergman, Torbjörn, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Parliaments and policy-making in the European Union
- 2001. - 2
-
Ingår i: European Union. - London : Routledge. - 0415221641 ; , s. 115-130
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Written by some of the leading authorities in the field, this new edition has been significantly improved to provide students with even more authoritative and comprehensive coverage of how European Union policy is made.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, 1966-, et al.
(författare)
-
Centralizing Government Communication? Evidence from Finland and Sweden
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Politics and Policy. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1747-1346 .- 1555-5623. ; 48:6, s. 1138-1160
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- How governments manage their communication is one crucial indicator of the balance of power within the cabinet and inside the executive branch as a whole. Existing research offers few insights into the process by which governments come to choose one form of communication over another and about the factors driving centralization. This article addresses this gap through a comparison of two countries, Finland and Sweden, examining not only the organizational forms of government communication but also the causal mechanisms at work. Combining theoretical lessons from studies in political communication, political science, and public administration, it develops a centralization argument, focusing on the centripetal factors facilitating coordination and control. Drawing on over 40 interviews with journalists and political or media advisors in the two countries and on government documents, the article offers clear evidence of a trend toward centralization, particularly in Sweden. This trend should be understood as part of a broader process whereby prime ministers and their offices establish stronger control of the entire executive branch.
|
|
| 4. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, 1966-, et al.
(författare)
-
Government communication in a comparative perspective
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Close and Distant. - Gothenburg : Nordicom. - 9789188855060 - 9789188855077 ; , s. 127-148
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter hypothesises that there is a trend of centralisation in government communication – a move upwards in the political executive towards central coordination and control. We test this argument empirically through an inventory of elite interview evidence and a four-country comparison including two case studies – Finland and Sweden – as well as two case illustrations – Lithuania and Poland. Based on, altogether, over 80 interviews with political journalists and political/media advisors or press secretaries in the four countries, the chapter analyses how government communication is structured. The cases of Finland and Sweden offer support for the centralisation hypothesis while those of Lithuania and Poland point out its limitations. We thus conclude that the extent to which government communication is centralised varies across contexts and that the variation is patterned.
|
|
| 5. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, 1966-, et al.
(författare)
-
Government Communication in Finland and Sweden
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Baltic Rim Economies. - Turku : Centrum Balticum. - 1459-9759. ; :3, s. 7-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Communications is one of the most pressing challenges facing government day by day. Government communication – defined broadly as the structures, practices and processes of the executive in its communication aspects – is required to handle those challenges. In this article, we outline the main elements of government communication in Finland and Sweden and then contrast the two countries. Our analysis covers both broader, over time developments as well as communication during the crises of the early 2020s.
|
|
| 6. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Organizing the Core Executive for European Union Affairs : Comparing Finland and Sweden
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Public Administration. - : Wiley. - 0033-3298 .- 1467-9299. ; 88:3, s. 649-664
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Examining core executive organization for EU affairs in Finland and Sweden, this article uncovers how change agents used European integration deliberately to strengthen their role in the domestic settings through taking control of EU policy co-ordination. In both countries, EU membership was an exogenous factor that enabled the offices of the PM to secure a more powerful position and advance their own institutional agendas. This strengthened their leadership role and weakened the respective foreign ministries, whose legitimacy in EU co-ordination was undermined by the discourse that matters pertaining to this co-ordination should be treated as domestic policy instead of foreign policy. This discourse proved instrumental in the organizational reforms and core executive restructuring. Both countries also provide evidence of intra-Nordic organizational learning since the Finnish co-ordination system was based on lessons drawn from Denmark whereas the subsequent Swedish reform was inspired and legitimized by changes in Finland.
|
|
| 7. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Partisan responses to Europe : comparing Finnish and Swedish political parties
- 2001
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Political Research. - : Wiley. - 0304-4130 .- 1475-6765. ; 39:2, s. 225-249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article analyzes party responses to European integration in Finland andSweden.We argue that such responses are shaped by seven explanatory factors: basic ideology, public opinion, factionalism, leadership influence, party competition, transnational links, and the development of integration. Each factor can lead to a positive or a negative evaluation of the European Union. In the empirical analysis, the sample includes all parties represented in the respective national parliaments, and the research material consists of party documents, parliamentary votes, statements by leading party figures, public opinion surveys, direct observation and interviews. Party competition and leadership influence are the strongest factors in the Finnish case, while public opinion and factionalism are the strongest factors in Sweden. Issue avoidance combined with the secondary importance of the EU in party politics explain why parties have been relatively successful in containing internal factionalism and discord, especially in Finland
|
|
| 8. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, 1966-, et al.
(författare)
-
Political Parties in the European Union
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Oxford Research Encyclopedias of Politics. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780190228637
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Media often portrays European Union (EU) decision-making as a battleground for national governments that defend the interests of their member states. Yet even the most powerful individuals, such as the German chancellor, the French president, or the Commission president, are party politicians. At the same time the consistent empowerment of the European Parliament (EP) means that the party groups of European-level “Europarties”—political parties at European level—are in a key position to shape EU legislation. The Parliament has also become more directly involved in the appointment of the Commission, with the results of EP elections thus influencing the composition of the Commission.Examining the “partyness” of European integration, this article argues that scholarly understanding of the role of parties in the EU political system has taken great strides forward since the turn of the millennium. This applies especially to the EP party groups, with research focusing particularly on voting patterns in the plenary. This body of work has become considerably more sophisticated and detailed over the years; it shows that the main EP groups do achieve even surprisingly high levels of cohesion and that the left–right dimension is the primary axis of contestation in the chamber. It nonetheless also emphasizes the continuing relevance of national parties that control candidate selection in EP elections. Considering that most votes in the Parliament are based on cooperation between the two largest groups, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Party of the European Socialists (PES), future research should analyze in more detail how these groups build compromises.Actual Europarties, however, remain relatively unexplored. Case studies of treaty reforms or particular policy sectors reveal how individual Europarties have often wielded decisive influence on key integration decisions or key appointments to EU institutions. The Europarty meetings held in conjunction with European Council summits are particularly important in this respect. The regular, day-to-day activities of Europarties deserve more attention, both regarding decision-making and vertical links between national parties and their Europarties. Overall, it is probably more accurate to characterize Europarties as networks of like-minded national parties or as loose federations of member parties, especially when compared with the often centralized and strongly disciplined parties found in the member states.
|
|
| 9. |
- Johansson, Karl Magnus, 1966-, et al.
(författare)
-
Political Parties in the European Union
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Oxford Encyclopedia of European Union Politics. - New York : Oxford University Press. - 9780190856427
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Media often portrays European Union (EU) decision-making as a battleground for national governments that defend the interests of their member states. Yet even the most powerful individuals, such as the German chancellor, the French president, or the Commission president, are party politicians. At the same time the consistent empowerment of the European Parliament (EP) means that the party groups of European-level “Europarties”—political parties at European level—are in a key position to shape EU legislation. The Parliament has also become more directly involved in the appointment of the Commission, with the results of EP elections thus influencing the composition of the Commission. Examining the “partyness” of European integration, this article argues that scholarly understanding of the role of parties in the EU political system has taken great strides forward since the turn of the millennium. This applies especially to the EP party groups, with research focusing particularly on voting patterns in the plenary. This body of work has become considerably more sophisticated and detailed over the years; it shows that the main EP groups do achieve even surprisingly high levels of cohesion and that the left–right dimension is the primary axis of contestation in the chamber. It nonetheless also emphasizes the continuing relevance of national parties that control candidate selection in EP elections. Considering that most votes in the Parliament are based on cooperation between the two largest groups, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Party of the European Socialists (PES), future research should analyze in more detail how these groups build compromises. Actual Europarties, however, remain relatively unexplored. Case studies of treaty reforms or particular policy sectors reveal how individual Europarties have often wielded decisive influence on key integration decisions or key appointments to EU institutions. The Europarty meetings held in conjunction with European Council summits are particularly important in this respect. The regular, day-to-day activities of Europarties deserve more attention, both regarding decision-making and vertical links between national parties and their Europarties. Overall, it is probably more accurate to characterize Europarties as networks of like-minded national parties or as loose federations of member parties, especially when compared with the often centralized and strongly disciplined parties found in the member states.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
