COPY LINK

INTEGRATION

OPINION: Integration is in actions, not words – here’s how Almedalen could be more open

When recent master's graduate in political science Alyssa Bittner-Gibbs had a chance to attend Sweden's Almedalen festival, she jumped at the chance to experience an event calling itself "the democratic meeting place for everyone". But her experience only highlighted some of the main barriers to political integration, she writes.

Published: 11 July 2019 12:00 CEST

OPINION: Integration is in actions, not words – here's how Almedalen could be more open

Almedalen claims to be "the democratic meeting place for everyone", but how true is that description? File photo: Henrik Montgomery / TT

I chose to attend events focusing on one of my own hjärtefragor (“issues of the heart”): the disproportionate unemployment of foreign-born women in Sweden. I wanted to hear what the politically engaged understood about the issue and how to address it, and perhaps share my own and acquaintances' experiences.

I couldn't help but notice that both panelists and audiences were almost exclusively comprised of upper middle-class, native-born Swedes in seminar after seminar.

Almedalen's growth over recent decades has pushed up hotel and travel costs, so that while events are free, it is in practice dominated by the affluent. Compared to Järvavecken, a political festival held in one of Stockholm's suburbs each June, was like comparing Swedish winter darkness to the midnight sun. Järvaveckan was the bazaar, packed with residents of all colours and stripes of Swedish society. Almedalen was the guild house: a rather homogeneous group of well-dressed, well-connected people.

READ ALSO:

It also became clear that this was “hive mind” in action, with little input at any point from the most affected groups. Solutions proposed included internships, mentorship programmes, and UHR (Swedish Council for Higher Education) recognition of non-EU qualifications. I and many others have participated in all three with very mixed outcomes.

From our experiences, many Swedish employers consider education or experience outside of Sweden to be worthless, and many don't consider internships as “real” work experience. Those who achieve regular employment after years often settle for occupations that match neither work experience or education, are assumed by work colleagues as less capable, and critically lack knowledge of their working rights.

The Social Democrats' Almedalen economic seminar, taking place without the party leader and prime minister who chose not to attend the week-long festival. Photo: Henrik Montgomery / TT

The solutions discussed in the seminars failed to address problems such as discrimination against foreign names and the crafting of job listings or tests designed to sift out foreign-born applicants. Sole responsibility for integration was laid entirely on newcomers, with little reference to the responsibilities of Swedes in fighting discrimination and coming up with fresh approaches and mindsets.

Seeing a need for dialogue, I eagerly anticipated the chance to ask questions within the seminars. Yet, with few exceptions panel members rushed to their next event, leaving no opportunity for audience discussion.

While the three key premises for foreign-born citizens to succeed (sense of belonging, feeling included, and full agency in shaping their lives) were frequently invoked by panelists, there was little evidence of this being put into place on site. I observed like mingling with like, and often felt like a token foreign-born participant, wondering if I belonged at Almedalen and even in Sweden.

READ ALSO:

Crowds walk through the streets of Visby during the event. Photo: Henrik Montgomery / TT

Having the chance to attend did give me an opportunity to see the range of Swedish organizations engaged in addressing these issues – key information that newcomers critically lack. And I made meaningful contacts in one-on-one discussion at mingles, glass of wine in hand. Some validated my own concerns, with one remarking that a seminar we attended had been more of a “political rally” than an attempt to brainstorm solutions. Words, not actions.

Having lived in Sweden for nearly six years, following two earlier student exchanges here, I care deeply about this country and share unreservedly in the Swedish values of equality, collectivism, and egalitarianism.

But I'm also aware of the focus on conformity and Jantelagen — the unwritten social code that emphasizes the importance of 'fitting in' and not trying to teach others — not to mention the general aversion of making oneself or others uncomfortable in social situations. When we discuss topics such as integration, we need to be prepared for this discomfort.

IN DEPTH: How is Sweden tackling its integration challenge?

A crowd applauds a speech during the Liberal Party's day of Almedalen. Photo: Henrik Montgomery / TT

The second step is to recognize that lives and experiences outside of Sweden are invaluable in the quest to attract global talent, fill work shortages, and market Sweden to the world. I am fortunate to have a multi-cultural and multi-faith group of friends, and feel my life is richer for these relationships. My ultimate hope for Sweden is to meet its challenges, shaping a more cohesive Swedish society through diverse, complete, and truly open dialogue that results in a country where we all feel included, engaged, and that we belong.

So, in the spirit of proposing ideas instead of merely criticism, I suggest that Almedalen:

1. Set the example and showcase the kind of Sweden we want to achieve by including those directly affected most by society's problems. Leaders should lend their influence to frame these narratives while providing their political and business expertise to achieve workable solutions, but extra effort must be taken to invite and include the people directly affected.

2. Always incorporate questions. Citizens directly addressing officials about their lives is what democracy is all about. This could be done by allowing questions to be submitted in advance online, or organizing complimentary events. Care should be taken by moderators to ensure that those from underrepresented groups have the chance to ask questions, so it's not only the loudest voices that are heard.

3. Target some mingles towards politically underrepresented groups. Publicizing exclusive mingles for only the powerful and connected doesn't look great in democratic spaces which claim to be “for everyone”.

4. Prioritize fighting affordability and accessibility issues. These have been noted over the years, even by Sweden's prime minister who did not attend Almedalen this year, but remain unaddressed. Instead of politicians turning their backs on Almedalen, why not simply help more groups to attend? One way of doing this would be to have a new Swedish city host Almedalen each summer.

By taking these four steps, we can bring more of Sweden into the conversation. It will require some discomfort and engagement with lived experience outside of statistical data. It will mean that panelists and speakers will sometimes have to give up their microphone and instead listen as engaged citizens. This is what being an ally to affected groups is all about.

One day, I hope to return to Almedalen. I take heart from my conversations that some of Almedalen's core, native demographic understands these needs as well, and uses their influence to drive concrete efforts to bring the needed changes in our democracy. Their engagement will be crucial to helping Sweden meet its democratic challenges in the coming years, during which we can all learn a great deal from each other.

Alyssa Bittner-Gibbs first came to Sweden in 1998 as an impressionable 17-year-old high school exchange student. She recently earned a master's in political science following an internship at democracy think-tank International IDEA, and resides with her American husband and daughters in Bromma.

Member comments

Become a Member to leave a comment.

Should Sweden abandon a weak krona for the euro?

The krona hitting rock bottom has reawakened a debate that had been dead for twenty years.

Hedge fund manager Christer Gardell kickstarted the debate before the New Year, when he said Sweden should abandon the krona, which was now “a shitty little currency”. In January, the Moderate Party grandee Gunnar Hökmark, chief of the Frivärld think-tank and long-term euro advocate, argued that Sweden should join.

Veteran economist Lars Calmfors, who chaired the government inquiry which in 1999 recommended that Sweden stay outside, made a similar call shortly afterwards. Carl Hammer, chief strategist at SEB, who had voted against joining in the 2003 referendum wrote in May that he, too, was now “leaning towards a ‘yes'” on euro membership.

Now one of Sweden’s three government parties has started to campaign on the issue. The Liberal Party, long in theory in favour of euro membership, on September 4th called for a new government inquiry on joining the currency.

“We can quite simply no longer afford to stay outside [the euro],” the party’s leader Johan Pehrson wrote in the Aftonbladet newspaper. “Let’s upgrade our EU membership from ‘basic’ to ‘premium’. Let’s bring in the euro now!'”

Is it a hot topic?

According to Calmfors and Hammer, the debate is raging in the circles they move in, but has yet to really spread to the general public.

“Between 2010 and the end of last year, I don’t think I was asked even once to speak about Sweden and the euro. But now I have two or three invitations each week, and in fact six this week when we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the referendum.”

“I see a lot of academic and business seminars on the weak krona,” Hammer agreed.

For both of them, the revival in interest has come about mainly due to the weakness of the krona, which Calmfors complained had been trading as if Sweden were a “banana republic”. And unlike during the 1999 internet crash or the 2007 financial crisis, when a drop in the krona helped bolster Sweden’s economy, this time the weak currency was causing problems.

“Earlier it has benefitted us,” Calmfors said. “The krona depreciated and firms could gain market share. It helped stabilise output and employment,” he explained. “But this time, it’s different. Now, the depreciation of the krona counteracts the efforts of the Riksbank to get inflation down and reduce aggregate demand. So this time, it is a problem.”

For Hammer, the weakness of the krona was more understandable, reflecting a flight to strong currencies in reaction to the war in Ukraine.

“Had we not had Ukraine, and had we not had other global issues, I think the krona would have been stronger,” he said.

Calmfors isn’t so certain about this, pointing out that the Swiss Franc, another small floating currency, has not been similarly weak. He does, however, see the invasion of Ukrainian as the second big reason why the euro debate has revived.

“The war in Ukraine has made Swedes recalibrate our view of our position in the world,” he said. “The application for Nato membership is the most obvious evidence for this, but I think it spills over to the euro issue as well.”

Lars Calmfors, Professor Emeritus in Economics at Stockholm University. Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT

HOW HAVE THE FUNDAMENTALS CHANGED?

1. Sweden’s government finances are much stronger

While the weak krona is the catalyst for the debate, for Calmfors, the improvement in Sweden’s government finances is a much better reason for sceptics to change their minds.

When he submitted his report in 1999, his committee’s main argument against joining was the risk of a country-specific economic shock which would affect Sweden, but not other EU countries. Such a shock would be hard to combat if Sweden no longer had the freedom to set its own interest rates or devalue its currency.

“We argued that (…) it’s good to have your own monetary policy, an exchange rate that can change,” he said.

At that time, Sweden’s national debt was at 70-75 percent of GDP, well above the 60 percent that is the (increasingly theoretical) maximum for countries signed up to the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact.

“This was very important in the 1990s, because we had a sovereign debt crisis in Sweden, so fiscal policy could not be used as a substitute for monetary policy,” he remembered.

Now, Sweden’s national debt is just 35 percent of GDP, well below that of France at 98 percent or Germany at 60 percent and, for Calmfors, this removes the biggest obstacle to joining, as Sweden’s government would be able to spend its way out of any country-specific shock.

“That’s very low in an international context, so we have a lot of fiscal firepower. No one would argue with us if we had an expansionary fiscal policy.”

Hammer, arguing along the same lines, pointed out that in the years before and since the euro referendum, Sweden had never in fact suffered the sort of country-specific shock that Calmfors and his committee had worried about. The Riksbank, meanwhile, had always run a monetary policy in line with that of the European Central Bank.

“For the past 30 years, Sweden has been living with a floating exchange rate but living as if we’ve had a fixed exchange rate,” he said.

The country, he explained, had had strict limitations on government spending, a surplus target, a very coordinated and orderly wage bargaining process, and a fully funded pension system. “So if any country would have the room and possibility to live with a fixed exchange rate, it’s Sweden.”

2. Businesses don’t use the krona anyway

For Hammer, the biggest new argument against the krona is not so much improved government finances as the fact that Sweden’s big companies now barely use it.

And the same goes for Sweden’s pension funds.

“Large corporations don’t want to deal in the krona – they prefer to make transactions and trade in euros and dollars – and we channel a huge part of our surplus or excess savings into foreign asset markets,” he said. “So, we’ve already to some extent adopted foreign currencies, but we’ve also kept the krona, which from my perspective makes the arguments for having it less strong.”

It is this which has pushed him towards a “yes” despite continuing to believe that the euro is “a suboptimal currency union”.

“I’m leaning towards voting yes if we were to have a new referendum on the basis that the foundation for the currency has been undermined by the fact that we’re so dependent on foreign currency,” he said. “From that perspective, I think, you can make a case for joining the euro on the grounds of greater financial stability.”

3. After Brexit Sweden looks more and more alone

With the UK leaving the European Union altogether, Croatia joining the euro this year, Bulgaria scheduled to join in 2025, and Romania in 2026, the number of countries who are in the EU but not the eurozone is falling.

“If you ask people, like Swedish commissioners in the EU or people that have been doing negotiations in in the EU, they have the view that we have lost out by not belonging to the core,” Calmfors said. “The risk that we will lose out probably becomes bigger, the greater the share of EU countries that adopt the euro.”

Carl Hammer, chief strategist at Sweden’s SEB Bank. Photo: SEB

WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS NOT TO JOIN?

1. The risk of country-specific shocks is real

Just because Sweden has more fiscal firepower to deal with a country specific shock does not mean the risk of such shocks is not a major drawback to euro membership.

Finland suffered one when Nokia, far and away the country’s biggest company, mismanaged its reaction to the launch of the iPhone and exited to the mobile phone business. Between 2008 and 2022 its debt to GDP ratio more than doubled from 33 percent to 74 percent.

Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal arguably suffered from the issue during the European banking crisis.

As Sweden’s economy is unusually sensitive to interest rates, with much higher private debt and a high share of variable rate mortgages, the ECB could easily set an interest rate that, while right for most eurozone countries, would be too high for Sweden.

“That could be a problem, but it’s also a problem that could be dealt with by using fiscal policy,” Calmfors argues.

2. The risk of bank bailouts and country bailouts remains

The other big argument against joining the euro, which was clearly demonstrated during the European debt crisis from 2009 until about 2014, is that Sweden would have to help bail out countries, such as Italy and Greece, which have been less disciplined in the management of their government finances.

Joining the euro would also mean joining the European Banking Union, which means that Sweden might also have to participate in rescuing banks in countries with less well-functioning financial supervision.

Calmfors acknowledged that this was still a risk, but argued that members of the European Union who are not part of the eurozone were increasingly being asked to contribute to rescue packages anyway.

“If you look at the support after the Covid crisis and during the Covid crisis, we had to pay that as well, even though we were not a member of the monetary union,” he said.

And when it came to bank bailouts, Sweden was, he argued, as likely to benefit as to lose out, given the high indebtedness of Sweden’s citizens.

“We might end up having to pay for bank crises in other countries. But on the other hand, we would also be helped if we had a financial crisis, which of course is not something we can rule out,” he said.

Also, he said there might be an advantage in having banks and other financial services regulated by the European Central Bank and other European regulators, as a European regulator might have more expertise, there are many cross-border links between banks, and there would be less of a risk of a cosy relationship building up between local banks and the regulator.

HOW HAVE THE ADVANTAGES OF EURO MEMBERSHIP CHANGED?

Calmfors argues that while the negative risks of adopting the euro have diminished, the advantages remain more or less the same.

“The biggest benefit is of course that having different currencies is a kind of trade impediment and that would be eliminated, which would mean more trade, which would mean that we use our resources more efficiently, so it would give slightly higher growth over a long period, which, even if small each year, would accumulate to quite a lot in the long term.”

Recent research suggested, he added, that this effect might be more significant than people previously thought.

“Studies seem to point to much bigger effects than we expected in the 1990s. We’re talking about a 10 to 20 percent increase in trade, not from one year to another, but over a number of years,” he said.

The problem with the debate over euro membership had always been, he concluded, that the benefits and risks were of such a different character.

“You can’t really make an economic calculation, because you are comparing different things: We are comparing small, but certain positive gains – because there will be more trade that we will get slowly over years – with a risk of big macroeconomic shocks that can have huge effects over a few years.”

This makes it hard for economists to reach a firm conclusion.

“You can’t really say what is right and wrong, but I think what you can say is that the balance has shifted in the direction of being a more positive calculation for being a member today than there was 25 years ago.”

SHOW COMMENTS

Url copied to clipboard!