Hela Sverige ska leva - varför då? : En analys av fördelningspolitik i landsbygdsfrågor

Sammanfattning: In this thesis I look at redistributive politics within the context of rural politics. The aim of the thesis is to see how we can look at politicians views on redistributive politics by studying what they say in other questions. I here view redistributive politics not only as a question regarding monetary resources but also things like infra-structure and mining politics can be included in this.   The area of rural politics serves this purpose quite well, as there is a clear difference between allocating resources to cities rather than rural areas. This difference may even be regarded as a conflict of interest. Therefore, I argue that the proposals made by politicians on rural politics tells us something, both about their view on the conflict between rural and urban areas, as well as their view on redistributive politics.   I have done a qualitative analysis of four different debates, using four different categories to sort the material. The main categories tells us whether the main objective for redistributing resources is fairness or increased profit, and the secondary categories tells us whether they have rural or urban areas as their focus.   What I find is that the most common way of arguing for redistribution to rural areas is by focusing on what profit it will generate, and especially how the urban areas will profit from this allocation. There is no significant difference between the debates, which means that the things said might well mirror the actual opinions on the value of rural areas in Sweden.