Experiences and expertise of codependency: Repetition, claim-coupling, and enthusiasm

The public as infrastructure in policy processes: The case of the abolition of the Swedish alcohol rationing system

BACKGROUND

The Swedish political system is based on a strong tradition of commissions of inquiry, which work over the long-term to develop knowledge-based policy. This study explores knowledge processes associated with the work of such commissions, focusing on the case of the abolition of the Swedish alcohol rationing system. The point of departure is the 1944 Temperance Committee and its internal committee work, the committee's reports, and also the resulting governmental bill that led to the abolition of the rationing system in 1955. The focus is directed at how the public was used in arguments for and against the abolition of the system.

METHODS

The article adds to studies of knowledge production in policy by presenting a case study of the various ways in which the arguments used in political processes rely on the public as a carrying infrastructure over the course of a political process. We use the concept of the infrastructure (Star, 1999) as a metaphor to engage with the way the public is taken for granted in policy processes, and with the discursive resources needed to move arguments forward within a political process.

RESULTS

Political processes involve many activities related to the movement of knowledge, of which we have explored the use of the public as an activity required for the movement of arguments. The public is understood as providing both conversational and legalistic resources for moving arguments from one context to another. While the internal committee documents and the final bill allowed for an everyday use of the public in relation to arguments on hassle, annoyance and freedom, the committee reports combined the use of the public with formal arguments on legal processes and the public's sense of justice.

CONCLUSION

Explanations of the movement of knowledge often miss the articulation work (Star, 1991) that takes place within policy processes. The public is indirectly present, as well-behaving witnesses used to emphasize arguments, and as such, they do plenty of work. At the same time, it is the committee documents that facilitate the presence of this public, which often lie far from the publics' actual potential to make their voices heard. Although a perception of the rationing system's lack of support in popular opinion constituted a backdrop to the work of the committee, there was little knowledge of the publics' actual views on the rationing system. We show that the public constitute a spoken rather than a material resource that proves quite effective: the public is rarely questioned as long as it is a restricted singular public that behaves well. To date, little attention has been focused on understanding the role of the everyday actors in relation to alcohol policy and other forms of drug policy. We argue that research needs to engage more with the way publics are allowed to indirectly or directly participate in policy processes and what knowledge and policy consequences this participation produces.

Förnuft och känsla Kunskapsbruk hos gårdagens förbudskritiker och dagens alkoholliberaler

Aim: The aim is to study non-governmental actors’ production and use of alcohol policy knowledge in the early 20th and the 21st century respectively, by analyzing their main arguments, knowledge substantiation and their overarching discursive legitimacy. Design: The first impact focuses on prohibitionist-critical actors’ engagement against the alcohol ban in the years 1916–1922. The second impact focuses on the Swedish think tank Timbro’s engagement in alcohol policy in the years 2012–2020. The analysis of the two empirical cases was based on an open coding strategy with a focus on what type of knowledge claims that were made and how which reasoning was put forward in relation to these. Results: Great similarities are distinguished between the two time periods. Alcohol is an issue of freedom and at the same time a threat of crucial importance for the future society. The arguments are supported by historical, international, media and scientific evidence. The biggest difference lies in the legitimization of the argumentation. In the early 20th century this is rooted in democracy and the will of the people while the arguments of the 21st century are rooted in public health and governmentally sanctioned knowledge. Conclusion: The knowledge processes are explored as matters of political appropriation that takes place through processes of directing and stealing the spotlight. These processes show how the aspiring democracy and the existing public health policy respectively are productive preconditions for what kind of knowledge that can be brought forward. This enables a renegotiation regarding what democracy and public health policy can involve.