Bonusavtal i statliga företag – rättvis belöning eller uttryck för girighet?

Sammanfattning: This essay deals with the Swedish debate about high-performance bonuses in public administration; a subject which arose as it became clear that during a year of great financial losses, public companies had kept administering large bonuses. The study revolves around two main questions: How can bonuses in public administration be justified in general, and how does this apply to the Swedish high-performance bonus situation in particular? The first question revolves around a normative analysis, formulated in order to develop an analytical tool through which to tackle the second and main question. This tool has been divided into three different approaches depending on their respective focal values. This analytical tool is then applied to the empirical case of the scandals surrounding the state-owned funds that administer a great deal of the Swedish pensionsystem. The study shows the value of appliying ethical theories about normative statements to see what’s desirable in different situations and be able to analyze arguments that spring from different notional worlds. Different aspects of the debate is highlighted. It has become very apparent that not all the values are regarded as equally valuable. Arguments referring to trust have been reinforced while efficiency has been forced a step back.