Rhetoric and Action in Regulating the Public Schools in Norway and Sweden

In the past few decades, Norway and Sweden, like the rest of the Western world, have attempted to restructure and deregulate education. In both countries, the established governing models were threatened due to lack of legitimacy and efficiency. This article discusses the extent to which the different explanations of stability and institutional change address what happened when Management by Objectives and Results (MbOR) was introduced in Norway and Sweden. However, both the content and the course of change were different in the two countries. More specifically, one can talk about processes combining lock‐in mechanism and layering in the Norwegian course of development. In Sweden, the process of change was characterized by sudden and radical decisions. A decision made in 1991 could be explained as a state of punctuated equilibrium , as strong forces produced a situation where nothing else was to be done except make a radical change, turning the centralized system into a decentralized one. The period has parallels to the concept of ‘ critical juncture ’, representing a moment of openness to and possibility for different and new actors to influence a new constitution. In Norway, the transformation of policy tools for education purposes has thus far dominated the process and direction of change. In Sweden, through processes of conversion , the policy tool has gained a more dominating influence over education policy. Accordingly, there was a stronger emphasis on MbOR in its original version in Sweden than in Norway, which has transformed and defined the concept in line with educational purposes. This article outlines two cases of institutional change that combine elements of lock in with new developments. In neither Norway nor Sweden was the development pushed further in the same trajectory, rather it was transformed and, in the case of Sweden, radically changed within a larger nationally specific framework of sequence of events, values, norms and traditions of policy making.