Money in Politics - Why Sweden and Denmark Chose Different Paths

Abstract: This paper poses the question: Why did Sweden shift its stance on private money in politics in compliance with GRECO’s recommendations between 2009 and 2014, whereas Denmark did not? It aims to explain the change and non-change through analyzing the countries’ legislation, reports on the countries made by international organizations, and the debates which took place in the countries themselves. The theory of accountability, presented by Tero Errkilä, aids in showing that the key difference between the two countries was their accountability method, and that this ultimately lead to different outcomes in the countries. Sweden, which relied on personal accountability drastically changed their legislative system and incorporated both bureaucratic accountability and deliberation. The reason for the change lies in the personal accountability method sparking legitimacy issues, which in turn led to a debate on the subject in Sweden. Denmark, on the other hand, relied on deliberation and did not feel pressured to change whatsoever. This is due to deliberation being experienced as a satisfactory accountability system. Thus no debate or concerns of the legislation were raised in Denmark, leaving it unchanged.