Informellt ministerstyre - Hur informella kontakter mellan regeringen och dess underlydande myndigheter förhåller sig till regeringsformen

Detta är en Uppsats för yrkesexamina på avancerad nivå från Lunds universitet/Juridiska institutionen; Lunds universitet/Juridiska fakulteten

Sammanfattning: Sweden is a rather unique country when it comes to public administration. The government agencies must show obedience towards the government, but the government agencies are at the same time independent from the government. Sweden does not allow ministerial rule, instead the governmet is forced to give directives collectively. The main subject of the essay is to ascertain in what way the government is allowed to use so called ”informal contacts”, communication that lies outside of the official framework, to communicate with its agencies. The independence of the government agencies is primarily regulated in the 12th chapter, section 2 of the Instrument of Government. The statute restricts the government from influencing the government agencies in matters concerning exercise of public authority against an individual or a municipality, or influencing the adjudication process. Outside the area of application of the 12th chapter, section 2 of the Instrument of Government it is allowed for the government to influence the government agencies. There have been legal disagreements regarding to what extent informal contacts should be allowed, both within and outside the area of application. There was a more liberal outlook on informal contacts during the 1980s, since then the view on informal contacts has fluctuated to some degree. The Committee on the Constitution might have a more restrictive view on informal contacts than those reflected in the legislative history. There are views in the legislative history which advocates for a more liberal view on informal contacts outside the area of application, where the government is not restricted in any regard. There are also statements in the legislative history which says individual ministers should be able to presents their opinions to their government agencies. There is no unambiguous interpretation of when informal contacts are allowed outside the area of application. There is, however, flaws with informal contacts where you can find legalconsensus. The criticism is primarily from the Committee on the Constitution, which points out flaws in regard to documentation of formal contacts and how it negatively affects the principle of public access to official records and accountability. The Committee on the Constitution and the Swedish Agency for Public Management has also commented on that there is a certain unpredictability when it comes to the use of informal contacts. They have also pointed out that there is a lack of knowledge when it comes to the use of informal contacts, when and in what way it is permitted. This is epsecially true within the government agencies. The Committee on the Constitution, the Swedish Agency for Public Management and statements in the legislative history has for a long time pointed out that some kind of training program is necessary. To which degree training has helped is hard to determine. Perhaps, what is necessary is a more reprehensible legislation, or at least more stringent routines in regard to informal contacts. These suggestions might not be enough, since these problems have been present for at least 30 years. Perhaps some kind of new solution is necessary.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)