Success by agreement? Uncovering power struggles in translating Swedish moose policy

Abstract

Abstract Exploring how actors translate public policy content into practice provides new insight into policy processes. Because they are driven by contextual circumstances and values, that is, they are socially constructed, studying the interpretations and negotiations involved in the translation process advances our understanding of what shapes implementation agents, and subsequently the success of policy implementation. The Swedish moose policy, a legislative framework for decentralizing moose management in order to balance the various interests affected by the presence and abundance of moose, was used as a case study. In response to the task of implementation, some of the key stakeholders sought their own strategies for successful implementation and to achieve the national policy goals. This response expressed itself as two separate agreements, in 2016 and 2019, between different constellations of implementing actors (landowner and hunter organizations). These agreements provide an example of how key actors can translate policy, and expose inadequate policy designs. Revealing how the implementing actors perceive the policy and each other helps explain the continued presence of social and political conflict. Our results indicate that power struggles underpin the translation process; by constructing the core problem differently, not sharing ideas about management and using language that discourages collaboration, the actors' translations, together with a lack of clarity in policy design, hinder the chances of successful policy implementation. Policy processes have become increasingly complex, and differences between implementers present as obstacles that have to be overcome. The paper contributes to our understanding of implementation processes within a collaborative governance setting, where the responsibility of the implementation process has been devolved to non‐state actors.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.