DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public-Private Collaboration in Swedish 
Crisis Preparedness  
A case study on the local level   
 
 
Julia Pamp
 
 
Master’s Thesis: 30 credits 
Programme: Master’s Programme in Political Science 
Date: 14 August 2024 
Supervisor: Professor Ann-Marie Ekengren 
Words: 19,390 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
In the midst of Sweden rebuilding its total defence, an increasing amount of vital societal 
services are outsourced to the private sector. Despite the private sector’s growing influence in 
local Swedish crisis preparedness and management, their role in the system remains vague. To 
deepen our understanding on the dynamics between the public and private sector in crisis 
preparedness on a local level, this thesis investigates enabling factors for efficient 
collaborations, as well as challenges to effective partnerships. The thesis focuses entirely on 
the perspectives of the public sector, as they are the ones initiating collaborations, as well as 
the ones ultimately responsible for a functioning local crisis preparedness and management. To 
achieve this, ten interviews were conducted, nine with representatives from different 
municipalities, and one with a regional actor that facilitates collaboration between different 
actors in the region of Stockholm. The study sought to identify key enabling factors and 
challenges within these private-public relationships, using a theoretical framework focused on 
partnership resilience, strengths, and weaknesses.  
The findings of the study are primarily confirming of the theoretical framework. Key takeaways 
are that partnerships are complex to navigate, with many intertwining factors contributing to 
the effectiveness of collaborations. In sum, it is vital for local public actors to understand each 
other’s roles and responsibilities, have clear contracts in place, and be open to flexibility and 
adaptability in cooperation with the private sector. In addition, established contact networks, 
open communication, and learning from past crises are vital to facilitate future effective 
cooperations.  
 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: public-private partnerships, municipal crisis preparedness, crisis management, 
effective collaboration. 
1 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 
 
I want to begin with expressing my utmost gratitude to my 
 
supervisor, Professor Ann-Marie Ekengren, for her continuous 
 enthusiasm for this project, as well as for her immense support, 
guidance, encouragement, and patience.  
 
I would also like to extend gratitude to the informants who 
 
volunteered to be a part of the study - hearing their perspectives 
 has contributed invaluable knowledge for the study. A thank you 
also goes out to municipalities who could not partake in the study 
 
but gave textual remarks, all of which gave further insight in the 
 world of crisis preparedness. Beyond this, I want to thank my 
contacts and past colleagues at the Swedish Civil Contingencies 
 
Agency (MSB) for their general tips, remarks, and words of 
 encouragement. Thank you all for helping me improve this study.  
  
 I dedicate this thesis to my friends and family, for their 
unwavering support. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 
1. Introduction   1 
1.1. Research Problem and Aim 3 
1.2. Disposition 5 
2. Previous Research   5 
     2.1. Collaboration in Crisis Management 6 
     2.2. Challenges for Effective Collaboration 8 
 2.3. Research Gap 9 
3. Theory 10 
3.1. Public-Private Cooperation and Resilience 11 
3.2. Challenges and Enabling Factors for Effective Collaboration 13 
3.2.1. Partnership Structure 13 
3.2.2. Relational Management 14 
3.2.3. Capabilities of Partners and Management of Resources 15 
3.2.4. Situational Awareness 17 
3.3. Analytical Framework 18 
3.4. Limitations 19 
4.  Research Questions 20 
5.  Method and Material 20 
5.1. Research Design 20 
5.1.1. Case 21 
5.1.2. Semi-structured Interviews 21 
5.1.3. Participants 23 
5.1.4 Documents 25 
    5.2 Research Process 25 
5.3 Methods Discussion and Limitations 25 
6 Results and Analysis  27 
6.1. Partnership Structure 27 
6.2. Relational Management 32 
6.3. Capabilities of Partners and Management of Resources 35 
6.4. Situational Awareness 37 
6.5. The Strucutral Reform 39 
6.6. Discussion 40 
7. Conclusion 43 
References 44 
Appendix 1: List of Participants 54 
Appendix 2: Interview Guide (Swedish, original) 55 
Appendix 3: Interview Guide (English, translated) 56 
Appendix 4: Original Quotes  57 
 
 
1. Introduction 
The military is often seen as a priority in national defence (Lallerstedt, 2021). However, broader 
societal resilience encompassing all citizens is key to uphold vital societal functions at times of 
crisis of war (SAF, 2023). As such, defence must be seen in the larger context of total, or 
comprehensive defence (Lallerstedt, 2021).1 A vital part of Sweden’s total defence is crisis 
preparedness, which is about the capacity for society to prevent, withstand, and manage all 
types of societal disturbances and crises that risk harm, while also safeguarding the country’s 
protective values (MSB, 2021).2  
Sweden used to have one of the most advanced and encompassing total defence systems in the 
world during the Cold War, but dismantled it in the post-Cold War period (Wieslander, 2022; 
Jakobsson, 2019).3 Global security is deteriorating, following Russia’s 2014 annexation of 
Crimea and its ongoing war in Ukraine (Lallerstedt, 2021), China’s rearmament and desire for 
political influence (Bergenwall & Gunnarsson, 2019) and increasing tensions in Arab-Israeli 
conflicts. As Western cohesiveness and values weaken, technological advancements make 
societies more vulnerable to influence operations and cyberattacks (Lallerstedt, 2021). At the 
same time, the development of long-range precision munitions makes key infrastructure easier 
to target than ever before. Against this bleak backdrop, the Swedish government sees the need 
to reintroduce and rebuild the total defence system (Bergenwall & Gunnarsson, 2019), which 
includes reinforcing the civil defence and crisis preparedness.4 In turn, crisis preparedness 
encompasses all societal levels, from government agencies to regions, municipalities, 
businesses, volunteers, and individual citizens (MSB, 2024a). 
While crises and catastrophes take many different forms and arise from many different events, 
it can broadly be defined as “situations that are being experienced as seriously threatening to 
core values or structures, requiring urgent actions, yet also highly uncertain as to their 
origins…” (Boin & t’ Hart, 2005:2). A clear example is the Covid-19 pandemic, which besides 
                                               
1 In Swedish terminology, Totalförsvaret. 
2 The protective values [in Swedish, Skyddsvärden] are: (1) people’s lives and health, (2) the functionality of 
society, (3) democracy, legal certainty, human rights and freedom, (4) environmental and financial values, and (5) 
national sovereignty (MSB, 2016) 
3 The dismantling process included abandoning the conscript training system (Lallerstedt, 2021), as well as 
significant downsizing regarding personnel, equipment, and infrastructure (Strömberg, 2010; Lundmark, 2021). 
4 In recent years, the Swedish government have made large additions to the defence budget to strengthen the 
country’s military and defence (Regeringskansliet, 2023a; MSB, 2023a). 
1 
 
 
 
having detrimental effects on health, also caused economic and social disruptions (WHO, 
2020). Despite pandemics, other crises pose severe societal threats and can manifest from 
antagonistic threats, destabilisation, international conflicts, as well as natural disasters and 
climate change (MSB, 2021).  Natural disasters, like heat waves, forest fires, rising sea levels, 
downpours, storms and floods are only expected to increase and become more common in the 
future (IPCC, 2021). These structural threats only increase the demand for a structured and 
effective crisis preparedness and management system.  
Much of the civil defence is dependent on regional and local actors. Regional actors are 
responsible for tasks over large geographical areas, often requiring plenty of resources to 
efficiently manage healthcare and welfare, education, and public transport (SKR, 2021a). Local 
actors, such as municipalities, are responsible for social services like water and sewage systems, 
infrastructure, housing, waste disposal services, and schools, to name a few (SKR, 2021b).  
Crisis management is ultimately implemented by local governments and actors, with 
Danielsson & Sjöstedt-Landén (2019) arguing that they have one of the most central and active 
roles in management, in part due to their familiarity with local conditions, communities, and 
cultures. While the importance of these actors in Swedish crisis preparedness are not new, the 
2022 structural reform for the civil defence changed the role of regional actors - at least on 
paper. The reform, which ultimately aimed to strengthen Sweden’s resilience under peacetime 
crises, heightened alert5 and war, turned 60 Swedish authorities into preparedness agencies, 
created 10 new sectors for different parts of civil preparedness, and split Sweden into six civil 
areas, each responsible for coordinating and leading the civil defence within its area (MSB, 
2023b).6 The purpose of the reform was to have clearer roles and division of responsibility, 
manage crisis preparedness with more ease, as well as strengthen cooperation with the private 
sector (ibid.) 
The importance and role of the private sector has also increased following Sweden’s gradual 
changes to preparedness systems and economic structures, leaving many previously state-
owned enterprises in the domains of the private sector (Eriksson et al., 2019; Gratzer et al., 
                                               
5 The government can utilise heightened alert when there are conflicts in Sweden’s close vicinity, or if the global 
state of the world greatly impacts Sweden or threaten its security and sovereignty (MSB, 2022). It gives the 
government larger discretion when making decisions and quickly mobilise society (Sveriges Riksdag, 2019). 
6 The sectors include healthcare and welfare, the supply of food and drinking water, transport, emergency services, 
digital communication, financial services and transport, to name a few (MSB, 2023b).  
 
2 
 
 
2021; MSB, 2024a). This is the case in all areas, from the supply of electricity and 
telecommunication, transport, to the health sector (MSB, 2024a). As such, ensuring that the 
private sector’s societal responsibilities continue in times of crises and social disturbances is 
even more crucial than before. Given this development, establishing efficient cooperation 
between the public and private sectors may be one of the most critical parts of Sweden’s new 
national defence.  
1.1. Research Problem and Aim 
Interorganisational and cross-sectoral cooperation is crucial in Sweden’s total defence, as no 
organisation or government agency is solely responsible for crisis management and 
preparedness (Eriksson et al., 2019; Alford & Head, 2017; Cristofoli et al., 2017). 
Collaborations are required not only in the midst of a crisis, disturbance or war, but also in pre-
planning and preparation in order to bolster societal resilience (Chen et al., 2013).  These 
cooperations require a significant amount of resources, knowledge, and abilities in order to 
efficiently prepare for and manage different types of crises, and maintain the supply of vital 
public services (Bynander & Nohrstedt, 2020; Christoplos, 2003; Voorberg et al., 2014). 
However, the road to efficient public-private cooperation is paved with challenges and 
difficulties that need to be considered (Hicklin et al., 2009). For example, the partnership’s 
effectiveness can be hindered by lacking clarity of partner’s roles (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024), 
subpar leadership or managerial skills (Lee et al., 2013), or failure in learning from past 
experiences of crises (Parker & Sundelius, 2020). 
Sweden’s crisis preparedness is centred around three core principles - responsibility, proximity, 
and equality (MSB, 2023b). In sum, the principles imply that: 
● The actor(s) responsible for a service or function under normal circumstances have the 
corresponding responsibility in times of social disturbances, 
● Crises should be managed by those most closely affected, 
● Actors should not make larger changes in organisations than demanded by the situation 
(MSB, 2023b).  
With these in mind, municipalities are a core actor in crisis management (Eriksson et al., 2019).  
The principles also imply that everyone in society - from the government to businesses and 
individuals - must take responsibility whenever needed and work together to plan ahead of a 
 
3 
 
 
crisis, as well as to handle them efficiently. In addition to the core principles, municipalities 
must provide opportunities for actors who carry out vital societal functions within the border 
of the municipality to collaborate (MSB & SKR, 2021; Sveriges Riksdag, 2006). As mentioned 
in the previous section, much of Sweden's vital infrastructure is owned or driven by the private 
sector. A high degree of trust is placed in the private sector, and on citizens (Larsson & Rhinard, 
2021). Additionally, the private sector is not required by law to engage in crisis preparedness 
planning, but they are encouraged to partake (Wimelius & Engberg, 2015).  
Given the importance of private-public cooperation, it is vital to understand how collaborations 
can be efficiently run, and what specific challenges they face. (Hodge & Greve, 2005; Gardiner 
et al., 2015) By interviewing Swedish municipalities and public collaborators, the study’s 
relevance and aim is ultimately to shed light on management and cooperation structures. The 
thesis revolves around three main topics, which ultimately frame the research questions.7 
Firstly, how private-public collaborations manifest on a local and regional level. Second, what 
enabling factors exist for effective collaborations, and third, what challenges hinder the 
progress of effective collaborations. The three focus points were chosen as it gives practical 
insights on how these enabling factors and challenges manifest ‘on the ground’, which can aid 
in improving private-public collaboration. Using previous literature on collaboration and crisis 
management and the theory of private-public partnerships, the thesis presents a modified 
analytical scheme based on Lee et al.’s (2013) model for resilience, and Ghanem & Ghaley’s 
framework for organisational strength, weaknesses and cooperation. In addition, the aim of the 
study is to gain a deeper understanding for municipalities’ partnerships with private-sector 
actors, not to compare municipalities with each other or obtain a high level of generalisability. 
The findings hope to both deepen our understanding of private-public cooperation and provide 
new and reflective perspectives, but also to aid policymakers and preparedness workers with 
important factors to consider in their daily work with other actors. As the thesis solely focuses 
on the perspectives from the public sector, the thesis aims to fill a gap in research that revolves 
around lack of studies on the challenges and beneficial factors for efficient collaboration that 
can be found in Swedish municipalities – especially with the lack of studies investigating the 
issue after the 2022 structural reform. Its contribution is mainly empirical, adding to the field 
                                               
7 The research questions, while presented briefly here, are more clearly stated at the end of the theoretical chapter 
to clearly cement them in the study’s theory and previous research. 
 
4 
 
 
of management of crisis preparedness, with a somewhat narrow focus on Swedish municipal 
and regional actors not found in previous studies. Previous literature has somewhat neglected 
the importance of local public actors in crisis preparedness, often focusing on a larger, national 
scale - or other parts of civil defence.  
Additionally, not many studies with similar focuses have been published after Sweden’s 2022 
structural reform of the crisis preparedness system. While its implementation and effects still 
need time to be felt throughout the public sector, it may have influenced the public sector’s 
views and experiences of private-public collaboration.  
1.2. Disposition 
Following the introduction, which posits the thesis’ research problem and aim, previous 
literature and the theoretical considerations are presented, split into two subchapters. The 
subchapter on previous literature presents the field of collaborative crisis management, leading 
to a detailed view of the research gap that the thesis aims to fill. This is followed by a theoretical 
introduction to private-public partnerships and resilience, as well as theoretical components 
behind the challenge and enabling factors for effective collaboration. The theoretical subchapter 
ends with a presentation of the conceptual, theoretical framework used in the analysis, as well 
as a discussion on the limitations of the theory.  
The research questions are more clearly stated in the following chapter, chosen to be placed 
after the theoretical subchapter to clearly anchor them in theory. In sum, the study investigates 
what challenges and enabling factors there are for efficient private-public collaboration. The 
methodological chapter is then presented, where the research design and method of analysis are 
introduced. Finally, the analysis and discussion reflect the findings of the study, ultimately 
ending with the conclusions of the study and reflections for future research. 
2. Previous Research  
This section presents the literature review, centred on previous research on collaborative crisis 
management and its challenges. It briefly touches on the benefits and factors for efficient 
 
5 
 
 
collaborations,8 as well as discusses challenges to efficient collaboration as presented in the 
literature. The chapter ends with describing the research gap in greater detail.  
2.1. Collaboration in Crisis Management 
Crisis management is a popular field of research. Studies focusing on how societies adapt to 
crises has grown significantly over the past decades, with a growing interest on the relationships 
and collaborations often found in crisis management. The foundation of this type of research 
ultimately lies in the realisation that risks, crises, and other disturbances or catastrophes create 
dynamic and difficult challenges that no sole actor or organisation can handle by themselves, 
which calls for multi-organisational and cross-sectoral cooperation (Hicklin et al., 2009; 
Nohrstedt et al., 2008). As stated by Huxham and colleagues (2000), the goal of cooperations 
is to achieve a collaborative advantage equipped to solve most issues – but it requires that the 
collaboration is effective. Besides this, subfields related to crisis management have grown, 
which increases our knowledge, awareness and recognition amongst both policy actors and 
stakeholders, as well as our knowledge on how to facilitate efficient public-private 
collaboration. Nonetheless, collaborative governance exists in varying challenging settings that 
we can learn from (Bynander & Nohrstedt, 2020). 
Weber & Khademian (2008) have argued that networks – defined as pre-established exchanges 
between individuals, groups and organisations from an array of sectors and/or different 
governmental agencies – share knowledge and often scarce resources with the intention of 
achieving shared goals. These networks have the cooperative capacity to solve problems, share 
risks, goals, and resources, as well as exchange knowledge and learn from each other (ibid.). In 
many contemporary cases, collaboration between private and public actors already occur in pre-
established networks – such as engagement networks, where municipalities can raise issues 
related to crisis preparedness, for example in the procurement and security of vital societal 
services or contingency planning (Eriksson et al., 2019; Brommesson & Edström 2021).  
Public-sector collaboration with private actors in crisis preparedness and -management is 
relatively common in public management (McGuire, 2006). For example, the Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, developed by the UN Office for Disaster 
and Risk Reduction (2015) promotes collaboration between the two sectors to ensure that 
                                               
8 This is further detailed in the theoretical chapter.  
 
6 
 
 
private actors – which are vital for social services – are included in preparedness planning, as 
well as to bolster resilience. In academia, similar conclusions are drawn in a study by Boin & 
McConnel (2007). 
The advantages of cooperation are well-researched and can strategically make room for public 
actors to change course when necessary and outsource vital societal services to private actors 
(ibid.). A private enterprise can do comparable jobs in the same, or even better quality, and 
outsourcing enables the public actor to better prioritise tasks and leave “the rest” in the hands 
of the private domain (Svallfors & Tyllström, 2017). Operationally, this can result in increased 
efficiency and flexibility, because the public actor is not limited to solely depending on their 
own capabilities and resources (O’Leary & Vij, 2012; Busch & Givens, 2013). Public 
collaboration with private actors can also result in tactical benefits – shared involvement in 
contingency planning and crisis management can alleviate the public sector further, as private 
actors can swiftly intervene and help solve logistical and practical issues (Busch & Givens, 
2013). For example, natural disasters which are often unpredictable can cause tremendous, 
localised damage, and are also difficult to manage from an organisational, political, and 
economic standpoint. Establishing adaptable relationships can help alleviate management and 
readiness (NRC, 2011).  
Enabling factors that facilitate efficient collaborations have been identified in previous studies 
and will be further presented in the theoretical chapter. However, one of the perhaps most 
important factors are collaborators’ ability to adjust procedures and actions to gain better 
adaptability and awareness (Bynander & Nohrstedt, 2020), as well as trust (Ansell & Gash, 
2012). In addition, sufficient structure and leadership has been identified as key factors for 
effective collaborations, where both organisational arrangements and governance capacity and 
legitimacy affect the partnerships (Christensen et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013). Unsurprisingly, 
coordination has been identified as vital to cooperations (Boin & Bynander, 2016), as well as 
attention to and nurturing of relationships to enable efficient conflict resolution (Ghanem & 
Ghaley, 2024).  
 
7 
 
 
2.2. Challenges for Effective Collaboration 
While challenges for efficient collaboration are further developed in the theoretical subchapter, 
this section presents some of the previous research concerning challenges for effective 
collaboration in crisis preparedness. 
Collaborative crisis preparedness and contingency planning is heavily dependent on the 
relationships formed between different actors and interests, which creates both expectations and 
demands on involved actors to develop competencies and skillsets (Simo & Bies, 2007; Koliba 
et al., 2011; Demiroz & Hu, 2014). Without such expectations, the effectiveness of cooperations 
is limited. Similar conclusions are echoed by multiple authors (see e.g. Persson & Granberg, 
2020; Nohrstedt et al, 2023; Gooding et al., 2022). Olsén et al. (2023) repeats that it is important 
to maintain collaborative networks both in advance of a crisis as during it, due to diverse 
personnel and expertise as well as encompassing a wide variety of capabilities that no sole actor 
can obtain by themselves.  
Interestingly, Boin & Bynander (2016) argue that collaboration and coordination can be seen 
as a failure in great disasters and crises - but improved coordination can also be the solution to 
a problem. Successful coordination requires a suitable setting, including situations where a 
public actor promotes joint responsibilities, and takes the role of a facilitator (Kekez et al., 
2019). The effectiveness of collaboration can also depend on how public actors unite the work 
and competencies of different types of actors to efficiently balance flexibility and accountability 
(Sørensen & Torfing, 2011; Peters, 2010).  
Crises often require the mobilisation of a plethora of different competencies, skills, and 
resources (Bynander & Nohrstedt, 2020). While a collaborative approach in the field is 
essential, cross-sectoral and multi-organisational networks can underperform due to difficulties 
for actors to adapt to different settings. This can partly be explained by difficulties in finding 
common ground in various networks – for example, Batjargal & Zhang (2021) argues that 
differing organisational goals and cultures can cause problems for public-private 
collaborations, causing disruptive and disorganised structures. Public sector organisations have 
a higher likelihood of being more bureaucratic compared to private actors – which in 
comparison often have more flexible structures (ibid.).  
 
8 
 
 
Several previous studies have presented another challenge in the development of collaborative 
crisis management – namely, the power imbalance between public actors (see e.g. Guerrero et 
al. (2023), Bodin (2017), Ansell & Gash (2008), and Emerson & Nabatchi (2015). For instance, 
power dynamics can impact how long-term recovery efforts end in tension reduction, and 
influences trust and performance in crisis management (Quinn et al., 2007). Prior research has 
also discussed the importance of efficient communication, explaining that it is vital for the 
implementation of collaborative crisis preparedness (Borell et a., 2018). Communication 
enables preparedness planners to understand the needs of different involved actors in a 
cooperation, differences in utilised language, and cultures (ibid.).  
2.3. Research Gap 
As societal and security issues are growing in complexity, collaboration is becoming a key part 
of public management (Keast et al., 2007; McNamara, 2012; O’Leary & Vij, 2012). 
Collaboration can also aid in improving the performance and effectiveness of crisis 
management actions, as well as to reduce uncertainty (Emerson et al., 2012; Koppenjan & Klijn, 
2004). However, challenges of crisis preparedness collaboration also become more complex, 
in part because of our developing societies which put more pressure on the involvement and 
engagement of individuals, volunteers, and organisations in both the public and private sector. 
Actors who have previously not cooperated are now expected to collaborate, sometimes in 
unfamiliar contexts (Parker et al., 2020; Deverell et al., 2019).  
While the cooperation between different governmental agencies, and how they manage 
challenges needs to be further understood (see e.g. Waugh & Streib, 2006; Comfort et al., 2012), 
research on the public sector’s collaboration with private actors is equally important. Previous 
studies have called for more research on the topic, focused on the public perspective (Nohrstedt 
et al., 2018; Leth et al., 2024; Nohrstedt et al., 2018). It is vital to increase knowledge on the 
differing settings of collaborative crisis preparedness, as well as what factors foster effective 
interorganisational cooperations (Nohrstedt et al., 2018). Indeed, seeing the growing degree of 
privatisation and outsourcing to private enterprises, it is necessary to obtain a deeper 
understanding on the topic (MSB, 2015).  
As local actors, such as municipalities, are often the ones responsible to manage crises that 
occur (Mushkatel & Perry, 1984), it is vital that we understand the challenges they face, and 
 
9 
 
 
what factors they can consider in their current collaborative crisis preparedness to facilitate 
efficient cooperation. The case of Sweden provides an interesting field of study – in part 
because of their ongoing rebuilding of the total defence, and their vast cooperation with the 
private sector. The relationship between these actors have not been exhaustively studied by 
previous research - especially in the light of the 2022 structural reform and the ever-growing 
need for improvement of crisis preparedness, further cementing the importance and need of this 
study. In addition, more research can help highlight potential weaknesses, challenges, and 
enabling factors for collaboration before crises occur. Crises are unpredictable in nature, with 
constantly changing elements. Therefore, this study aids in illuminating further weaknesses and 
challenges that should be considered - before they become greater problems. 
The literature in the preceding subchapter helps explain why collaboration is vital for crisis 
preparedness, and what challenges and factors for effective collaborations that previous 
research have presented. This chapter has also presented a gap in existing research and the need 
for more bottom-up perspectives.  
3. Theory 
The subchapter is divided into two main parts: (1) public-private partnerships (PPPs)9 and 
resilience, which serves as a theoretical introduction, and (2) challenges to and enabling factors 
for effective public-private collaboration. In sum, the theory on challenges and enabling factors 
centres on five main themes: (1) partnership structure, (2) relational management, (3) 
capabilities of partners and management of resources, and (4) situational awareness. 
These thematic components will then be summarised in their most important points and placed 
in the analytical framework, which builds upon the framework of Lee et al.'s (2013) model for 
resilience, as well as Ghanem & Ghaley’s (2024) framework centred on organisational strength, 
weaknesses, and effectiveness. Lastly, the limitations and implications of the theory are 
discussed.  
                                               
9 ‘Private-Public Partnerships’ (PPPs), and ‘collaborations’ are used interchangeably in the thesis. ‘Collaborate’ 
or ‘cooperate’ are also used interchangeably and refer to how PPPs manifest.  
 
10 
 
 
3.1. Public-Private Cooperation and Resilience 
Given the increasing complexity and diversity of contemporary societies, interorganisational 
and cross-sector cooperation has grown in importance (Larsson & Rhinard 2021; 
Ingemarsdotter & Eriksson, 2023). In addition, the private sector plays a vital part in the 
rebuilding of Sweden’s total defence. Using the perspective of public-private partnerships to 
investigate the challenges and enabling factors for private-public collaboration provides many 
insights.  
While there is no consensus on the definition of PPP, they are commonly viewed as agreements 
or contracts between the private and public sector, where private capital is used to finance 
governmental projects - such as development initiatives, public services, or infrastructure 
projects (Bovaird, 2004; Cui et al., 2018; Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). Constant social change, 
economic innovation and technological advancements create unexpected threats and new 
vulnerabilities. Additionally, government agencies outsource and contract public services to the 
public sector to a higher degree, which brings together actors from the public and private sector 
in complex relationships (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Wimelius & Engberg, 2015; Hodge & 
Greve, 2005). PPPs also serve to increase the efficiency and quality of goods and services 
(Sällberg & Numminen, 2022) 
All the aforementioned factors have made collaborations essential to secure all types of services 
and goods for the common welfare, bridging into crisis preparedness and societal resilience. 
Collaborative arrangements also emerge because of the realisation that both individual and 
collective goals have a higher chance of being achieved through joint efforts - because no single 
actor has all needed resources, expertise, information, or influence to build resilience and 
preparedness by themselves (NRC, 2011). Partnerships between different actors involve 
sharing expertise and resources, but also risks and responsibilities, to achieve a common 
objective - such as a public actor ensuring a vital societal function, and the private actor securing 
mainly monetary gains (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). The benefits of collaborative arrangements 
in crisis preparedness are widely documented (see e.g. McGuire, 2006; Waugh & Streib, 2006; 
Olsén et al., 2023; Bynander & Nohrstedt, 2019), but less academic literature focuses on what 
enabling factors and challenges exist for effective collaboration.  
 
11 
 
 
PPPs manifest in different ways and operate in various branches. In regards to societal 
resilience, vital infrastructure and crisis preparedness, it can include private companies 
constructing highways by government commission, or businesses offering clean drinking water, 
emergency services, or electricity (Broadbent & Laughlin, 2003; Cui et al., 2018).10 According 
to Christoplos (2003) these types of collaborative networks manifest partly to fill the empty 
space left by the public sector's decreasing influence. The Swedish case is no exception - 
gradual changes to Swedish economic structures and civil preparedness systems over the past 
decades have moved many previously state-owned enterprises into the hands of private 
businesses (Olsson et al., 2017; Uhnoo & Persson, 2021). In sum, because many vital societal 
functions are now run by the private sector, cooperation networks aid the public sector to 
continue providing important services and infrastructure (Broadbent & Laughlin, 2003; 
Mulyani, 2021).  
According to a report by Fischer et al. (2013), PPPs in crisis management function as a contract-
based societal security which reflects contemporary social change. Indeed, providers of critical 
infrastructure include lifeline services such as water, power, and natural gas, as well as banking 
and financial services, transportation, food and water supply, telecommunication services, 
healthcare and agricultural services (NRC, 2011). While previous research concludes that 
governments should maintain a leading position in crisis preparedness and -management, they 
are not able to efficiently handle crises that are geographically dispersed and sporadic by 
themselves (Christoplos, 2003). As put by Casady and colleagues (2019:2), “when 
appropriately planned, executed, and enforced, PPPs can offer a wide range of potential 
benefits, such as better on-time and within-budget delivery, design innovation, access to novel 
forms of capital, and efficient risk allocation”. Collaborative arrangements additionally give 
public actors an opportunity to break public-sector monopoly, inject the private sector with 
competition and flexibility, and increase the public sector’s access to financial, technical, and 
physical resources (ibid.) 
However, the road to effective collaborations in crisis preparedness is paved with challenges. 
For example, PPPs are complex, in part due to the number of involved actors; the public actor’s 
capacity and mandate to steer; potential strategic behaviour by private businesses; the duration 
of contracts, and the complexity of agreements (Egan, 2010). Recognition of these challenges 
                                               
10 This is not an exhaustive list.  
 
12 
 
 
is vital to consider, in addition to the enabling factors for effective collaborations. The 
challenges and enabling factors are discussed in further detail below - but challenges include 
partnership structure, relational management, capabilities of partners and management of 
resources, as well as situational awareness. Potential problems in PPPs can also reflect tensions 
between the public actor’s aspirations for social services or security, versus goals focused on 
efficiency (Dunn Cavelty & Suter, 2009).  
3.2. Challenges and Enabling Factors for Effective Collaboration 
3.2.1. Partnership Structure 
Structure and leadership are key parts to effective collaborations between private and public 
actors (Lee et al., 2013). Vital building blocks in PPP structure include robust policies, 
regulatory and institutional frameworks and procedures, capacity for management, predefined 
recovery plans, as well as diligent preparation and management (Boivaird, 2004; Ghanem & 
Ghaley, 2024). Policies and contracts should be formal, coherent, and followed to ensure 
effective management of the partnership (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). In addition, there should 
be prepared recovery plans in place to efficiently prepare for and be able to continue the 
collaboration in times of crises (ibid.), and clear roles for both private and public actors to 
increase the chances of creating a strong collaborative network (Mulyani, 2020). Managing 
capacity is very important, including shared interests, views, risks and accountability for each 
other’s actions and performance on all issues, governmental support and affordability, as well 
as commercial viability and accountability of included partners (Bovaird, 2004). Policies and 
activities should seek to be sustainable, to ensure the effectiveness of the partnership long-term 
(ibid.; Azarian et al., 2023).  
Functioning risk management, pre-existing recovery plans, and clear roles and responsibilities 
within the partnership influence the success of collaborative efforts during crises (Ghanem & 
Ghaley, 2024). Role clarity is about involved actors being confident in their own place within 
the network - in other words, which actor is responsible for what part of projects, management 
and recovery (Curnin & O’Hara, 2019). If these factors are lacking, it can lead to confusion 
regarding policies and frameworks, such as crisis recovery plans, and impact ongoing work 
projects, and lead to uncertainness in actors’ trust in the network (ibid.). An efficient leadership 
structure is especially important for the involved businesses, to ensure that management 
 
13 
 
 
continues, even after a crisis has occurred (ibid.). However, in a study on PPPs in the tourism 
sector during the Covid-19 pandemic, Ghanem & Ghaley (2024) find that partnership resilience 
and effectiveness continued to be strong during the pandemic, even though the collaboration 
lacked sufficient recovery approaches and interorganisational risk management. Instead, the 
study finds that informal relations between the private and public sector are important (ibid.). 
This dimension will be further developed in the next subchapter.  
Another key factor to partnership structure is excessive bureaucracy, which needs to be limited 
in order to maintain effective collaborations. This is supported in previous literature, where 
Azarian et al. (2023) found that excessive bureaucracy is a major concern for involved private 
businesses - it can negatively impact decision-making as well as project success. In addition, 
both the private and public actors should be involved in decision-making processes, to facilitate 
trust from the private sector (ibid.). Public actors are anchored in pre-established structures, 
which are important to ensure their operational continuity during disturbances. These structures 
can cause obstacles in attracting cooperation with private actors. To overcome this challenge, 
public actors need to be aware and understanding of their own structure, as well as their 
willingness to participate in collaborations to ensure that the benefits of partnerships are realised  
(Azarian et al., 2023; Mulyani, 2021).  
In sum, the effectiveness of partnership structures depends on several factors, such as: 
● Formal contracts, frameworks and policies, 
● Shared risks, interests, and goals,  
● Role clarity before and during crises, 
● Reduction of bureaucracy, 
● Stable leadership and management, 
● Shared decision-making processes. 
3.2.2. Relational Management  
As previously mentioned, informal relations are vital, and have multiple effects on partnership 
effectiveness. Personal networks, effective communication, and informal relations are building 
blocks in creating functioning collaborative networks, because it enhances the resilience of 
partnerships during crises (Comfort, 2007; Filimonau & De Coteau, 2019). Interestingly, 
previous studies have showcased that strong relations between public and private partners 
 
14 
 
 
enhance the effectiveness of partnerships, even if structural factors are lacking (Ghanem & 
Ghaley, 2024). Strong relationships increase the chance of more positivity towards goals and 
projects, increase commitment and understanding, growing awareness, and ease in resolving 
potential problems and conflicts, as well as facilitates trust within the partnership (ibid.; Lee et 
al., 2013). Nurturing these relationships are important - especially after potential personnel 
changes - such as individuals important for a personal network switching careers or retiring 
(Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). It is important that both actors are equally involved and committed 
to the partnership to ensure efficiency (Mulyani, 2021). Making sure that all parts of the 
partnership are committed is a great challenge that must be overcome – making relational 
management vital. 
In addition to friendliness and informal relations, several other relationship factors significantly 
influence partnership success. Previous studies showcase that creating and maintaining 
effective involvement, communication, trust, and commitment between the private and public 
actors as vital (ibid.) These relational factors are especially important to nurture when a crisis 
hits (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). On the other hand, it is important to have mechanisms in place 
for potential conflict resolution and pay close attention to the engagement and eventual 
disagreements on operational actions from the private actor (ibid.; Osei-Kyei & Chan, 2021). 
Transparency in information sharing, such as ‘open book working’ is vital in building trust 
(Boivard, 2004; Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024).  
In sum, relationship management build on: 
● Effective communication and engagement, 
● Trust-building and commitment, 
● Informal relations, 
● Conflict management mechanisms, 
● Transparency in information-sharing.  
3.2.3. Capabilities of Partners and Management of Resources  
In a recent study by Ghanem & Ghaley (2024), the authors found that effective private-public 
partnerships in part comes from present knowledgeable and skilled managers, past experiences 
of collaborative networks, and sustainable financial resources. Ensuring that partnerships 
involve capable partners with expertise leads to a higher chance of a successful collaborative 
 
15 
 
 
arrangement - indeed, efficiency and success for both the private and public sector greatly stem 
from the capabilities and leadership from those who run it (ibid.). On the other hand, a great 
challenge to the capabilities of partners involves lack of preplanning in crisis preparedness and 
management, which could have detrimental societal effects (Jin et al., 2024).  
Both public and private partners in a PPP face challenges and crises in varying degrees. As 
such, they should be properly equipped to foresee some crises and prepare in how to face them, 
as well as be capable enough to be able to draw lessons for improvement from crises that have 
occurred (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). Past crises can aid in actors’ understanding of how to 
efficiently collaborate and work together - but it requires the mentality and skill to accept, adapt 
and handle rapid changes (Parker & Sundelius, 2020). Flexibility is important in capacity 
building, as crises are often unpredictable, and bring with them sometimes unforeseen effects. 
Flexibility and capability can also increase interactive learning, i.e. from participation in 
exercises, which strengthen the longevity and performance of the collaboration (Ghanem & 
Ghaley, 2024).  
It is critical that the partners of a partnership can plan for the availability, ability, and access of 
resources - either financial, informational, or human power in terms of manpower in their crisis 
preparedness (ibid.). Partners should strive to ensure that services and work continues to operate 
“as usual” during and directly after a crisis (Diehlmann et al., 2021). To ensure this, it is vital 
that contracts, agreements and funding are already in place before a crisis hits. To ensure that 
society can continue to run as normally as possible when a crisis - or war - hits, it is fundamental 
that these frameworks are already put in place, to avoid unnecessary time wastages or confusion 
from either the public or private actor (ibid.).  
In sum, this is about 
● Experienced partners – skills, knowledge, and expertise  
● Learning from past crises and decisions, 
● Interactive learning and training, 
● Dynamic capabilities and flexibility, 
● Appropriate funding and availability of other resources, 
● Clever management of resources before and during a crisis. 
 
16 
 
 
3.2.4. Situational Awareness  
Situational awareness can be described as actors being able to understand their surroundings, 
as well as the ability to perform and act in their roles, even at times with large volumes of 
information present (Endsley et al., 2003). Masys (2005) exemplify the term by applying it to 
airline maintenance and safety, where situational awareness is divided between groups, 
organisations and teams, as well as between individuals. Several scholars state that it should be 
an essential component for actors to be able to perform adequately in changing environments, 
arguing that incomplete or inaccurate situational awareness can have dangerous, or even life-
threatening consequences (Masys, 2005; Koskinen-Kannisto, 2013). This argument is found 
elsewhere in literature. Situational awareness is a cornerstone of efficient command in crisis 
situations and management - because analysing and evaluating a situation is the first phase of 
decision-making (Crichton et al., 2005). 
This awareness needs to be shared between both private and public actors in a collaboration. 
Efficient sharing can in part facilitate work, but more importantly contribute to the overarching 
resilience, safety, and efficiency (Lee et al, 2013). Through informal cooperative strategies, 
partnerships can communicate and plan around their situational awareness. For the analytical 
framework, situational awareness bleeds into other themes. This is mainly because it permeates 
all parts of crisis preparedness and management. For example, it is a vital part of actors’ 
understanding of roles and responsibilities, to ensure that actors understand their own part in a 
potential crisis, and to better understand eventual hazards (Lee et al., 2013). Situational 
awareness is also a key aspect on a structural scale, to better understand other actors’ priorities 
and requirements for minimum operation during crises (ibid.).  
Lacking sufficient situational awareness has a detrimental impact on the efficiency for 
partnerships in crisis management. It can, for example, lead to confusion, and delays - which 
could have gross consequences for citizens, and society as a whole if the worst crisis were to 
occur (Luiijf & Klaver, 2011). Additionally, situational awareness is hindered by lacking 
interorganisational structure and efficient relationship management (Lee et al., 2013). PPPs 
need to hold a proactive attitude towards existing challenges, and prioritise access to quality, 
and timely information before and during disruptions (ibid). Proper information flows can aid 
both the public and private partner in developing capabilities to learning and increase 
awareness, which directly influences the efficiency of crisis preparedness and management.  
 
17 
 
 
In sum, situational awareness is about 
● Awareness of vulnerabilities, 
● Situation monitoring and reporting, 
● Monitoring changes in the environment and anticipating crises 
● Proactive posture 
● Information accessibility, transparency, and quality 
● Sharing information and knowledge  
3.3. Analytical Framework 
With the above theoretical discussion in mind, a conceptual framework is presented that 
describes the enabling factors and challenges for establishing an efficient public-private 
collaboration relevant for Swedish crisis preparedness. In order to establish an efficient 
partnership, previous literature and theory showcases that both actors, public as well as private, 
should complement each other and work together to achieve a functioning partnership structure, 
sufficient relationships and networks, and proper management of resources. Situational 
awareness is key to successful and efficient collaboration, as it is critical to have adequate 
information flows, understanding, and awareness. As both actors understand their own place 
and role within a partnership, the framework suggests that both sectors need to overcome certain 
challenges and strive to follow enabling factors. While trust and mutual respect and teamwork 
are pillars for functioning collaboration, it also increases effectiveness (Ghanem & Ghaley, 
2024).  
The below framework is based on Lee et al.’s (2013) framework for resilience, as well as the 
additions of Lee et al.’s framework by Ghanem & Ghaley’s (2024), centred on organisational 
strength, weaknesses and effectiveness. The presented analytical framework adds to the 
schemes, to apply the theory in the Swedish municipal and regional context.  
 
 
18 
 
 
 
Figure 1. The author’s interpretation and additions of Lee et al. 's (2013) model for resilience 
and the additions made by Ghanem & Ghaley (2024). 
3.4. Limitations 
While the theoretical model has distinct themes and outline enabling factors and challenges 
quite clearly, it is not completely unproblematic when applied in the Swedish municipal 
context. In some situations, different themes – and their factors – can be present in one situation. 
For example, actors’ commitment in a partnership is oftentimes not solely attributed to the 
 
19 
 
 
relational management of the collaboration. Commitment can also stem from having a strong 
structure with clear roles, or from partners’ understanding and awareness of its surroundings. 
Partnerships are complex structures, with many intertwined factors at play. Because of this, it 
can be difficult to pin down exactly what themes are present in a given situation, forcing the 
researcher to take great caution and maintain awareness of the presented issues. This limitation 
is in part alleviated by splitting the analysis into different sections – each discussing a given 
theme. At the end of the analysis, the results will be placed into the framework in order to 
provide some clarity and avoid uncertainties.  
4.  Research Questions 
The aim of this study is to explore what challenges exist for effective collaborations in Swedish 
crisis preparedness in municipalities, as well as identify the enabling factors for successful and 
effective collaborations. As such, the research questions posed in this study is: 
 RQ1 What challenges do local public actors face when collaborating with private  
  actors? 
RQ2 What are the enabling factors for effective collaboration between  
Local public and private actors?  
5.  Method and Material 
This section presents the study’s applied research design. It also details the data collection 
process, and the relevance of chosen interviewees. The section concludes by addressing the 
methodological limitations and challenges. 
5.1. Research Design 
The study investigates the stated research problem and provides in-depth knowledge about local 
actors’ cooperative relationships with the private sector regarding crisis preparedness. The 
study follows a descriptive research design, as it investigates questions on how and what factors 
and challenges come into play, not why a phenomenon has occurred (Patton, 2007). To answer 
the stated research question and fulfil this aim, a case study is conducted. Data is collected 
through a qualitative method of semi-structured informant interviews and verifying documents.  
 
20 
 
 
In descriptive research, it is central to produce something valuable out of the case material, not 
only to present interesting data (Esaiasson et al., 2017). Besides this, descriptive research 
requires a conceptual apparatus of some sort (ibid.). In this study the apparatus is reflected in 
the theoretical framework of PPP, which depicts central themes and what concepts to focus on 
in the acquisition of data and the subsequent analysis. With the aid of the theoretical framework, 
the researcher is enabled to draw conclusions in the analysis, other than what is directly seen in 
the material.  
Additionally, the research follows a linear design with three distinct steps with inspiration from 
Thompson (2022) and Braun & Clarke (2008). First, the perspectives of local actors are 
captured through informant interviews, which are then were then codified and clustered. 
Finally, the analysis is done in connection with the theoretical context as presented in Chapter 
3.   
5.1.1. Case 
Case studies provide for detailed, complex analysis of a single or few cases (Bell et al., 2019). 
The thesis has a bottom-up perspective with a focus on local public actors in Swedish 
municipalities.11 The data is collected from semi-structured informant interviews with 
employees (and heads of departments) at 9 municipalities, as well as one employee at a regional 
office for collaboration.12 Crisis preparedness is not a small area in any means, involving many 
different themes and factors to consider. Given the topic’s broadness, this thesis has a limited 
focus on the public sector’s perspectives on collaborative crisis preparedness. Municipalities 
make for a valid and important case study because of the vital part they play in the total defence 
and Swedish crisis preparedness (Kusumasari et al., 2010), as outlined in the study’s previous 
chapters.  
5.1.2. Semi-structured Interviews  
As stated above, semi-structured informant interviews are the main method of the study. The 
interviewees assume the role of informants, contributing in-depth information about the work 
“on the ground” and explain their ongoing collaboration with private actors (Esaiasson et al., 
                                               
11 Beyond municipalities and one (1) county, the study also includes Samverkan Stockholmsregionen, which itself 
is not an actor, but a facilitator for collaboration between other actors in the county of Stockholm. 
12 Further details on the informants can be found in chapter 5.1.3. 
 
21 
 
 
2017). The interviewees were informants rather than respondents, because their purpose is to 
primarily provide information about a situation as it is, not on their individual opinions, 
feelings, or perspectives.  
The interviews were semi-structured. This entails that the researcher prepares a list of topics 
beforehand and pose related questions to address those particular themes. Semi-structured 
interviews benefit from being more relaxed than structured interviews, with respondents’ 
having more freedom to talk about a variety of topics, organically approach diverse issues, and 
have a great space in which to respond (Ruslin et al., 2022). The researcher may choose to ask 
questions that are not on the list, since the procedure allows for adaptability (Bell et al., 2019; 
Ruslin et al., 2022). Semi-structured interviews also benefit from flowing more like a 
conversation between the interviewer and interviewee, which opens the possibility for 
interviewees to bring up other topics or areas that they deem as important, as well as provides 
the analysis with additional depth (Lilleker, 2003).  
The interview guide can be found in full in Appendices 2 and 3.13 The questions are thematically 
anchored to the theoretical framework. While all of the topics in the interview guide are 
discussed and the researcher utilised similar language in all the interviews, the questions may 
not be asked or addressed in the same way in every interview. For example, some municipalities 
reported that they did not collaborate with private actors in their work with crisis preparedness, 
which meant that some questions had to be adjusted. Additionally, follow-up questions relating 
to different themes were asked in most interviews.  
The study has a relatively small data set, consisting of ten interviews. Patton (2007) argues that 
the methodological selection should serve the aim of the study. The aim of the study is not to 
obtain a high level of generalisability or compare municipalities to each other, but to gain a 
deeper understanding for municipalities’ partnerships with actors from the private sector.  
The interviews were conducted in Swedish, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by the 
researcher. As the interviews were held in Swedish, all translations are made by the author. As 
such, she assumes full responsibility for any discrepancies in the translation(s). The interviews 
were held digitally at the end of May, and the first week of June. Additionally, interviewees 
                                               
13 Appendix 2 has the original Interview Guide in Swedish, whereas Appendix 3 has the English translation.  
 
22 
 
 
were informed of their partial anonymity, and that their professional title would be included.14 
All informants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study, although none of them 
did.  
5.1.3. Participants 
10 individuals were interviewed, all of which work with crisis preparedness, security, and/or 
civil defence. Informants were from the following municipalities: Sigtuna, Linköping, 
Karlskrona, Luleå, Östersund, Norrköping, Gävle, and Jönköping, as well as a member of the 
coordination office at Samverkan Stockholmsregionen (SSR). Gotland is both a municipality 
and a region - as it is its only municipality within the county.15 
Municipalities were chosen according to three main categories, selected to maximise the 
variation. The three themes were population size, geographical location, and political 
adherence. Swedish municipalities are divided by SKR (2021) into different categories 
depending on their size: from cities (> 200,000 inhabitants), bigger towns (> 50,000 
inhabitants), and smaller towns (> 15,000 but less than 40,000 inhabitants). Including the two 
latter categories are of interest, as there might be variations in their relationship with the private 
sector due to differences in resources, financing, or the number of private companies present. 
The study includes the latter two categories, bigger and smaller towns. Cities were meant to be 
included, as previous studies mostly focus on small-scale or rural settings (Appleby-Arnold et 
al., 2021). However, no municipality that falls into this category could partake. Instead, 
Samverkan Stockholmsregionen (SSR), a regional facilitator for collaboration within 
Stockholm Administrative Board, represented the urban perspective.  
Despite not including a city in the study, SSR provides well-grounded insights into how social 
disturbances are managed within Sweden’s largest city. Although many of the included 
municipalities are in the southern half of Sweden, geographical dispersions are still met as 
differences can still be observed. For example, a northern municipality have a higher chance of 
having debilitating snowstorms and may prioritise different collaborative networks than a 
municipality in the southernmost part of Sweden – which barely get any snow in comparison. 
                                               
14 Informants were partly anonymised for two reasons. Firstly, because I thought it would be easier to find 
volunteers if their names were omitted in the study. Secondly, I do not think including their names are relevant, as 
their professional role and title is included.  
15 Their professional title can be found in Appendix 1. 
 
23 
 
 
As such, sufficient variation in the sampling is achieved, with perspectives from different types 
of municipalities scattered around the country and with varying resources. 
Additionally, I initially wanted to select municipalities that are both ruled by left- and right-
wing political majorities. This to observe whether a difference in the municipality’s leadership 
affect the prioritisation of public-private collaboration. However, difficulties with finding 
volunteers for the study made this factor less important to the researcher. Regardless, the 
included municipalities have both right- and left-wing majorities (and some coalition groups). 
I expect that crisis preparedness and collaboration is important regardless of a municipalities 
political adherence – due to the governments’ surge in rebuilding the total defence as well as 
the private sector’s vital role in vital societal services across the country. However, there might 
be small differences in their attitudes towards the private sector.  
As the study progressed, it quickly became apparent that finding municipalities either willing 
to, or having time to participate was a challenge. As previously stated, the interview data was 
gathered during May and June. Very quickly, it became evident that municipalities are very 
busy at the time of data collection, and therefore could not spare time to participate. In the 
beginning of April, I reached out to six municipalities with an inquiry to participate in the study. 
Initial contact was done by e-mail, with follow-ups and reminders sent out both through e-mail 
and calls. In many cases I never received any response and started to reach out to an increasing 
number of municipalities as April progressed.16  
Altogether, 39 municipalities were contacted, with answers from 16 of them. In all cases 
multiple reminders were sent out. Some municipalities that did not reply via mail was contacted 
again by calling their office. However, choosing to call their offices never became an effective 
strategy, as the employee picking up the phone simply said they would get back to me, and then 
never did. Ultimately, out of the 16 that responded to the inquiry, 6 declined to be in the study 
and 10 accepted to be interviewed.  
                                               
16 It is worth mentioning that many e-mails in the beginning were sent from my private e-mail account due to 
technical difficulties with accessing the student e-mail account. This issue was resolved after sending out the first 
wave of e-mails, and only two interviews resulted from using my private e-mail address. However, it could have 
impacted the low response rate in the beginning. 
 
24 
 
 
5.1.4. Documents 
Besides the interviews, several documents have been used in the analysis. The use of multiple 
methods or data sources in qualitative research helps develop a more comprehensive 
understanding (Patton, 1999). In addition, the secondary data was used to corroborate findings 
from the interviews, describe laws and regulations, or present municipal strategies. This has 
mainly been important to provide important context to municipalities’ explanations. and has 
been integrated throughout the analysis.  
5.2. Research Process 
Chapter 6 utilises previous research and the thematic components of the analytical framework 
(found in chapter 3.2) to present and analyse the interviewees’ answers on collaboration with 
the private sector, and present contradictions and complexities (Flyvbjerg, 2006). The analytical 
scheme is based on four main themes: (1) partnership structure, (2) relational management, (3) 
capabilities of partners and management of resources, and (4) situational awareness. 
Additionally, the analysis on the impact of the 2022 structural reform is presented after the first 
scheme. The informants’ answers were codified in accordance with these four themes themes. 
For example, answers regarding the problems of loose policies from the government were 
placed in the first theme, and then connected to a specific challenge, such as poor institutional 
support. The analysis aims to include all parts of the analytical framework.  
Following the initial organisation and codification of the interviewee’s answers, a thematic 
analysis was carried out. The purpose of the thematic analysis is to identify common themes 
(Bell et al., 2019; Gibson & Braun, 2011). To find themes, the researcher used previous’ 
scholar’s recommendations (see Ryan & Bernard, 2003). In sum, the process involved 
searching for repetitions, differences and parallels (ibid.).  
5.3. Methods Discussion and Limitations 
There are some key things to consider when conducting interviews. As stated by multiple 
authors, it is vital that the researcher is aware of potential confirmation biases and maintain 
caution (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012; Thompson, 2022; Rapley, 2001). As the analysis of 
interviews can be highly subjective even with a well-anchored and established framework, 
maintaining transparency about the process is key (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Translating the 
interviews into English can provide such a challenge to transparency, as it may affect the 
 
25 
 
 
reliability of the study (Esaiasson et al., 2017). To mitigate this, quotes were directly translated, 
with only minor changes done to ease the reader’s experiences.17 All original quotes are listed 
in full in Appendix 4, next to the author’s translation. Attention to detail in the interview process 
is also vital. Questions should be asked in a neutral tone without taking sides (Rapley, 2001), 
and encourage the interviewees to speak about topics independently, without prompting (Smith, 
1995). The nature, tonality, and approach of interviews need to be considered, as the interviewer 
has a great influence on the outcome of the interviews.   
The decision of partly anonymising the informants were deliberate. Full anonymity was 
disregarded, as it could have effects on the results. As stated by Thompson (2022), the reader 
should be obtain full context of the participants, to fully understand the settings. The informants 
were made aware of their partial anonymity. Additionally, all interviews were held online – 
which the researcher does not think influenced what answers were given. 
Finally, the study chose to only include public-sector representatives on the topic. Including 
businesses in the studies could provide important insights. While including businesses could 
have provided important insights and that are otherwise not put to light, the choice to omit them 
was deliberate and done with great consideration. Solely focusing on the perspective of the 
public sector allows for a clearer and more detailed exploration of specific roles, 
responsibilities, actions and other factors in crisis preparedness. As the study focuses on depth 
rather than width, it provides a more thorough analysis with clearer crystallisations in 
comparison to focusing on both sides. In addition, it becomes easier to identify weaknesses and 
challenges present among public actors, which can be critical in improving crisis preparedness 
and cooperation – and ultimately, Sweden’s total defence. It allows for the identification of 
‘best practices’ within the public sector, which in turn can be shared across different 
municipalities. Lastly, only focusing on the public sector’s view of crisis preparedness enables 
the author to present recommendations of factors to consider, and challenges to be aware of 
when local and other public actors collaborate with the private sector. This can ultimately aid 
in enhancing public safety and societal resilience. As previous studies mostly focus on either 
only the private side of crisis preparedness or have included both dimensions, this thesis’ chosen 
methodology provides a nuanced approach.  
                                               
17 Altercations were made for example with the use of Swedish proverbs that translate poorly. 
 
26 
 
 
6. Results and Analysis  
The last two chapters of the thesis include the results of the study and the thematic analysis. 
Anchored in the theoretical framework, five themes guide the disposition of the chapter. The 
analysis incorporated all four theoretical themes and discuss each factor and challenge in 
chronological order, as they are listed in Figure 1. In addition, a subchapter on the structural 
reform is included. A concluding discussion ties the thesis together and discuss its limitations, 
ending with reintroducing the theoretical framework, but with its original factors and challenges 
adjusted – replaced with examples taken from the interviews.  
Most of the municipalities included in this study stated that they did collaborate with the private 
sector in some degree, mentioning that they are responsible for services such as schools, elderly 
care, and agriculture. For those municipalities that did not yet have structures for public-private 
collaboration in place, they mentioned that private actors need to be involved in the near future. 
However, even when private actors are not actively involved in preparedness planning, the 
municipalities report that they are often easy to involve when there is an actual crisis.  
Quotes from the interviews are used throughout the analysis. The purpose of the quotes is to 
illustrate themes in the analysis. As the quotes have been translated, the quotes are available in 
the interviews’ original language (Swedish) in Appendix 4 for the sake of transparency. Minor 
altercations to the quotes have been made – such as removing Swedish proverbs that translate 
badly into English, or skipping lengthy, unnecessary explanations. When parts of a quote have 
been skipped, the symbol “[…] is used. Similarly, individual words are sometimes added in 
brackets [ ] to provide clarity.  
6.1. Partnership Structure 
Responsibilities and clear mandates play a clear role in the recount of all informants and are for 
the most part put in the theoretical context of being able to reach general objectives and goals, 
such formal contracts, frameworks and policies – but also role clarity, problems with 
bureaucracy, leadership factors, and decision-making processes. 
Municipal and regional crisis preparedness is regulated in Swedish law. Law (2006:544) 
describes the measures that municipalities and regions must take before and during 
extraordinary events in peacetime and heightened alert [Swedish acronym LEH] and make up 
 
27 
 
 
the foundation of Swedish crisis preparedness (Sveriges Riksdag, 2006). The law describes a 
few measures that public actors are required to do, such as Risk- and Vulnerability Evaluations, 
having a plan for how to handle extraordinary events, having a crisis management board 
[Krisledningsnämnd], educating and training, and reporting to the government (ibid.). All 
informants described how the law is followed in similar ways, unanimously stating that it guides 
every part of their work with crisis preparedness.  
Formal contracts and laws are a key part to a functioning partnership structure. However, 
Boivaird (2004) state that governmental regulations are equally important. As a practical 
example - while LEH makes up the foundation of Swedish crisis preparedness, the Swedish 
Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) have developed many guidelines, handbooks, and 
regulations meant to aid municipals.18 Some informants mention that MSB’s documents have 
provided a guiding hand when developing their own steering documents and strategies,19 but 
that they also need to interpret and customise them to work in their own municipalities 
(Informants from Sigtuna, Östersund, Gävle, Luleå, Gotland), or take the best parts from MSB’s 
handbooks and other materials and ignore irrelevant parts (Luleå, Karlskrona). In addition, 
informants from several municipalities state that borrowing strategies from other municipalities 
can be helpful, both to save time and to learn from each other. MSB’s materials are meant to 
support all Sweden’s 290 municipalities (and/or the 21 regions). As such, the language utilised 
is often ambiguous or generalised, which can lead to problems with applying them in individual 
municipalities. In addition, the language is often on a high academic level or too extensive – 
forcing municipalities to translate and rework the guides in simpler terms (Östersund). Besides 
this, it is vital to have strong mandates in place to improve crisis preparedness, as a lack in 
regulatory transparency or steering causes uncertainty and confusion for public actors. Having 
                                               
18 See for example their guide for annual Risk- and Vulnerability Evaluations (MSB, 2024b), things to consider 
when developing their own steering documents (MSB, 2023), as well as several handbooks on specific areas – 
all of which can be found on their website (MSB, 2024c. 
19 See e.g. the municipality of Östersund (2024), or Region Gotland (2023). 
 
28 
 
 
to adapt or interpret existing guidelines and regulations to fit into individual organisations is 
potentially an issue that can take valuable time from their work:  
“We have municipal self-determination, so the foundation is built on our own 
strategies and guidelines. In turn, those build a lot on MSB’s guidelines. […] 
Everything is interpretations and municipalities reinvent everything anew, which 
comes at a big cost to society” (Sigtuna) 
“We can look at what MSB produces as a source of inspiration, but the things 
that they produce are not fit to suit municipalities. They’re on a very general level 
that you can use to gain more understanding, but they’re difficult to convert into 
practice” (Östersund) 
While agreeing with the potential issues in the implementation of state agencies’ frameworks, 
Gotland states that MSB’s guidelines are clear and provide steering on a reasonable level. When 
it comes to collaboration with private actors, public-private contracts are regulated through Law 
(2016:1145) on Public Procurement, LOU (Sveriges Riksdag, 2016). In essence, public 
spending on wares, services, or construction should be fair, with specific businesses chosen in 
open competition and by their efficiency. The public sector cannot be solely loyal to Swedish 
businesses but should instead contract the business according to who is the ‘best’ supplier 
(ibid.). This is in line with the enabling factors in the theoretical framework – where 
enforceable, coherent, and formal contracts is an enabler for effective cross-sectoral 
collaboration (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024).20 Clear contracts also impact another part of the 
theoretical framework, aiding the creation of clear roles and responsibilities, and ensures that 
each involved actor is confident in what services, supply line or other management that they 
are in charge of, as well as confident in their own part of the cooperation (Curnin & O’Hara, 
2019).   
However, clear contracts cannot always be in place before a crisis hits. Jönköping describes an 
experience from the Covid-19 pandemic, where they had to act outside of LOU after having to 
purchase protective equipment from a business in China since their ordinary suppliers in 
Sweden ran out of equipment. Given the unpredictable nature of crises, municipalities must 
sometimes be open to innovative solutions. While contracts are an important part to facilitate 
                                               
20 Additionally, the private sector is not required by law to cooperate with the public sector in crisis preparedness, 
but businesses can alleviate the public sector in contingency planning and crisis management (Regeringskansliet, 
2023b). 
 
29 
 
 
efficient collaborations - and a lack of them presents a massive challenge - adaptability to 
regulations are required to manage uncertain situations: 
“That is a typical example – we can’t just idly sit on our hands, [we must] believe 
that there are situations where you have to go ‘outside of the box’ […] Every law 
is written based on some kind of prerequisite and context. But when a crisis 
happens, things happen that no one really thought about when the legislation was 
written, leading to organisational vacuums between different legislations.” 
(Jönköping) 
Additionally, while clear contracts create conditions for actors to assume clear roles, actors can 
sometimes get confused about their own expectations and roles, leading to uncertainties in who 
is responsible for what part of recovery efforts or in providing social services (Boin et al., 2016). 
Given the uncertain nature of crises, this is a challenge that public actors need to be aware of 
when drafting contracts. As crises and catastrophes are ever-changing, preparedness workers 
will have to take great care and awareness when drafting contracts to mitigate the negative 
consequences of subpar contracts – or ensure that both private and public actors are flexible to 
quickly handle a crisis. As stated in the theoretical chapter, public actors should have prepared 
recovery plans in place to efficiently prepare for uncertain situations, such as the Covid-19 
example detailed above. Jönköping further illustrates the difficulty on writing robust contracts: 
Almost no contracts are written with the current world situation in mind – but 
instead, written based on a preparedness context. The first question you must ask 
yourself is, are these contracts even valid under heightened alert? Are the 
contracts for coordinated distribution valid? Have they [private actors] prepared? 
Have they done their contingency planning? The answer to a lot of these types 
of questions is ‘no’.” (Jönköping) 
Besides the foundation of formal contracts, frameworks, policies and clear roles within 
organisational structures, shared risks, views, and goals are important in facilitating effective 
cooperation. The informants unanimously agree that private-public cooperation is vital in crisis 
preparedness, even in municipalities where cooperation has not been formally introduced. 
Oftentimes, the two sectors share views, interests and goals for crisis management. The private 
sector is mostly concerned with making profits, but they are also negatively impacted by crisis. 
There is a need to have and maintain adequate compensation and financing from the public 
sector in all parts of the partnership – but businesses also have a self-interest in aiding 
municipalities wherever possible, as crises impact their abilities to conduct their regular tasks: 
 
30 
 
 
“Everyone gets affected [by a crisis] in one way or another, and therefore many 
want to help to return to normal functionality. Maybe not everything always runs 
according to pre-existing plans because they weren’t sufficient or alternative 
solutions were needed. But when a crisis hits, many want to help.” (Norrköping)   
Similarly, one informant mention that collaboration with private actors is sometimes mandatory 
to achieve the public actor’s goals. In essence, the public sector wants to minimise the effects 
of undesirable outcomes in an event - and as quickly as possible resume the normal running of 
things (Samverkan Stockholmsregionen, SSR). Of course, they do not want accidents and 
emergencies to happen, but when they occur, it should hurt society as little as possible - both in 
terms of financial costs, peoples’ lives, societal functionality, and protective values. Sometimes 
involving the private sector in this is vital, because they are responsible for plenty of vital 
societal infrastructure. “We need to do it, and I do not see any other alternatives” (SSR). How 
collaborations are done both between public actors and private companies are constantly 
developing and improving, depending on individual actors’ needs and challenges. The constant 
work to improve preparedness is important to nurture, in order for actors to feel confident in 
their areas of responsibility and complete their actions effectively.  
As stated in the theory, stable leadership is an important enabler for efficient collaboration, and 
a challenge to overcome. This includes steering from the regional and national level. Swedish 
agencies and County Administrative Boards [Länsstyrelser] often have a coordinating role, 
where local actors sometimes wish for more direct leadership. Beyond the gentle steering from 
MSB, there are challenges in the number of different strategies put forward by other public 
actors, and when responsibilities or orders are not clearly laid out, leading to further confusion 
and uncertainty for the public actor: 
“We attended a conference for food supply preparedness at the Stockholm 
County Administrative Board (CAB) last week [at the end of May]. They asked 
a couple of questions to the audience, like “do you have preparedness plans for 
food supply? I don’t know. I don’t know what a preparedness plan is. They [the 
CAB] use the term ‘preparedness plan’, but since there’s no definition of it, I 
don’t know if we have it. That’s another problem in collaboration, when there’s 
nobody that orders [and tells us]: ‘This is a crisis’”. (Sigtuna)   
Despite the lack of sufficient steering from a higher level in preparedness planning, the 
municipalities’ generally have a clear understanding of their own responsibilities, as well as the 
actions they need to take during times of crisis.  In addition, the municipalities often have clear 
 
31 
 
 
internal leadership structures and rehearsed management procedures for decision-making, 
enabling collaborations to be able to make swift actions and have confidence in the 
partnerships’ legitimacy.  
Finally, it is vital to limit the partnership’s bureaucracy. In line with the theoretical framework, 
excessive bureaucracy can “scare” the private actor away (Gotland). To minimise the chances 
of this, the public sector can make sure that they have clear procedures and agendas for meetings 
to have practical issues to discuss with the private entity. In line with theory, this enables the 
public sector to maintain clarity in their leadership and conversation and avoid unnecessary 
conversations on internal processes (Azarian et al., 2023). However, one municipality presents 
that while awareness of bureaucracy is key, municipalities often want to present private actors 
with fixed and already worked-through plans (Gotland). This opens to some challenges – as 
private actors are not included in the decision-making process from the beginning phases. 
Whether or not the private sector wishes to be involved in all aspects of crisis preparedness 
from the start of a partnership depends between municipalities and sectors. Some businesses, 
such as road maintenance, may benefit from being involved from the start in preparation for 
big storm, while other businesses may be content with just being involved whenever they are 
directly affected by policies. Nonetheless – the public actor needs to be aware of the 
bureaucratic structure they are under and try to mitigate its effects on the partnership to facilitate 
efficient collaboration.  
6.2. Relational Management 
As presented in the theoretical chapter, relational management is about the commitment and 
engagement of actors, structures for conflict-management, communication, and trust-building, 
as well as informal relations, and transparency in information-sharing. Besides structural 
factors, it is a key part of efficient collaborations.  
 
32 
 
 
As many municipalities describe that they are still in the beginning phase of involving private 
businesses in contingency planning, current cooperations mainly happen in networks. These 
networks can both be formal with clear contracts, or informal to cement expectations, goals, or 
demands. Such networks can include networking meetings to exchange information and 
educate private businesses about their importance in crisis management, or councils to discuss 
potential issues and challenges. Collaboration with private actors can also be about information-
sharing, such as public actors visiting schools to speak to students about heightened alert, crisis 
and war to heighten societal awareness (Sigtuna). At the same time, it can also revolve around 
public actors having clear points of contact, which is sometimes enough for some actors: 
“The foundation [of collaboration] is the existence of contact networks. In other 
words, having a way to reach others. […] We’ve just exchanged phone numbers 
to our different functions, so that they can contact us where needed, and we’ve 
made sure that other [actors] knows what types of functions we have and how 
they can reach us.” (Luleå)   
However, some municipalities describe that formal networks are more important than informal 
networks, as informal networks have fewer practical effects on crisis preparedness (Gävle, 
Luleå). Ensuring that actors have established strong personal networks is a key enabler for 
efficient collaborations, as it facilitates trust in partnerships. Without clear contact networks 
and established points of contact, unnecessary delays and confusion can occur.  
As crises often cause uncertainties and unexpected scenarios while demanding swift 
management, it is vital that relationships are strong, durable, and pre-established, and built on 
openness. Time is of the essence in crisis management, and straightening out possible question 
marks helps alleviate both the private and public sector. Different municipalities have different 
approaches to relational management, where some prefer involving the private sector in 
informal structures, and some in more established forms. For example, Sigtuna mentions that 
the (current) successful private-public collaborations are based on personal contacts but that 
they should be more actively involved. Linköping mentions that their collaborations with the 
private sector are mostly regulated from their many contracts regarding social services, but that 
they are not actively involved in the preparedness planning. Other municipalities (such as 
Karlskrona) mention similar conclusions – but the main takeaway is that most collaboration 
occur with different public actors, such as County Administrative Boards, the Police, 
Emergency Services, and the Swedish Armed Forces amongst others. This discrepancy is not 
 
33 
 
 
surprising – but equally important to highlight - as municipals run on self-determination and 
can differ in their approach to crisis preparedness. However, there are some questions to raise. 
This thesis does not centre on the actual efficiency of collaborations - but rather enablers and 
challenges for them. Maintaining a close dialogue in collaborations is important, as there are 
often no set “rulebooks”. Cooperation often means committing time and money outside of the 
ordinary tasks of an organisation (Ödlund, 2010) – as such, it could be important to have clear 
structures when initiating relationships and partnerships.  
Information sharing is generally transparent between actors, but it was not always easy for the 
municipalities to describe how. For example, information sharing depends on the contract in 
place, and vary between different private actors. Sometimes information is sensitive. However, 
in the general work that is contracted to the private sector, such as road maintenance, 
transparency in dialogue is important to ensure that there is traffic warnings placed where 
needed and so forth. As mentioned in previous points, many problems can be solved by actors 
talking to each other and understanding each other’s needs (SSR). You must be open to listen 
and understand both your own role within the system, but also in relation to other actor’s 
responsibilities and roles. Ensuring that this dialogue (or at least, possibilities for dialogues) is 
established before crisis is ideal, to ease the actual flow of information during a crisis. This also 
helps alleviate any conflicts that manifests within the cooperation, in line with what Lee et al. 
(2013) and Ghanem and Ghaley (2024) discuss. 
Equal commitment, engagement and trust in the partnership is critical to ensure smooth 
collaborations. While commitment and trust stems from actors’ confidence in the structural 
integrity of the cooperation, it is also built from functioning relationships and contact networks. 
This is illustrated by SSR, when describing the importance of communication regarding training 
and exercises: 
“The purpose [of joint exercises] are to heighten collective capabilities and 
performance – which is done through talking with each other, test each other, and 
discuss responsibilities, tasks and abilities” (SSR)   
As positioned in the theoretical framework, building trust can be considered as one of the most 
important factors for any successful collaborations – no less in high-risk environments such as 
crisis management. However, building trust is not without its challenges, as it is built 
consistently over time, as well as requiring regular and open communication from both parties 
 
34 
 
 
(Boivard, 2004). A part of this is ensuring that commitments are followed-through even under 
pressure, such as private actors still being paid for their services.  
6.3. Capabilities of Partners and Management of Resources 
The capabilities of partners and management of resources revolves around partners’ expertise, 
past collaborative experience, knowledge, learning from past crises, participation in exercises, 
flexibility, appropriate funding, and planning for the availability and access of resources during 
crisis.  
Having experienced leadership with proven expertise in crisis management and collaborations 
is an important enabler in facilitating effective partnerships (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024), since 
experienced actors have more knowledge on “what works”, and what does not. Cross-sectoral 
and interorganisational partnerships are complex structures that demand actors who can 
navigate between both public and private domains, with awareness to their differences in 
organisation, views, and goals. While not clearly stated by the informants, their accounts, 
answers, and attitudes towards the private sector differ slightly. One reason to this difference is 
the differences in experience, as informants who were head of departments often portray a more 
distinct focus towards performance and action, instead of waiting for clearer steering from the 
government (Jönköping) or have more established contact networks (Luleå).21 On the other 
hand, inexperienced leadership can slow down the establishment of effective partnerships.  
Experienced partners and managerial skills also help in achieving (or not achieving) 
coordination and direction. Gotland explains this, as you firstly need established networks to 
know who to contact, in what way, and have an idea of what functions or parts of a partnership 
is responsible for what. Gotland also states that having meticulously planned meetings are 
important to increase the collaboration’s effectiveness, and to ensure that it actually leads to 
action – which is vital for contingency planning. Additionally, you should not mix different 
sectors or crisis management areas in the same meetings, to further cement partners’ 
engagement. Another important factor for effective collaborations is to know who to listen to, 
                                               
21 Of course, all informants in the study are experienced and capable. An increase in actor’s expertise and 
experience simply provides deep(er) knowledge of ‘best practices’, who also often have past experiences of 
collaborations, which increases the chance of fast successful implementation.  
 
35 
 
 
and who to talk to, which is brought up by multiple informants (SSR, Luleå, Sigtuna, 
Norrköping).  
Knowledge and expertise also aid in knowing what issues to discuss with the private sector. For 
example, many things that the public actors are required to do – such as how to do reporting – 
do not concern the private sector (Luleå). For example, snowstorms can cause disturbances and 
societal crises when handled inefficiently. In Luleå, there are plans in place beforehand to 
ensure that the city can continue to function after a certain level of snowfall – but the 
preparedness section of the municipality is not usually involved in those meetings. Instead, it 
is enough that the work is handled by the people who are normally responsible for the clearing 
of snow, without the meticulous steering from municipalities.  
The important thing is that you identify the contingency plans or that you have established 
contacts or procurement contracts in place. Often the private sectors have a better grasp of the 
situation than one might imagine: 
“Often, they [private actors] have a better grasp on the situation than we thought. 
Or now I think that most of them do. But from the beginning we thought, ‘have 
you thought of this’?’ ‘Yes, we have, it has snowed before. Yes, it has happened 
before that we’ve had issues with the delivery to our kitchens or supply of fuel.” 
(Luleå). 
Additionally, most municipalities describe that they gain practical knowledge from actual 
crisis that happen within their vicinity – but regular training and participation in exercises is 
also vital in aiding recovery efforts and management during a crisis.  
 In general, municipalities have a coordinating role, mainly helping with support and 
investigates whether businesses and organisations can continue to run and handle themselves 
during crises. For example, private high schools had different term start times to ensure that 
public transport was not overcrowded during the pandemic, and private actors facilitated the 
cooperation largely by themselves. These decisions are rooted in past knowledge, calculated 
 
36 
 
 
analysis, and informed decisions. In sum, crisis preparedness is about ensuring that society can 
run as normally as possible:  
“Crisis preparedness is about normal functions also working under abnormal 
circumstances. The school should continue to run; the elderly care should run. 
Both on a sunny day in May, and during a snowstorm in November. Or on the 
12th day of war.” (Sigtuna)   
A cornerstone of local and regional crisis preparedness and management is learning from past 
events. The municipalities’ Risk and Vulnerability Evaluations are key to this, where they look 
at what risks exist within their geographical area and how it affects their operations and 
priorities. They use the evaluations as a basis in what they need to improve on, and what to 
prioritise in each mandate period. The second level of this is exchanging experiences with each 
other, to learn both about an individual actor’s capabilities in crisis, but also what improvements 
can be made for the future. The third level formalises cooperation and is mostly regulated on a 
regional level - where you establish different concrete networks and do joint planning. As an 
example, Luleå has a lot of cooperation with businesses and the civil society at large, but not 
outright for crisis preparedness and planning. The informant brings up lessons from the 
pandemic, where the municipality did not have a function of direction and coordination (ISF, 
see MSB, 2022). Instead, individual businesses and organisations had regular contact with the 
municipality, in order for the municipality to identify what challenges they faced, how the 
pandemic affected them, and what actors needed in order to continue their normal operations. 
This information was needed for the municipality to investigate what they could do to support 
other actors.  
Appropriate and clever funding and availability of resources is key to any functioning 
relationship, especially when involving private businesses. Companies that are contracted by 
local governments need to be able to trust that they are equally compensated during crisis. As 
discussed in the first theme on partnership structure, there are sometimes questions whether 
contracts are still valid during heightened alert or war. This is echoed by Karlskrona. This is a 
challenge that should receive attention, as partners may be more inclined to partake in 
cooperations if they know that their financial profits are secure. (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). In 
addition, it is important that businesses are contracted in accordance with LOU – but awareness 
to changing situations that require procurements outside of established regulations and laws are 
equally important. Crises – or ultimately, war, puts tremendous stresses on society that 
 
37 
 
 
sometimes require actors to think outside of the box and come up with innovative solutions. 
Both partners need to be made aware of these possibilities, to ensure that vital societal services 
can continue.  
6.4. Situational Awareness 
Situational awareness is something that permeates every aspect of the partnerships between 
private and public sectors. It is a constant in the public sector’s work – basically everything 
they do need to be done with caution to actor’s different vulnerabilities: 
“You have to listen [to others] and understand your own role within the system, 
as well as in relation to the responsibilities and roles of other actors. To do that 
you need to talk to others about both problems and solutions. The information 
that I possess, as well as the information that is relevant for other actors and the 
whole picture” (SSR)   
Crisis preparedness and management is dynamic, and crises are not linear. New events can have 
unforeseen or unplanned effects on management and relationships. At the same time, multiple 
crises can occur at the same time - or a crisis can have effects on multiple aspects of society. 
For example, a loss in electricity affects all areas of the municipality, and the businesses running 
within it. But if a loss of electricity happens at the same time as a heavy snowstorm, it is even 
more important that cooperation is swift and efficient, to minimise damages to both 
infrastructure and the lives of citizens, requiring attention to hospitals and the care of vulnerable 
groups, such as the elderly or ill. Relating to the theory presented by Lee et al. (2013), the 
accessibility, transparency, and validity of information is vital to get a grasp of the situation, as 
well as to make informed decisions on possible recovery efforts. If public and private actors 
have a collaboration network already in place, it alleviates the recovery efforts and minimise 
downtime in management. Inadequate awareness or incomplete information flows can have 
dangerous, or sometimes even life-threatening effects on society and individual citizens. As 
such, it is vital that actors understand each other’s roles (Luiijf & Klaver, 2011). Nurturing 
relationships prior to crisis are vital to facilitate trust in the cooperation. The informants present 
an awareness of these complex issues and vulnerabilities. However, as stated briefly before – 
the involvement of the private sector does not necessarily need to be something that directly 
heightens the municipalities’ ability to respond to and recover from crises – it can also be about 
cooperating to set up lectures or visit private schools to bring awareness to issues on a citizen 
level.   
 
38 
 
 
6.5. The Structural Reform 
 The question of whether the structural reform have impacted the municipalities’ work with 
crisis preparedness was posed earlier in the thesis. Seeing as the reform happened in 2022, it 
would be plausible that it has had effects on how the municipalities work or prioritise, especially 
in their regular contact with their new preparedness sectors or preparedness agencies. However, 
the informants mostly explain that while they think that the structural reform was good from a 
national and regional perspective, it had not yet influenced how municipalities work:  
“I think that the new reform has not been fully absorbed by the agencies or 
sectors yet. They are not sure yet where the boundaries between someone’s 
responsibilities bleed into the responsibilities of someone else. It is relatively 
clear on paper – but it hasn’t become clear in reality. I can’t say that it has 
directly affected our work, I think that the new actors – such as the sectors and 
the like – need to become more comfortable in their new roles before effects spill 
down on us.” (Östersund)   
Another informant explains that they find the new sectors as very positive, having seen a 
stronger engagement from them. Interestingly, many sectors work directly into municipal 
administrations - for example, The Post- and Telecommunications agency (PTS) today work 
directly into municipal energy businesses and support them with training and resources to 
conduct necessary repairs (Jönköping). In general, they think that this is good, but are uncertain 
if that was the point of the reform. Like Östersund’s statement in the above quote, Jönköping 
mentions that you need to have respect and understanding for large re-organisations, as it takes 
time and patience to see their effects. Another municipality is partly negatively inclined towards 
the reform, stating that is has made County Administrative Boards and agencies messier 
(Luleå).  
Additionally, they did not think that many things practically changed after the reform.  The 
municipality had not been invited to discuss how to manage certain events or disturbances or 
given more concrete factors to consider in their contingency planning. At the same time, the 
informant agreed in line with other municipalities that it takes time for these kinds of re-
organisations to cement themselves. However, they do not see that it has made real, tangible 
effects, at least on the local level. Another informant draws similar conclusions, stating that 
they are convinced that the reform is ultimately good for Sweden’s civil defence, crisis 
preparedness and on an overall societal level, but it takes time to notice any effects in their daily 
 
39 
 
 
work (Sigtuna). On the other hand, Gävle mentions that it has not had large effects on their 
work, mentioning that it is unclear what the role and purpose of the heads of civil areas are. At 
the same time, the informant explains that there is hope for the reform to have increased clarity 
over time, but that civil areas probably have larger purposes during heightened alert. 
The municipalities’ reflections of the structural reform are not that surprising after further 
thought. The reform has restructured the entirety of the civil defence system, creating new 
forums and responsibilities. The effects of these take time to notice on a broader societal scale, 
and do not happen overnight. Additionally, the structural reform mainly changes the role for 
actors working on the national scale, with some effects felt by regional actors, such as County 
Administrative Boards, who are now responsible, at least on paper, for ensuring that important 
societal functions work before and during crises, heightened alert and war. Their roles are 
outlined in regulation (2022:524) about public agencies’ preparedness, put forward by Sveriges 
Riksdag (2022). Another informant (Gotland) mention that they hoped that the reform would 
have had a larger impact. For example, that the head of their new civil area would be more 
engaged in their region, as they often have more experience in coordinating other municipalities 
and bring important perspectives. However, their view was that the structural reform ultimately 
centres on heightened alert.  
6.6. Discussion 
The previous parts of the chapter have presented the analysis, mainly consisting of the accounts 
from interviewees. Dividing the analysis into five parts, each corresponding to a thematical area 
anchored in the theory or regarding the structural reform, provides for clearer distinctions 
between different factors. 
However, the theory has issues in its implementation. The limitation of it is twofold – one-part 
concerns difficulties in solely attributing one element or factor to one distinct theme. Crisis 
management is complex, with factors often overlapping with one another. In addition, it has not 
been completely unproblematic to not narrow the case further. “Crisis preparedness” on its own 
is a very broad subject with an ever-growing list of factors and challenges to consider. 
Narrowing the focus on the public perspective have partly helped, but the recommendations for 
enabling factors and challenges in public-private partnerships become very general and 
sometimes lacklustre. Future studies should perhaps narrow the focus even further to pinpoint 
 
40 
 
 
more specific challenges and factors, which could shed further light on the dynamics of 
collaborative crisis management.  
However, the analysis has made some contributions. Besides the analysis becoming clearer by 
splitting it into distinct themes, each part of the analytical framework has been lifted. The 
framework is now presented again on the next page – but this time with the overall findings of 
the analysis filled in, in place of the theoretical factors. This also provides a clearer view of 
present factors and challenges – which can otherwise be forgotten in the lengthy analysis. 
However, the study is mainly confirming of the theoretical framework, providing an 
explanation about how the enabling factors and challenges previously discussed are presented 
in local crisis preparedness contexts. Some newer conclusions are discovered, such as details 
on different collaborative environments and the wish for increased steering from the national 
and regional level.  
The study is not meant to be generalisable on the whole of Sweden. As such, applying this 
analysis to different contexts should be done with great caution, as local conditions may affect 
the results, enabling factors, and challenges. The same caution must be taken when applying 
the enabling factors and challenges in international contexts.  
 
 
41 
 
 
 
Figure 2. The theoretical framework has been updated with the findings of the study.  
 
42 
 
 
7. Conclusion 
The purpose of this study was to analyse local-level public-private collaboration in Swedish 
crisis preparedness, to provide a deeper understanding for the challenges present that hinder 
efficient collaboration, as well as what enabling factors facilitate effective cooperations. 
Additionally, the study investigates the effects of the 2022 structural reform of the civil defence. 
The research questions were in line with this, focusing on what enabling factors are present, as 
well as what challenges can be identified that hinders efficient collaborations. As the role and 
responsibilities of vital societal functions increasingly fall into the hands of the private sector, 
it is vital to ensure that collaborations between these sectors are successful, and efficient to 
minimise the negative impacts of potential crises and war. To achieve this aim, ten interviews 
were conducted with representatives from nine municipalities, and one public actor that 
coordinates the collaborative work for societal disturbances in the Stockholm region. The study 
is based in the theoretical dimensions of private-public partnerships, building on a pre-existing 
framework on partnership resilience (Lee et al., 2013), as well as a framework on partnership 
strength, weaknesses and effectiveness (Ghanem & Ghaley, 2024). The framework is based on 
four dimensions with a wide array of factors, of which many are intertwined and present at the 
same time. The nature of private-public partnership is complex, and oftentimes there is no sole 
cause for an effect or factor to facilitate efficient collaborations. Nonetheless, the framework is 
based on (1) partnership structure, (2) relational management, (3) capabilities of partners and 
management of resources, and (4) situational awareness. 
There are a couple of key takeaways from this study. However, it is important to note that the 
general focus of the study makes it difficult to present very specific recommendations – and the 
results are mainly confirmatory of the theory and its relevance for the Swedish context. 
Nonetheless, important factors that enable efficient collaborations on the local level, as well as 
challenges, are found. First, the need for sometimes increased organisational clarity and a wish 
for increased steering from public agencies - such as clearness in what guidelines are 
recommendations, and what guidelines are requirements for municipalities to follow. Second, 
municipalities take a prominent coordinating leading role in private-public partnerships. 
Besides partnerships being regulated through formal contracts, it is vital to have adaptability 
and flexibility in decision-making and collaborate outside of set frameworks whenever 
required. Crises are dynamic, complex, and bring sometimes unforeseen factors to consider. It 
 
43 
 
 
is vital that collaborators, from both sectors, are open to cooperate outside of set regulations if 
need be. Regulations and contracts are written with a certain context in mind. Sometimes these 
contexts change the plausibility or availability of resources, or hinders expected deliveries, 
forcing actors to go beyond their normal strategies and networks. Third, the structural reform 
of the civil defence has not yet had an impact on local-level governments and has neither 
impacted how municipalities work together with other actors. It is possible that the reform has 
had larger effects for national and regional actors, which can be explored in a future study. 
Fourth, the broad spectrum of challenges present in the management of various parts of crisis 
preparedness and vital societal functions makes the sector inherently robust and resilient. 
However, it also leads to new situations that require swift decisions, awareness of other actor’s 
vulnerabilities and the public actor being confident in their capabilities. A comprehensive 
approach to problem-solving is also needed.  
The list of challenges that public actors must consider and overcome when cooperating with 
the private sector is long. Ultimately, it boils down having awareness for and understanding the 
private sector’s primary goal of securing their profits, but also ensuring that legal and formal 
contracts are in place (in the highest possible degree), as well as ensuring that the private and 
public actor shares risks and work towards the same interests and goals. Situational awareness 
of vulnerabilities and other actor’s roles is vital, to ensure that both sectors have similar 
commitments to the partnership, to avoid unnecessary delays, confusions, or lax management 
of a situation. Trust is ultimately a key part to any partnership, and it is important that public 
actors pay attention to the challenges that excessive bureaucracy brings. Indeed, excessive 
bureaucracy may make private actors feel excluded or hindered in efficiently partaking in 
collaborations. Ultimately, the public sector is responsible to establish clear, distinct 
partnerships that facilitate effective collaborations with the private sector. Sometimes formal, 
regular meetings and the private sector’s involvement in preparedness planning is not required 
- but they should be invited whenever they wish to be involved. Not preplanning for potential 
crises is a mistake, but the private sector does not necessarily have to be involved in every step 
of the way. Learning from past experiences, past crises, and from each other is key to facilitate 
efficient partnerships.  
As previously stated, the contribution of this study is mainly empirical and confirmatory of the 
theory. However, as detailed above, it also provides new insight by utilising the perspectives of 
 
44 
 
 
the municipalities view on cooperation. Altogether, the analytical tools and frameworks used 
in this thesis have been important in highlight the issues at hand.  
Future studies could include perspectives of the private sector, to deepen the knowledge on 
cross-sectoral and interorganisational cooperation. While it is important that the public sector 
have clarity on the challenges they face, and what factors they should foster – involving the 
private sector in studies like these can provide for more direct policy recommendation. The 
development of public-private cooperation is overall going in a positive direction, and an 
interesting next step could focus on the private sector’s involvement in Sweden’s total defence.  
Additionally, it would be interesting to see studies that develop the theoretical framework of 
private-public partnerships further, potentially that makes a better differentiation and division 
of factors. Public-private partnerships are complex, and this is no less seen in the complexity 
of applying the theory on actual partnerships. With the current theoretical framework used in 
this study, it has been difficult to attach one factor or challenge to only one part of the theoretical 
themes. The complexity of crisis preparedness, and presence of many factors at the same time 
makes application of this specific theory difficult. With these challenges in mind, this thesis 
can be considered to present a first step in attaining a deeper understanding of these complex 
issues. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 
 
 
References 
Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (2003) Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for  
 Local-Governments. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC. 
Alford, J. & Head, B. W. (2017) Wicked and Less Wicked Problems: A Typology and a 
Contingency Framework. Policy and Society, 36 (3): 397–413. 
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of  
Public Administration Research, 18(4): 543-571. 
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2012) Stewards, Mediators, and Catalysts: Towards a Model of  
Collaborative Leadership. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation 
Journal, 17(1): 3-21. 
Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N. & Callus, C. (2021) Developing a “Culture of Disaster  
 Preparedness”: A Citizens’ View. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,  
 56. 
Azarian, M., Shiferaw, A. T., Stevik, T. K., Lædre, O. & Windimu, P. A. (2023) Public- 
Private Partnership: A Bibliometric Analysis and Historical Evolution. Buildings, 
13(2035).  
Batjargal, T. & Zhang, M. (2021) Review of Key Challenges in Public-Private Partnership  
 Implementation. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 5(2). 
Bergenwall, S., & Gunnarson, C. (2019) Sweden's Total Defence - Global Trends and New  
Challenges. Swedish Defence Research Agency. 
Bell, E., Bryman, A. & Harley, B. (2019) Business Research Methods. Oxford University  
 Press: New York.  
Bodin, Ö. (2017) Collaborative Environmental Governance: Achieving Collective Action in  
 Social-Ecological Systems, Science, 18(357). 
Boin, A., & Bynander, F. (2016) Explaining Success and Failure in Crisis Coordination.  
Geografiska Annaler, 97(1): 123–135. 
Boin. A., & McConnel. A. (2007) Preparing for Critical Infrastructure Breakdowns: The  
Limits of Crisis Management and the Need for Resilience. Journal of Contingencies 
and Crisis Management, 15(1): 50-59. 
Boin, A. & 't Hart, P. (2010) Organising for Effective Emergency Management: Lessons from  
Research. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4): 357-371. 
Borell, J., Ek, Å., & Leth, E. (2018) ”Enablers and Barriers for Implementing Crisis 
Preparedness on Local and Regional Levels in Sweden”. In IEA Proceedings of the 
20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Volume IV: 
Organizational Design and Management ODAM, Professional Affairs, Forensic.  
Bovaird, T. (2004) Public-Private Partnerships: From Contested Concepts to Prevalent  
 Practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2): 199-215. 
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2008) Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research  
 in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. 
Broadbent, J. & Laughlin, R. (2003) Public Private Partnerships: An Introduction.  
 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16: 332-341. 
Brommesson, D., & Edström, Z. (2021) Coronapandemin och de upplevda   
styrningsproblemen - det svenska fallet i nordisk jämförelse. University of Lund:  
Lund. 
Busch, N & Givens, A. (2013) Achieving Resilience in Disaster Management: The Role of 
Public-Private Partnerships. Journal of Strategic Security, 6: 1–19. 
Bynander, F., & Nohrstedt, D (2020) Collaborative Crisis Management Interorganizational  
 
46 
 
 
Approaches to Extreme Events. Routledge: London. 
Casady, C., Eriksson, K., Levitt, R. E. & Scott, W. R. (2019) (Re)Defining Public Private  
Partnerships (PPPs) in the New Public Governance (NPG) Paradigm: An Institutional 
Maturity Perspective. Public Management Review, 22(3): 1-23. 
Chen, J., Chen, T., Vertinsky, I., Yumagulova, L. & Park, C. (2013) Public–Private  
Partnerships for the Development of Disaster Resilient Communities. Journal of 
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(3): 130-143. 
Christensen, T., Rykkja, L. H. & Lægreid, P. (2016) Organizing for Crisis Management:  
Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6): 
887-897.  
Christoplos, I. (2003) “Actors in Risk”. In Pelling, M. (Ed.) Natural Disasters and  
Development in a Globalizing World. Routledge: London. 
Comfort, L. K. (2007) Crisis Management inf Hindsight: Cognition, Communication,  
 Coordination, and Control. Public Administration Review, 67(1): 189-197. 
Comfort, L. K., Waugh, W. L. & Cigar, B. A. (2012) Emergency Management Research and  
Practice in Public Administration: Emerge, Evolution, Expansion and Future 
Directions. Public Administration Review, 72(4): 539-547.  
Crichton, M. T, Lauche, K. & Flin, R. (2005) Incident Command Skills in the Management of  
an Oil Industry Drilling Incident: A Case Study. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis 
Management, 13(3): 116-128. 
Cristofoli, D., Meneguzzo, M., & Riccucci, M. (2017) Collaborative Administration: The  
Management of Successful Networks. Public Management Review 19(3/4): 275–283. 
Cui, C., Liu, Y., Hope, A. & Wang, J. (2018) Review of Studies on the Public-Private  
Partnerships (PPP) for Infrastructure Projects. International Journal of Project 
Management, 36(5): 773-794. 
Curnin, S. & O’Hara, D. (2019) Nonprofit and Public Sector Interorganizational  
 Collaboration in Disaster Recovery: Lessons from the Field. Nonprofit Management  
 and Leadership, 30(4). 
Danielsson, E. & Sjöstedt-Landén, A. (2019) Leader Normativity in Crisis Management:  
 Tales From a School Fire. Risks, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 0(0).  
Demiroz, F. & Hu, Q. (2014) “The Role of Nonprofits and Civil Society in Post-Disaster  
Recovery and Development”. In Kapucu, N. & Liou, K. T (Eds.) Disaster and 
Development: Examining Global Issues and Cases. Springer International Publishing: 
Cham. 
Deverell, E., Alvinius, A., & Hede, S. (2019) Horizontal Collaboration in Crisis Management:  
An Experimental Study of the Duty Officer Function in Three Public Agencies. Risk, 
Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 10(4): 484-508. 
Diehlmann, F., Lüttenberg, M., Verdonck, L., Wiens, M., Zienau, A. & Schultmann, F.  
(2021) Public-Private Collaborations in Emergency Logistics: A Framework Based on 
Logistical and Game-Theoretical Concepts. Safety Science, 141. 
Dunn Cavelty, M. & Suter, M. (2009) Public-Private Partnerships Are no Silver Bullet: An  
Expanded Governance Model for Critical Infrastructure Protection. International 
Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2(4): 179-187. 
Egan, J., (2010) Private Goods and Services Contracts: Increased Emergency Response  
Capacity or Increased Vulnerability. International Journal of Production Economics, 
126: 46–56. 
Emerson, K. & Nabatchi, T. (2015) Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance  
 
47 
 
 
Regimes: A Performance Matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4): 
717-747. 
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. (2012) An Integrative Framework for Collaborative  
Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1): 1-29. 
Endsley, M. R. Bolte, B. & Jones, D. G. (2003) Designing for Situation Awareness: An  
 Approach to User-Centered Design. Taylor and Francis: London.  
Eriksson, P., Larsson, P., & Welander, F. (2019) Kommunerna och det lokala geografiska 
områdesansvaret. Swedish Defence Research Agency. 
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, O., Towns, A. & Wängnerud, L. (2017)  
Metodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. Wolters Kluwer: 
Stockholm.  
Filimonau, V. & De Coteau, D. (2020) Tourism Resilience in the Context of Integrated  
Destination and Disaster Management (DM2). International Journal of Tourism 
Research, 22(2): 202-222. 
Fischer, G., Larsson, P., Ryghammar, L. & Sandö, C. (2013) Fokus: Samhällssäkerhet – FOI  
och arbetet med samhällets säkerhet och trygghet. Swedish Defence Research 
Agency. 
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case Study Research. Qualitative 
 Inquiry, 12: 219-45. 
Gardiner, A., Bardout, M., Grossi, F. & Dicson-Decléve, S. (2015) Public-Private  
 Partnerships for Climate Finance. Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk: Copenhagen. 
Ghanem, M. & Ghaley, M. (2024) Building a Framework for a Resilience-Based Public  
 Private Partnership. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 31. 
Gibson, W. & Brown, A. (2011) Working with Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications:  
 London.  
Gooding, K., Bertone, M. P., Loffreda, G. & Witter, S. (2022) How Can We Strengthen  
Partnership and Coordination for Health System Emergency Preparedness and 
Response? Findings from a Synthesis of Experience Across Countries Facing Shocks. 
BMC Health Services Research, 22(1141). 
Gratzer, K., Lönnborg, M. & Olsson, M. (2021) “Collective Ownership in Sweden - The  
State, Privatization and Entrepreneurship”. In Lönnborg, M., Otieno Ndiege, B., & 
Tesfaye, B (Eds.) Beyond Borders. Södertörn University Library: Stockholm. 
Guerrero, A. M., Bodin, Ö., Nohrstedt, D., Plummer, R., Baird, J. & Summers, R. (2023)  
Collaboration and Individual Performance During Disaster Response. Global 
Environmental Change, 82. 
Hicklin, A., O’Toole, L., Meier, K., & Robinson, S. (2009) “Calming the Storms:  
Collaborative Public Management, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Disaster Response”. 
In R. O’Leary & L. Bingham (Eds.) The Collaborative Public Manager. Georgetown 
University Press, Washington, DC. 
Hodge, G. & Greve, C. (2005) The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships: Learning From  
 International Experience. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.  
Huxham, C., Vangen, S. & Eden, C. (2000). The Challenge of Collaborative Governance.  
 Public Management Review, 2(3): 337–358. 
IPCC (2021) Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science  
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: 
Cambridge. 
Jakobsson, M. L. (2019) “Prerequisites for the Total Defence Then and Now”. In Rossbach,  
 
48 
 
 
 N. H., Öhrn-Lundin, J., Jonsson, D. K., Sundberg, A., Olsson, S., Gustafsson, J., & 
 Trané, C. (Eds.) Strategic Outlook 8: Sweden's Total Defence - Challenges and  
 Opportunities. Swedish Defence Research Agency. 
Jin, Y., Coombs, W. T., Wang, Y., Meer, T. & Shivers, B. N. (2024) Readiness: A Keystone  
Concept Beyond Organizational Crisis Preparedness and Resilience. Journal of 
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32. 
Keast, R., Brown, K & Mandell, M. (2007) Getting the Right Mix: Unpacking Integration  
Meanings and Strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1): 9-33. 
Kekez, A., Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2019) “Collaboration in Public Service Delivery:  
What, When and How”. In Kekez, A., Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (Eds.) 
Collaboration in Public Service Delivery. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. 
Koliba, C. J., Mills, R. M. & Zia, A. (2011) Accountability in Governance Networks: An  
Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit Emergency Management Practices 
Following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 71(2): 210-220. 
Koppenjan, J.F.M. & E.H. Klijn, (2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network  
 Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. Routledge: London. 
Koskinen-Kannisto, A. (2013) Situational Awareness Concept in a Multinational  
 Collaboration Environment. Doctoral Dissertation: National Defence University. 
Kusumasari, B., Alam, Q. & Siddiqui, K. (2010) Resource Capability for Local Government  
 in Managing disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19: 438-451. 
Lallerstedt, K. (2021) Rebuilding Total Defence in a Globalized Deregulated Economy: The  
Case of Sweden. Prism, 9(3): 90-104. 
Larsson, O. (2019) Ansvarsförskjutning och liberal styrning i skapandet av krismedvetna 
medborgare. Statsvetenskaplig tidsskrift, 121(4). 
Larsson, S., & Rhinard, M. (2021) Nordic Societal Security: Convergence and Divergence.  
 Routledge: Abingdon. 
Lee, A., Vargo, J. & Seville, E. (2013) Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare  
 Organizations' Resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14: 29-41, 
Leth, E., Borell, J. & Ek, Å. (2024) Swedish Crisis Preparedness Planners’ Understanding and  
Sense-Making of Preparedness Work in a Public Organisation: Implications for Future 
Development. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(2). 
Lilleker, D. G. (2003) Interviewing the Political Elite: Navigating a Potential Minefield.  
 Politics, 23(3): 20-214. 
Luiijf, E. & Klaver, M. H. A. (2011) Insufficient Situational Awareness about Critical  
 Infrastructures by Emergency Management. Insights and Recommendations. 
Lundmark, M. (2021) The Evolution Towards the Partial Strategic Autonomy of Sweden's  
Essential Security Interests. Defence and Peace Economics, 33(4): 339-420. 
Masys, A. J. (2005) A Systmatic Perspective of Situation Awareness: An Analysis of the  
2002 Mid-Air Collision over Überlingen, Germany. Disaster Prevention and 
Management, 14(4): 548-557. 
McGuire, M. (2006) Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How  
We Know It. Public Administration Review, 66: 33-43. 
McNamara, M. (2012) Starting to Untangle the Web of Cooperation, Coordination, and  
Collaboration: A Framework for Public Managers. International Journal of Public 
Administration, 35(6): 389-401.  
MSB (2015) Komplex beroendeanalys på sektoriell nivå - exemplet telekominfrastrukturer.  
The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. Available:  
 
49 
 
 
https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/komplex-beroendeanalys-pa-sektoriell-niva--
exemplet-telekominfrastrukturer/ (Accessed 2024-03-05). 
MSB (2016) Ansvar, samverkan, handling: Åtgärder för stärkt krisberedskap utifrån  
erfarenheterna från skogsbranden i Västmanland 2014. The Swedish Civil  
Contingencies Agency. Available: https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/ansvar-
samverkan-handling--atgarder-for-starkt-krisberedskap-utifran-erfarenheterna-fran-
skogsbranden-i-vastmanland-2014-ju20151400ssk/ (Accessed 2024-03-06). 
MSB (2021) Kraftsamling - för en stärkt civil beredskap. The Swedish Contingencies  
Agency. Available: https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/kraftsamling--for-en-starkt-
civil-beredskap--baserad-pa-msbs-nationella-risk--och-formagebedomning-2021/ 
(Accessed 2024-03-06). 
MSB (2022) Höjd beredskap. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. Available:  
https://www.msb.se/sv/rad-till-privatpersoner/forbered-dig-for-kris/hojd-beredskap/ 
[Accessed 2024-08-10]. 
MSB (2023a) Anslag 2:4 Krisberedskap - uppföljning 2023. The Swedish Contingencies  
Agency. Available: https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/anslag-24-krisberedskap-
uppfoljning-2023--redovisning-av-uppdrag-i-msbs-regleringsbrev-for-2024/     
(Accessed 2024-04-16). 
MSB (2023b) Strukturreform av krisberedskap och civilt försvar. The Swedish  
Contingencies Agency. Available:  
https://www.msb.se/sv/amnesomraden/krisberedskap--civilt-forsvar/det-svenska-
civila-beredskapssystemet/strukturreform-av-krisberedskap-och-civilt-forsvar/ 
(Accessed 2024-03-02). 
MSB (2024a) Privat-offentlig samverkan. The Swedish Contingencies Agency. Available:  
https://www.msb.se/sv/amnesomraden/krisberedskap--civilt-
forsvar/samverkansforum/privat-offentlig-samverkan/ (Accessed 2024-04-03). 
MSB (2024b) MSBFS 2024:5 Föreskrifter om statliga myndigheters redovisning av risk- och  
sårbarhetsbedömningar. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. Available: 
https://www.msb.se/sv/regler/gallande-regler/krisberedskap-och-
informationssakerhet/msbfs-20245/ (Accessed 2024-06-25). 
MSB (2024c) Handbok i civil beredskap för kommuner: Kommunala verksamheter. The  
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. Available: 
https://www.msb.se/sv/amnesomraden/krisberedskap--civilt-forsvar/samlat-stod-till-
kommuner/handbok-i-kommunal-krisberedskap/kommunala-verksamheter/   
(Accessed 2024-06-28). 
MSB & SKR (2021) Överenskommelse om kommunernas arbete med civilt försvar:  
2018-2020 med revideringar till och med 2023. The Swedish Civil Contingencies 
Agency and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Available: 
https://www.msb.se/contentassets/7795b65965634290b10280571ac4aee6/overenskom
melse-om-kommuners-arbete-med-civilt-forsvar-2023.pdf (Accessed 2024-03-04). 
Mulyani, S. (2021) Critical Success Factors in Public-Private Partnership. Journal of  
 Accounting, Auditing and Business, 4(1), pp. 81-86. 
Mushkatel, A. & Perry, R. (1984) Disaster Management: Warning Response and Communicy  
 Relocation. Bloomsbury Academic: London 
National Research Council (2011) Building Community Disaster Resilience Through Private- 
 Public Collaboration. The National Academies Press: Washington DC. 
Nohrstedt, D., Bynander, F., Parker, C., & ‘t Hart, P. (2018) Managing Crises 
 
50 
 
 
Collaboratively: Prospects and Problems - A Systematic Literature Review. 
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(4): 257–271. 
O'Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012) Collaborative Public Management: Where Have We Been and  
Where Are We Going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5): 507-
522. 
Olsén, M., Oskarsson, P-A., Hallberg, N., Granåsen, M., & Nordström, J. (2023) Exploring  
Collaborative Crisis Management: A Model of Essential Capabilities. Safety Sciences, 
162. 
Osborne, S. P. (2006) The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3) 
 377–387. 
Osei-Kyei, R. & Chan, A. P. (2021) International Best Practices of Public-Private  
 Partnerships. Springer Books: Springer. 
Parker, C. F., Nohrstedt, D., Baird, J., Hermansson, H., Rubin, O. & Baekkeshov, E. (2020)  
Collaborative Crisis Management: A Plausibility Probe of Core Assumptions. Policy 
and Society, 39(4): 510-529. 
Parker, C. F. & Sundelius, B. (2020) “Avoiding the Failures of Collaborative Crisis  
 Management: Lessons from Research and Practice”. In Bynander, F. & Nohrstedt, B.  
 (Eds.) Collaborative Crisis Management. Routledge: New York.  
Patton, M. Q. (1999) Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis. Health  
 Services Research, 34: 1189-1208. 
Persson, E. & Granberg, M. (2020) Implementation through Collaborative Crisis Management  
and Contingency Planning: The Case of Dam Failure in Sweden. Journal of Risk 
Research: 1135-1348. 
Peters, B. G. (2010) Meta-Governance and Public Management. In: Osborne, S. P. (Eds.) The 
New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public 
Governance. Routledge: London. 
Quinn, D., Wilkenfeld, J., Smarick, K. & Asal, V. (2007) Power Play: Mediation in  
Symmetric and Asymmetric International Crises. International Interactions, 32(4): 
441-470. 
Rapley, T. J. (2001) The Art(fulness) of Open-Ended Interviewing: Some Considerations on  
 Analysing Interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3): 303-323. 
Regeringskansluet (2021) Struktur för ökad motståndskraft. Statens offentliga utredningar,  
SOU 2021:25. The Ministry of Justice. Available: https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-
dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2021/04/sou-202125/ (Accessed 2024-08-
02). 
Regeringskansliet (2023a) Kraftsamling: Inriktning av totalförsvaret och utformningen av det  
 civila försvaret. Department of Defence, Ds 2023:34.  
Regeringskansliet (2023b) Regeringens proposition 2023/24:1: Budgetpropositionen för  
 2024. Available:  
https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/e1afccd2ec7e42f6af3b651091df139c/budgetp
ropositionen-for-2024-hela-dokumentet-prop.2023241.pdf (Accessed 2024-04-05). 
Region Gotland (2023) Policy for civil beredskap (kris/katastrof-beredskap och civilt  
försvar). Regionstyrelseförvaltningen. Available: https://gotland.se/utveckla-
gotland/beredskap-och-civilt-forsvar [Accessed 2024-06-13]. 
Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Sarib, M., Alhabsyi, F. & Syam, H. (2022) Semi-Structured  
Interview: A Methodological Reflection on the Development of a Qualitative 
Research Instrument in Educational Studies. Journal of Research & Method in 
Education, 12(1): 22-29. 
 
51 
 
 
Ryan, G. W. & Bernard, H. R. (2003) Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15: 85- 
 109. 
SAF (2023) Totalförsvaret. Swedish Armed Forces. Available:  
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/om-forsvarsmakten/totalforsvaret/ (Accessed  
2024-04-05). 
Simo, G., & Bies, A. L. (2007) The Role of Nonprofits in Disaster Response: An Expanded  
Model of Cross-Sector Collaboration. Public Administration Review, 67: 125-142. 
SKR (2021a) Regionernas åtaganden. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 
Available:  
https://skr.se/skr/tjanster/kommunerochregioner/faktakommunerochregioner/regionern
asataganden.27748.html (accessed 2024-04-02). 
SKR (2021b) Kommunernas åtaganden. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and  
Regions. Available:  
https://skr.se/skr/tjanster/kommunerochregioner/faktakommunerochregioner/kommun
ernasataganden.3683.html. (Accessed 2024-04-02).  
Smith, J. A. (1995) “Semi-Structured Interviewing and Qualitative Analysis”. In Smith, J. A.,  
Harré, R. & Langenhove, L. K. (Eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. Sage: 
London. 
Strömberg, P. (2010) Swedish Military Bases of the Cold War: The Making of a New  
 Cultural Heritage. Culture Unbound, 2: 635–663. 
Svallfors, S. & Tyllström. A (2017) Lobbying for Profits: Private Companies and the  
Privatization of the Welfare State in Sweden. Institutet for Framtidsstudier, Working 
Paper 2017:1. 
Sveriges Riksdag (2006) Lag (2006:544) om kommuners och regioners åtgärder inför och vid  
extraordinära händelser i fredstid och höjd beredskap. The Ministry of Defence. 
Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-
forfattningssamling/lag-2006544-om-kommuners-och-regioners-atgarder_sfs-2006-
544/  (Accessed 2024-02-06).  
Sveriges Riksdag (2016) Lag (2016:1145) om offentlig upphandling. The Ministry of  
Finance. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-
lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-20161145-om-offentlig-
upphandling_sfs-2016-1145/ (Accessed 2024-06-28). 
Sveriges Riksdag (2022) Förordning (2022:524) om statliga myndigheters beredskap.  
Ministry of Defence. Available: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-
lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-2022524-om-statliga-
myndigheters_sfs-2022-524/ [Accessed 2024-06-25]. 
Sällberg, H. & Numminen, E. (2022) Key Drivers for Infrastructure Public-Private  
Partnership Adoption in Sweden. 2022 WEI International Academic Conference 
Proceedings. 
Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2011) Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.  
Administration & Society, 43(8): 842–868. 
Thompson, J. (2022). A Guide to Abductive Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report,  
 27(5): 1410-1421. 
Timmermans, M. & Tavory, I. (2012) Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From  
 Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3): 167-186. 
Uhnoo, S., Persson, S. (2021) The Flip Side of the Coin: Perils of Public-Private Disaster  
 Cooperation. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management: 440-450. 
Uhr, C. (2011) ”Samverkansbegreppet”. In MSB, & Nilsson, N-O (Eds.) Samverkan – för  
 
52 
 
 
säkerhets skull! The Swedish Contingencies Agency. Available:  
https://www.msb.se/sv/publikationer/samverkan--for-sakerhets-skull/ (accessed 2024-
03-01) 
United Nations (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. UN  
Headquarters. Available: https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-
disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 [Accessed 2024-03-04]. 
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014) A Systematic Review of  
Co-creation and Coproduction: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public 
Management Review, 17(9): 1333–57. 
Waugh, W. & Streib, G. (2006) Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency  
 Management. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 131-140. 
Weber, E., and Khademian, A. (2008) Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and  
Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration Review, 
68: 334-349. 
WHO (2020) Impact of Covid-19 on People's Livelihoods, Their Health and Our Food  
Systems. World Health Organization. Available: https://www.who.int/news/item/13-
10-2020-impact-of-covid-19-on-people's-livelihoods-their-health-and-our-food-
systems (Accessed 2024-03-27). 
Wieslander, A. (2022). "The Hultqvist Doctrine" - A Swedish Security and Defence Policy  
after the Russian Annexation of Crimea. Defence Studies, 22(1): 35-59. 
Wimelius, M.E. &, Engberg, J. (2015). Crisis Management Through Network Coordination:  
 Experiences of Swedish Civil Defense Directors. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis  
 Management, 23(3): 129-137. 
Ödlund, A (2010) Pulling the Same Way? A Multi-Perspectivist Study of Crisis Cooperation  
 in Government.  Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(2): 96-107. 
Östersund municipality (2024) Vid kris eller krig. Kommun och politik. Available:  
https://www.ostersund.se/kommun-och-politik/trygg-och-saker/vid-kris-eller-
krig.html [Accessed 2024-06-16]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
53 
 
 
Appendix 1: List of Participants 
Municipality or Professional title (in Professional title (in 
organisation Swedish) English) 
Sigtuna municipality Säkerhetsstrateg Security Strategist 
Linköping municipality Säkerhetsstrateg Security Strategist 
Karlskrona municipality Säkerhetschef Head of Security  
Luleå municipality Säkerhets- och Head of Security and 
beredskapschef Preparedness 
Östersund municipality Utredare krisberedskap och Investigator for Crisis 
civilt försvar Preparedness and Civil 
Defence 
Gotland municipality Beredskapsstrateg Preparedness Strategist  
Samverkan Medarbetare vid Employee at the Cooperation 
Stockholmsregionen Samverkanskansliet och Chancellery and Stockholm 
Länsstyrelsen Stockholm Administrative Board  
Norrköping municiaplity Säkerhetsstrateg Security Strategist 
Gävle municipality Beredskapsstrateg Preparedness Strategist 
Jönköping municipality Biträdande räddningschef Subsidary Chief of Rescue 
Services  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
 
 
Appendix 2: Interview Guide (Swedish, original) 
Varje intervju inleds med att berätta för informanten att intervjun spelas in och transkriberas 
ordagrant, samt informera om att de har rätt att dra sig ur studien när som helst fram tills dess 
att uppsatsen lämnas in, dvs. 14 augusti 2024. Slutligen informerades informanten om att 
eventuella citat från intervjun kommer att tas med, och frågar om de vill ha en chans att 
godkänna dessa innan uppsatsen lämnas in.  
 
Vilken yrkesroll/titel har du inom din organisation? 
Hur länge har du jobbat inom din organisation? 
1 Vilka strategier, riktlinjer och metoder nyttjar ni för att arbeta med krisberedskap? 
2 Vad innebär samverkan inom krisberedskap för er? 
3 Samverkar ni med några andra aktörer i krisberedskapsarbetet? 
      3A Om ja, vilka då? Samverkan med privata aktörer? Inte namn, utan vilken bransch? 
3B Hur involveras näringslivet i krisberedskapsarbetet, och hur sker samverkan?     
3C Hur väljer ni vilka specifika aktörer (ex företag) ni samverkar med?  
3D Tycker du att det finns tydliga styrningar som reglerar samverkan? Om inte, ge 
exempel på vilken del som kan förbättras 
3E Är det tydligt hur rollfördelningen ser ut i krisberedskapsarbetet i samverkan med 
privata aktörer?  
3F Ser ni några utmaningar gällande samverkan med privata aktörer? Om ja, vilka då? 
Vad kan förbättras? 
3G Vilka positiva effekter ser du kommer utifrån samverkan med privata aktörer?  
4 Om ni inte samverkar med privata aktörer, varför då? Inget behov, intresse, resurser osv?  
      4A Planerar ni på att involvera näringslivet i krisberedskapsarbetet i framtiden?  
Varför/varför inte?  
5 Hur ser kommunikationen ut mellan er och privata aktörer i samverkanssyfte? 
6 Hur delar ni information med varandra? Är den transparent? 
7 Finns det någon genomförd övning, workshop eller verklig krishantering där ni kunnat 
samverka fullt ut? 
      7A Om ja, nämn några framgångsfaktorer om just denna  
8 Avsätts det tillräckligt med medel/resurser för samverkan?  
9 Vem leder krisberedskapsarbetet som görs i samverkan med privata aktörer? Hur görs 
beslut?  
10 Har strukturreformen (med sektorer, civilområden osv) påverkat ert arbete?  
      10A Om ja, hur då?  
      10B Om nej, varför tror du inte att den har haft någon effekt på ert arbete? 
 
55 
 
 
Appendix 3: Interview Guide (English, translated) 
Each interview starts with making the informant aware that the interview is being recorded, 
and will be transcribed verbatim. They are made aware of their option to withdraw from the 
study at any point, up until the thesis is turned in to the Unviersity on the 14th of August 2024. 
Lastly, the informant is told that potential quotes will be included in the thesis, and asked if 
they wish to see and approve the quotes beforehand.  
 
What is your role within your organisation? 
How long have you worked at your organisation? 
1 What strategies, guidelines, and methods do you use in your work with crisis preparedness? 
2 What does collaboration in crisis preparedness mean to you? 
3 Does your municipality collaborate with any actors in your work with crisis preparedness?  
 3A If yes, what actors? Collaboration with private actors? (Names of businesses are  
not required, rather the sector/industry) 
 3B How is the private sector (i.e. companies) involved in the crisis preparedness work,  
and how does collaboration happen?  
3C How do you choose or decide what specific actors (i.e. companies) to collaborate  
with?  
3D Do you think there is clear steering that regulates collaboration? If not, please give  
examples on what can be improved.  
3E Do you think the division of roles is clear regarding collaboration with the private 
sector?  
3F Do you see any challenges concerning collaboration with the private actors? If yes, 
which ones? 
3G What positive effects do you see results from collaboration with the private sector? 
4 If your municipality does not collaborate with any private actors, why not? (I.e no interest 
or need, resources etc.) 
 4A Does your municipality plan to involve the private sector in the future?  
5 What does the communication between you and the private actor look like?  
6 How do you share information with each other? Is information-sharing transparent? 
7 Has your municipality completed any exercise/training, workshop, or real crisis 
management where you have been able to collaborate with the private sector in full? 
 7A If yes, please mention some factors for success 
8 Are sufficient funds/resources allocated for collaboration? 
9 Who leads the crisis preparedness work that you do in collaboration with private actors? 
How do you make decisions? 
10 Has the 2022 structural reform (with sectors, civil areas etc) affected your work with crisis 
preparedness? 
 10A If yes, how? 
 10B If no, why do you not think it has had any effect on your work processes?  
 
56 
 
 
Appendix 4: Original Quotes  
Informant Original Quote (Swedish)  English, translated  
Östersund ”Vi kan titta på mycket av det “We can look at what MSB produces 
som MSB gör som en as a source of inspiration, but the 
inspirationskälla, men det som things that they produce are not fit to 
MSB tillhandahåller är inte suit municipalities. They’re on a very 
anpassat för kommuner. De är på general level that you can use to gain 
en väldigt generell nivå som man more understanding, but [their 
kan ha för att få ökad förståelse, suggestions for work procedures] are 
men [beskrivna arbetssätten] är difficult to convert into practice” 
väldigt svåra att omsätta i 
praktiken.  
Sigtuna “Vi har ju kommunalt “We have municipal self-
självbestämmande, så vi utgår determination, so the foundation is 
från våra egna strategier och built on our own strategies and 
riktlinjer. De i sin tur bygger guidelines. In turn, those build a lot on 
väldigt mycket på MSB:s MSB’s guidelines. […] Everything is 
vägledningar. […] Allting är interpretations and municipalities 
tolkningar och kommunerna reinvent everything anew, which 
uppfinner allting på nytt, vilket är comes at a big cost to society” 
en stor kostnadsfråga för 
samhället att alla ska uppfinna.  
Jönköping “Det är väl ett typiskt exempel där That is a typical example – we can’t 
vi liksom inte får sitta på just idly sit on our hands, [we must] 
händerna, utan tro på att det finns believe that there are situations where 
situationer där man måste gå you have to go ‘outside of the box’ 
utanför ramarna […] Varje lag är […] Every law is written based on 
skriven utifrån någon form av some kind of prerequisite and context. 
förutsättning. Men när det blir en But when a crisis happens, things 
kris så händer ju saker som ingen happen that no one really thought 
riktigt har tänkt på när man skrivit about when the legislation was 
en lagstiftning. Och då kan det ju written, leading to organisational 
uppstå organisatoriska vakuum vacuums between different 
mellan två lagstiftningar.”  legislations. 
Jönköping “Det finns ju nästan inga avtal “Almost no contracts are written with 
som är skrivna utifrån the current world situation in mind – 
omvärldssituationen – utan alla but instead, written based on a 
avtal är ju egentligen skrivna preparedness context. The first 
utifrån en beredskapskontext. Så question you must ask yourself is, are 
den första frågan man får ställa these contracts even valid under 
sig är ju, gäller det här heightened alert? Are the contracts for 
drivmedelsavtalet om det blir höjd coordinated distribution valid? Have 
beredskap? Gäller avtalen om they [private actors] prepared? Have 
samordnad distribution? Har de they done their contingency planning? 
förberett? Har de kontinuitets-
 
57 
 
 
hanterat? Och det blir väldigt The answer to a lot of these types of 
mycket nej på de flesta frågorna.” questions is ‘no’.” 
Norrköping “Alla blir drabbade [av kriser] på “Everyone gets affected [by a crisis] 
ett eller annat sätt och många vill in one way or another, and therefore 
hjälpa till att komma till ett many want to help to return to normal 
normalläge. Så att sen kanske inte functionality. Maybe not everything 
allt man kör enligt de planer för always runs according to pre-existing 
att planerna inte var tillräckliga plans because they weren’t sufficient 
eller att man där och då såg or alternative solutions were needed. 
alternativa lösningar. Men vid But when a crisis hits, many want to 
krishändelser så upplever jag att help.” 
många vill hjälpa till." 
Sigtuna Vi var på en livsmedels- “We attended a conference for food 
beredskapskonferens på supply preparedness at the Stockholm 
Länsstyrelsen Stockholm förra County Administrative Board (CAB) 
veckan [slutet av Maj]. De ställde last week [at the end of May]. They 
lite frågor till publiken: ’har ni asked a couple of questions to the 
beredskapsplaner för livsmedel?’ audience, like “do you have 
Jag vet inte, jag vet inte vad en preparedness plans for food supply? I 
beredskapsplan är. De don’t know. I don’t know what a 
[Länsstyrelsen] använder preparedness plan is. They [the CAB] 
uttrycket beredskapsplan, men use the term ‘preparedness plan’, but 
eftersom det inte finns en since there’s no definition of it, I don’t 
definition av det så vet jag inte om know if we have it. That’s another 
vi har det. För övrigt ett annat problem in collaboration, when there’s 
problem i samverkan, när det inte nobody that orders [and tells us]: ‘This 
finns någon som pekar med stora is a crisis’”. 
handen [och berättar]: ’detta är en 
kris’.” 
Luleå “Den grundläggande nivån [i “The foundation [of collaboration] is 
samverkan] handlar om att ha ett the existence of contact networks. In 
kontaktnät. Alltså att ha ett sätt att other words, having a way to reach 
nå andra. […] Vi har bara bytt ut others. […] We’ve just exchanged 
telefonnummer till våra olika phone numbers to our different 
funktioner, så att de kan kontakta functions, so that they can contact us 
oss där det behövs, och vi har sett where needed, and we’ve made sure 
till att andra [aktörer] vet vad vi that other [actors] knows what types 
har för funktioner och hur man of functions we have and how they 
når oss.” can reach us.” 
 
58 
 
 
SSR Valt stycke av citatet:  Selected part of the full quote:22  
”Vi behöver göra det och jag ser “We need to do it, and I do not see any 
nästan inte något alternativ” other alternatives” 
  
Hela citatet med kontext: Full quote with entire context:  
”samverkan med företag kan ju “Cooperation with businesses can be 
vara nödvändigt för att lyckas required to succeed with it [securing 
med det [skydda viktiga värden]. vital societal values]. Because we 
För vi har ju en mängd have plenty of vital societal services 
samhällsviktig verksamhet som that are driven by the private. Again, 
bedrivs i det privata. Så det är väl it's about drawing a border between 
återigen den här gränsdragningen what the individual responsibility is, 
mellan vad är enskildas ansvar and what the society’s responsibility 
och vad är samhällets ansvar. En is. I find it difficult to see how a total 
total kollaps i banksystemet har collapse in the financial systems of 
jag svårt att se hur det skulle banks would benefit society. So, I 
kunna gynna samhället. Så det think that we must collectively try to 
måste vi ju gemensamt försöka prevent. If we see something in harm’s 
förhindra, tänker jag. Om vi ser way. I think that the wins are that you 
att det är i farans riktning i en secure the protective values of society. 
händelse. Så jag tror att vinsterna And that we maybe must do it 
är att man lyckas värna samhällets sometimes. We need to do it, and I do 
skyddsvärden. Och att man not see any alternatives.”  
kanske måste göra det i vissa fall. 
Vi behöver göra det och jag ser 
nästan inte något alternativ, tror 
jag." 
Luleå Valt stycke av citatet: Selected part of the full quote:23 
Ofta har de ju bättre koll än vad vi “Often, they [private actors] have a 
trodde. Eller nu tror jag att de better grasp on the situation than we 
flesta har bra koll, men från thought. Or now I think that most of 
början så tänkte man så här, ’har them do. But from the beginning we 
ni tänkt på det här?’, 'Ja, det har thought, ‘have you thought of this’?’ 
vi. Det har snöat förr liksom. Ja, ‘Yes we have, it has snowed before. 
det har hänt förut att vi har haft Yes, it has happened before that we’ve 
strul med leveranserna till vårt had issues with the delivery to our 
storkök eller drivmedels- kitchens or supply of fuel”  
leveranser.”   
 Full quote with entire context: 
Hela citatet med kontext:  “The municipality have worked a lot 
”Kommunen har jobbat hur with the snow removal readiness, 
mycket som helst med prioritised areas and roads, and 
snöröjningsberedskapen, communicated with the actors in 
prioriterade områden och vägar preparation and such. Sometimes it 
                                               
22 The full quote was not included, as the entire quote was not relevant or suited into the analysis. However, the 
full quote is provided here in order to ensure the transparency of the interview data.  
23 See previous footnote. 
 
59 
 
 
och kommunicerat med aktörerna snows half a metre within 24 hours 
inför och sånt. Ibland snöar det en here, and you need to plow so that 
halvmeter på ett dygn i här och då busses can pass through. And then we 
behöver man ju plöja undan så att have a preparedness where we are 
bussarna kommer fram. Och så content, we can handle 50 centimetres 
har man liksom beredskap så att in 24 hours. We can handle that so that 
vi är nöjda, vi klarar 50 centimeter the city doesn’t stop. It’s on a good 
på 24 timmar. Det klarar vi att level […] I don’t need to attend those 
skotta undan tillräckligt bra. Så att meetings […] It’s the contact 
staden inte stannar. Det är en bra networks in those functions that those 
nivå […] Jag behöver inte sitta på [actors] are dependent on […] Often, 
de mötena /.../ det är de they [private actors] have a better 
kontaktvägarna i verksamheterna grasp on the situation than we thought. 
som behöver ha med dem som de Or now I think that most of them do. 
är beroende av. /.../ Ofta har de ju But from the beginning we thought, 
bättre koll än vad vi trodde. Eller ‘have you thought of this’?’ ‘Yes we 
nu tror jag att de flesta har bra have, it has snowed before. Yes, it has 
koll, men från början så tänkte happened before that we’ve had issues 
man så här, har ni tänkt på det with the delivery to our kitchens or 
här? 'Ja, det har vi. Det har snöat supply of fuel”  
förr liksom. Ja, det har hänt förut  
att vi haft strul med leveranserna 
till vårt storkök eller 
drivmedelsleveranser'" 
Sigtuna ”Krisberedskap är vanlig “Crisis preparedness is about normal 
verksamhet fast i onormala functions also working under 
förhållanden. Skolan ska bedriva abnormal circumstances. The school 
skola, äldreomsorgen ska bedriva should continue to run; the elderly 
skola. Både en solig dag i maj och care should run. Both on a sunny day 
en snöstormsdag i november. in May, and during a snowstorm in 
Eller kriget dag 12.” November. Or on the 12th day of 
war.” 
Östersund Jag tror att mycket av det som är i “I think that the new reform has not 
den nya strukturreformen har väl been fully absorbed by the agencies or 
inte satt sig än hos någon av sectors yet. They are not sure yet 
myndigheterna eller sektorerna. where the boundaries between 
Det är inte helt klart vart someone’s responsibilities bleed into 
gränsdragningen går mellan den the responsibilities of someone else. It 
enas ansvar och den andras. Sen is relatively clear on paper – but it 
är det ju relativt tydligt på hasn’t become clear in reality. I can’t 
pappret, men det är inte tydligt i say that it has directly affected our 
verkligheten. Så jag kan inte säga work, I think that the new actors – 
att det har påverkat oss direkt på such as the sectors and the like – need 
något sätt, utan de behöver blir to become more comfortable in their 
mer bekväma i sina egna roller new roles before effects spill down on 
innan effekterna spiller över på us.” 
oss.” 
 
60 
 
 
SSR ”Syftet [för övningar] är ju att öka “The purpose [of joint exercises] are 
den gemensamma förmågan. Det to heighten collective capabilities and 
gör man genom att prata med performance – which is done through 
varandra, testa varandra, att talking with each other, test each 
diskutera med varandra kopplat other, and discuss responsibilities, 
till ansvarsförhållanden, uppgifter tasks and abilities”   
och förmågor.” 
SSR ”Man måste lyssna [på andra] och “You have to listen [to others] and 
förstå sin roll i systemet i relation understand your own role within the 
till andra aktörers ansvar och system, as well as in relation to the 
roller i systemet. För att göra det responsibilities and roles of other 
måste man strukturerat prata med actors. To do that you need to talk to 
varandra, både om problem och others about both problems and 
lösningar. Den information som solutions. The information that I 
jag sitter på som aktör och den possess, as well as the information that 
information som är relevant för is relevant for other actors and the 
övriga aktörer och för helheten.” whole picture” 
 
 
 
 
 
61