To Örebro University

Drawing upon an analytical combination of critical security studies (CST) and intersectional theory (IT), we in this article focus on migration policy in Sweden 2015-2023 with a particular focus on representations of Islam and Muslims. Using thematic analysis, arguments, and statements raised by key political actors, i.e., the Swedish Government and the radical-right/retrotopian party Sweden Democrats, we study the threats as perceived to legitimize the Swedish Government’s turn to a more restrictive stance. Exploring the official, justifying points of this policy turn, we also exemplify our approach by referencing policy repercussions related to the Russian attack on Ukraine. Outstanding findings in the material include continuous attempts to de-masculinize Muslim men who are constructed interchangeably as welfare recipients, violent and eager terrorists, exponents of criminal behavior in general, or failing in their role as protectors of women and children. All in all, these findings are representations of a particular ‘Swedish’ culture, the welfare state and individual responsibility implicating a mission to save a national ‘We’ from a foreign ‘Them’ built around negative stereotypes of Muslims. In addition to illustrating the analytical strength of securitization theory, we also demonstrate the complementary capacity of intersectional theory for an analysis of migration policy change.

The article describes and reflects upon how multi-level governance and planning in Sweden have been affected by and reacted upon three pending major challenges confronting humanity, namely climate change, migration and the Covid-19 pandemic. These ‘crises’ are broadly considered ‘existential threats’ in need of ‘securitisation’. Causes and adequate reactions are contested, and there are no given solutions how to securitise the perceived threats, neither one by one, no less together. Government securitisation strategies are challenged by counter-securitisation demands, and plaguing vulnerable groups in society by in-securitising predicaments. Taking Sweden as an example the article applies an analytical approach drawing upon strands of securitisation, governance and planning theory. Targeting policy responses to the three perceived crises the intricate relations between government levels, responsibilities, capacities, and actions are scrutinized, including a focus upon the role of planning. Overriding research questions are: How has the governance and planning system – central, regional and local governments - in Sweden responded to the challenges of climate change, migration and Covid-19? What threats were identified? What solutions were proposed? What consequences could be traced? What prospects wait around the corner? Comparing crucial aspects of the crises’ anatomies the article adds to the understanding of the way multilevel, cross-sectional, hybrid governance and planning respond to concurrent crises, thereby also offering clues for action in other geopolitical contexts. The article mainly draws upon recent and ongoing research on manifestations of three cases in the Swedish context. Applying a pragmatic, methodological approach combining elements of securitisation, governance and planning theories with Carol Lee Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be’ and a touch of interpretive/narrative theory, the study reveals distinct differences between the anatomies of the three crises and their handling. Urgency, extension, state of knowledge/epistemology, governance and planning make different imprints on crises management. Sweden’s long-term climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies imply slow, micro-steps forward based on a combination of social-liberal, ‘circular’ and a touch of ‘green growth’ economies. Migration policy displays a Janus face, on the one hand largely respecting the UN refugee quota system on the other hand applying a detailed regulatory framework causing severe insecurity especially for minor refugees wanting to stay and make their living in Sweden. The Covid-19 outbreak revealed a lack of foresight and eroded/fragmented responsibility causing huge stress upon personnel in elderly and health care and appalling death rates among elderly patients, although governance and planning slowly adapted through securitising policies, leading to potential de-securitisation of the issue. The three crises have caused a security wake-up among governments at all levels and the public in general, and the article concludes by discussing whether this ‘perfect storm’ of crises will result in a farewell to neoliberalism – towards a neo-regulatory state facing further challenges and crises for governance, planning and the role of planners. The tentative prospect rather indicates a mixture of context-dependent ‘hybrid governance’, thus also underlining the crucial role of planners’ role as ‘chameleons’ in complicated governance processes of politics, policy and planning.

Taking our point of departure in securitization theory the aim is to analyze how the Lutheran Church of Sweden responded when the Swedish Government in late autumn 2015 made a sudden halt to a previously generous posture towards refugees. Applying the concept of counter-securitization we demonstrate how the Archbishop, and other Church leaders, strongly contested this official policy shift, legitimating their standpoint by referring to a radical, cosmopolitan reading of the gospel. Employees and lay members were mobilized to support immigrants through protest, everyday service, consultation and lobbying. Articulating a view that securitization should not be reserved for cases of a perceived existential military threat is highly relevant for the debate about the role of religion and secularism. Securitization and counter-securitization appear as two complementary approaches, where the Church may stand up as a bulwark defending immigration rights in contradistinction to retrotopian and xenophobic interpretations of the gospel. We contribute to this field by illustrating how research should not be caught in a one-dimensional reading of 'security' and 'securitization', but has to be interpreted within a non-linear, non-binary framework, with a sensitive ear to different political, cultural, social and religious contexts, not forgetting the time dimension.

The aim of the article is to analyse and reflect upon the process and outcome of a potential clash between urban biodiversity and road transport interests in the Swedish city of Örebro, as a case of planning in the face of conflict. Combining an application of multilevel governance theory with negotiation planning and narrative method, it examines the siting of a huge warehouse and “logistics centre” at the edge of a Natura 2000 site on the outskirts of the city. Despite the city’s ambitious environmental goals and sustainability profile, the local authority decided to offer the company a site adjacent to a wetland area intended for preserving and developing biodiversity. After an intervention by the central state County Administrative Board [länsstyrelsen], the local authority had to implement certain security measures, and also reserve an additional, large natural land area to compensate for the threats to the Natura 2000 site. Before the final decision was made, a series of negotiations occurred between the involved actors, mainly the local authority, the multinational Sonepar Group/Elektroskandia and the County Administrative Board, and the case is a fruitful target for a multifaceted analysis illuminating the tension between the goals of preserving urban biodiversity and promoting road transport and urban growth. It also offers an inside view of the negotiation and planning process. The key issue is how the siting of a potentially hazardous, transport intensive national warehouse in a city renowned for its high environmental-protection profile was possible. Considering Sweden’s high-profile regarding sustainability, the selected case also offers food for reflection on the potentials and barriers of implementing ecological modernization more generally. The lessons learned from an examination of the local authority’s attempt to harmonize such diverse policy priorities as urban biodiversity and intensive road transport for economic growth, on a site adjacent to a Natura 2000 wetlands area, may help enable urban planners and scholars to find creative policy solutions, avoid causing damage to biodiversity, and increase ecosystem values in terms of residents’ and other visitors’ experience and understanding of nature. However, at the end of the article we address the question of whether our empirical conclusion is not “too good to be true”, and raise concerns regarding the intricate relationship between sustainability and resilience; the systemic power exerted by the global Sonepar Group/Elektroskandia; and the potentials and limits of public negotiation planning.