Search

In 2011 the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) developed a model for scenario analysis within the National Risk and Capability Assessment-process (NRFB) to produce viable capability assessments and analysis. While being inspired by EU recommendations, the results were to be used as basis for crisis preparedness planning and policy development. From 2012 up until 2021 the NRFB's scenario analysis program ran its course and 19 different scenario analyses were produced, all focused on crisis situations. In this article we take the opportunity to assess the NRFB's scenario analysis program to see how conflicting goals and contextual factors shaped the chosen methodological parameters, and how that dictated the NRFB program's ability to deal with the scenarios presented. As a theoretical starting point, the article argues that all of the scenarios produced can be characterized as wicked problems, and that this put restraints on what NRFB's scenario analyses were able to produce from a policy and planning perspective. In unexpected ways, however, we argue that the program was not a failure. Being in the business of public trust and confidence, the results of the study is of high relevance during a time in which preparedness activities of states are climbing on the political agenda after recent pandemics and wars. The article shows the importance of maintaining a well-developed theoretical model for scenario analysis, solving conflicting goals at the beginning, and keeping track of how contemporary issues and political trends affects the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift is the property of Fahlbeckska Stiftelsen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Within what boundaries are independent central banks allowed to operate? This question is seldom discussed but has gained prominence due to the changes in monetary policy since the 2008/09 financial crisis. Notably, the Swedish central bank, the Riksbank, along with other central banks, has expanded its monetary policy toolkit to include so-called quantitative easing--primarily the purchase of securities, mainly bonds. Originally conceived as crisis instruments, these balance sheet measures have increasingly been embraced as monetary policy tools for stabilizing both the economic cycle and inflation. A growing body of literature suggests that these measures carry numerous adverse side-effects on the macroeconomy, and risk extending monetary policy beyond the original constraints set when the Riksbank gained independence in the 1990s. This article problematizes this evolution and raises the question of whether the monetary policy framework needs to be updated to limit the discretionary space of an independent Riksbank. The article concludes with a discussion on what potential reforms to this framework might entail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Internasjonal Politikk is the property of Cappelen Damm Akademisk and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)