| Popis: |
Responsibility for emergency preparedness is in the Swedish case mainly governed by one principle citing that responsibility is the same no matter what circumstances. Recent work has made it clear that the responsibility principle is vague and even dangerous when the crisis appears. Most previous work is focused on national-level analysis, even though Sweden has 290 municipalities with constitutional self-government. So, how does a municipality in Sweden interpret and implement this vague principle? Through an inductive interview study of three categories of municipalities: small, middle sized and large, this paper aims to find patterns and interpretations on how the municipalities view the principle and if they differ from each other. These categories also include the relationship between municipalities which will show if larger municipalities give surrounding municipalities an advantage in implementing the principle. The different views offered by the informants are analyzed through structures, concepts and limits for responsibility. No standardized way of interpreting or implementing the responsibility principle is found, and when responsibility is unclear, which it often is, it falls upon the municipalities. The findings also indicate that size or closeness to a larger municipality does not by itself result in a more advantageous cooperation, although it could be part of the explanation. The different actors' organizations have to be similar to work together. These findings are explored in relation to accountability and legitimacy. The analysis indicates that the principle has difficulty establishing accountability, and can be questioned from a perspective of legitimacy. |
