Organisational governance and discretionary decision-making are central themes in research on both welfare professionals and street level bureaucrats. This paper suggests that it is fruitful to turn the analytic focus in such research from governance vs discretion to how discretionary-decision making is controlled, by elaborating existing analyses of mechanisms for controlling the behaviour and discretion of professionals and frontline bureaucrats. The aim is to understand how discretionary decision-making is controlled by analysing frontline decision-making in four different cases from the Swedish context: dentists, teachers, and case officers in both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Enforcement Authority. The paper thereby contributes to the research field in two ways. One contribution is to present an empirically comparative study in a field in which research tends to be focused on only one professional group, or a single organisational context or “policy domain”, such as social work, education, healthcare or public bureaucracy. The second contribution is the attempt to refocus the understanding of discretionary decision-making by going beyond the top-down vs bottom-up understanding of discretion as a question of restrictions vs freedom and instead approach the issue from the concept of control. Thereby, we want to highlight that discretionary decision-making is never “uncontrolled” (or “free”) but always embedded in several of mechanisms and processes of control at system-, organisational- and interaction levels. 

Trust is about being vulnerable to another party, confident that openness will not be exploited. Matters of trust in industrial relations are poorly researched, especially in the Swedish context. This study enhances our knowledge and understanding of trust in industrial relations by exploring how social partners in Sweden perceive and experience trust. Drawing on qualitative data, the study shows how interpersonal/interactional-based trust is established through formal and informal channels, is stabilised by institution-based trust and the long tradition of collective bargaining, as well as mutual recognition of differing perspectives. Trust places higher demandson good personal behaviour, emphasising integrity and benevolence.

I studier av ”beslut” ligger fokus inte sällan på beslutsfattaren (t.ex. professionellautövare, chefer, frontlinjebyråkrater) eller på själva beslutsprocessessen (information-”val av alternativ/beslut”- verkställande). Mer sällan fokuseras, i sociologiska studier avprofessioner eller organisationer, själva beslutet som sådant. Vad ett beslut är tas heltenkelt ofta för givet. Denna studie är därför ett försök att utforska vad somkaraktäriserar ett beslut, med syftet att på empiriskt grund föreslå en teoretiskkonstruktion av beslut. Det empiriska materialet består av 50-talet kvalitativa intervjuermed yrkesutövare som ägnar sig åt ”välfärdsprofessionellt beslutsfattande” (lärare,handläggare och tandläkare). I detta material fokuseras utsagor som rör beslutet somsådant (typ av beslut, beslutsgrund). För att analytiskt konstruera ”beslut”, inspireras viav Luhmanns formanalys vilken är lämplig vid definition av begrepp och för att fångaunderliggande betydelser. För att klargöra ”det betecknade” (beslutet som ”thesignified”), behöver vi identifiera och skilja ut ”det som betecknar” (”the signifiers”). Vifrågar oss exempelvis: Vilket/vilka är beslutets möjlighetsbetingelser? Vad måste finnasför att vi ska kunna kalla något ett beslut? Vilka är ”the signifyers” för ett beslut fattat avvälfärdsprofessionella? I studien kommer vi även att diskutera tidigare teoretiseringarav beslut som återfinns inom managementlitteratur och organisationssociologi.

This report examines the processes of building and maintaining trust, as well as the sources of trust and distrust between social partners across different levels in Sweden. It exploresthe role of trust in industrial relations, focusing on how social partners perceive its impact onsocial dialogue and collective bargaining. We analyse various dimensions of trust, key obstacles to its development, and the broader implications for industrial relations. The findings are based on interviews with stakeholders and experts at national, sectoral, and company levels in three sectors. The report is part of the TRUE EUROPE research project, which investigates the determinants and outcomes of trust in social partner relations. Interviews were conducted in eight countries, focusing on the metal, transport, and banking and finance sectors. We explored trust levels across different social dialogue topics - from core issues like wages to less contentious areas such as digitalisation, skills and training, and health and safety.

This article explores developments in and obstacles to organised employment relations in theFinTech (sub)sector in Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Using an actor-centredinstitutional approach, the authors analyse factors and strategies affecting whether organisedemployment relations emerge. Empirically, the analyses draw on interviews, documents andinformation from the internet. The results reveal similarities in FinTech developments and obstaclesto organised employment relations, but differences in outcomes in terms of collective organisationand collective agreements. Whereas Estonian FinTechs reproduce a fragmented industrial relationsmodel and FinTechs in the Netherlands are less organised than the adjacent financial servicessector, there have been recent breakthroughs in collective bargaining in Sweden and Denmark.While these outcomes indicate a strong effect from the institutional contexts, the actor strategiesproducing them varied. Danish strategies centred on an arena and legitimacy-forming cooperationbetween employers and trade unions, whereas Swedish strategies were characterised by fragmentedemployer organisation and conflict.