Policing in Sweden – Efficiency and Rule of Law in Police work

Purpose, development and implementation
In 2015, the Swedish police was reorganized into one administrative unit, to enable more efficient governmental and central steering. This project has aimed to analyze the concept of efficiency as defined by governmental demands upon Swedish policing, how these definitions are received and adapted in actual police work and relate to rule of law. Thereto, an ambition has been to develop a model for comparative analysis of steering of police organizations in Europe.

Within the project several sub-studies have been conducted by three researchers in law and political science; an interview study with deputy chiefs and other middle-range managers in the Swedish police and several legal sub-studies of sources of law, and thereto official documents. These sub-studies have related to three themes, linked to questions regarding the steering of what the police ought to do, who within the police ought to do it and how it should be conducted.

During the project, we have developed a theoretical framework for understanding effectiveness and rule of law in police work and how police organisations approach their attempts to combine effectiveness and efficiency. The framework is based on the presumption that there are legal normative limits as to the questions of what, whom and how. Even though the scope of the legal limits as well as the specification and detail of the rules may vary between legal systems, the presumption is that such limits exist.

Three important results and contribution to international research
One result is that effective policing contains a multitude of meanings. Effectiveness may also be confused with efficiency (which is even more prominent in the Swedish context, where one word "effektivitet" is used for both concepts). Legislators use "effective law enforcement" as argument to legitimize changes in law, e.g. when proposing new mandates for the police aiming at increase clear-up rates. The same argument is used when measures are primarily aimed at efficiency; doing the same tasks but using less resource, e.g. introduce simplified procedures (Landström 2017). Even though efficiency may help increase effectiveness, equating them may not be helpful since a saving of resources in one context does not necessarily translate into resources being put into effective use elsewhere (Landström et al forthcoming). We have found that within a police organization effectiveness may be understood as (a) structural efficiency, (b) prioritization, or (c) new working methods and innovation. In terms of structural efficiency, actor understandings are marred by both vertical and horizontal differences. Perceptions of how efficient policing should be organized varies between the central, regional and local levels. Each of these understandings of effectiveness exist in tension with different rule of law values (Eklund forthcoming; Landström et al forthcoming).

Another result shows that the political steering of whom, what and why is rather weak. Furthermore, the legal steering of what and who is rather weak, implying a wide discretion for the police (Eklund & Landström 2019; Landström et al 2019; Landström forthcoming). In terms of how, wide discretion of routines and working-procedures may be observed. However, fundamental rights and constitutional principles draw the outer limits of acceptable working methods, forming stricter legal steering (Naarttijärvi 2016; 2018; 2019; Landström & Naarttijärvi forthcoming).

The relative weakness of political and legal steering combined with wide mandates implies that a lot is left to the police to handle. The new police organisation is capable of central internal steering of what to prioritize or moving resources around the country. However, there are conflicting movements within the police regarding centrally prioritized tasks and the need for adaptation to local needs and conditions (Eklund & Landström 2019; Landström & Naarttijärvi forthcoming; Eklund forthcoming). Innovation of new working methods is developed within different parts of the organization, through organic processes (Landström & Naarttijärvi forthcoming). Conflicts of interest between strategic leadership from the center and local priorities are often framed in terms of competition for scarce budgetary resources. The authority of deputy chiefs on the regional and local levels is sometimes seen as challenged by administrative projects initiated at the center (Eklund forthcoming).

A third result concerns rule of law issues, where the Swedish legal system shows a relative absence of legal safeguards. As a response to a political will to deal with changes in society new tasks are delegated to the police, but with unclear regulation of police mandates and absence of legal safeguards (Landström & Mäki 2019). Furthermore, innovation within the police may take place without necessary legal support (Naarttijärvi 2016). Within the Swedish legal system, there are some lack of judicial control regarding the police (Hjertstedt & Landström 2020), and so far no external authority for ordinary control of the police exist. Through analysing the implementation of new surveillance mandates we have been able to develop a theoretical understanding of how requirements of stricter qualitative legality operating in areas affecting fundamental rights also imply necessary connections between democratic deliberation and policing methods (Naarttijärvi 2018; 2019). This highlights how rule of law and democratic legitimacy can be interdependent in the policing context, and how discretionary spaces in policing implies a transfer of power from the legislative arena to the executive agencies, which may result in policing methods developing with limited democratic deliberation (Naarttijärvi 2019).

Through our empirical study, we have developed a theoretical framework enabling us to understand and explain findings in both interviews and legal sources based on three modalities of effectiveness/efficiency interacting with potentially opposing rule of law values. The first modality is effectiveness as structural efficiency. Here we have been able to identify a tension between uniformity and adaptation as well as operative needs and structural/administrative overhead. The second modality is effectiveness as prioritizations. It is clear from our interviews that effective policing in a resource-constrained environment is understood as a matter of prioritization. Here, we have been able to identify that both political steering and media attention govern prioritizations. Meanwhile, the rule of law tension works in two directions at once. On the one hand, it is clear that legally mandated prioritizations are given precedence over prioritizations made through softer means such as policy. However, we have also been able to identify that the legal support for de-prioritization of cases is limited, but such de-prioritization is still both a common occurrence and an explicit necessity. The third modality is effectiveness as new methods and innovation. Here, new methods and mandates are held by the legislator as a way to reach effective law enforcement. However, we have also been able to identify that innovation and method development is seen within the police as something occurring organically from the bottom of the police organisation, which emphasizes the need for legal quality control. The tension here is primarily relating to internal innovation versus legality, oversight and democratic legitimacy (Landström & Naarttijärvi forthcoming; Naarttijärvi 2019; Naarttijärvi 2018).

The theoretical model based on these modalities can be used to understand and analyse tensions between effectiveness and rule of law within a broader European context. Each modality will be impacted by contextually dependent legal traditions, organizational models and political drivers; however, the theoretical framework can facilitate the identification of functionally comparable components affecting police reform ambitions.

New research questions
The project has generated new research questions and applications for funding. Contacts established with Nordic researchers have highlighted the need for further study of Nordic police cooperation, resulted in a research application to NordForsk about cross border policing.

The study of innovation processes and implementation of new methods within this project has highlighted how emerging technologies implemented in discretionary legal spaces can affect policing mandates. This carries significant implications for rule of law principles. A book exploring these issues further is in development, to be published by Routledge in 2022. This research has also led to research applications to VR and the Wallenberg foundation WASP-HS programme, intending to explore the role of emerging decision-support technologies in policing.

Another identified need for further research is what role the new "citizen promises" may play if new models of 'trust-based steering' result in policiary self-trust. The counteracting movements we have identified with steering from both the top (through increased central control) and the bottom of the organization (through citizen promises) raises several questions from both legal and political perspective.

Dissemination of results, collaboration and international dimensions
Results have been published openly in scientific journals, book chapters and conference papers. The project members have presented results at several conferences, seminars and workshops, in Nordic countries as well as in Japan, Hungary and the Netherlands. Some of the conferences have been especially focused on having participants from the scientific community as well as the police. Thereto results have been presented in connection with the project members' involvement in higher education of police employees and invitation as guest lecturer at other universities.