Olofsson Tobias, Mulinari Shai, Hedlund Maria, Knaggård Åsa, Vilhelmsson Andreas
Department of Sociology, Lund University, Sweden.
Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden.
SSM Qual Res Health. 2022 Dec;2:100082. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100082. Epub 2022 Apr 13.
Several suggestions have been made as to why Sweden's approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic came to rely on a strategy based on voluntary measures. Two of the most prominent explanations for why the country chose a different strategy than many other countries have focused on micro- and macro-level factors, explaining the strategy either in terms of the psychologies of prominent actors or by pointing to particularities in Swedish constitutional law. Supported by a qualitative analysis using interviews and text analysis, we argue that the Swedish strategy cannot be understood without paying attention to the meso-level and the organizations that produced the strategy. Moreover, we argue that to understand why one of the central organizations in Swedish pandemic management, the Public Health Agency, came to favor certain interventions, one must investigate the culture of production inside the organization and how it created precedents that led the Agency to approach pandemic management with a focus on balancing current and future health risks.
关于瑞典应对新冠疫情的方式为何依赖基于自愿措施的策略，已经提出了几种建议。对于该国为何选择与许多其他国家不同的策略，最突出的两种解释集中在微观和宏观层面因素，要么从重要行为体的心理角度解释该策略，要么指出瑞典宪法的特殊性。通过使用访谈和文本分析的定性分析，我们认为，如果不关注中观层面以及制定该策略的组织，就无法理解瑞典的策略。此外，我们认为，要理解瑞典疫情管理的核心组织之一公共卫生机构为何青睐某些干预措施，就必须调查该组织内部的生产文化，以及它如何创造了先例，导致该机构以平衡当前和未来健康风险为重点来应对疫情管理。
