There is an ongoing debate within Swedish public administration regarding whether municipalities can handle contemporary issues that require some amount of coordination as well as whether they are straying from democratic principles. It is argued that the origin of this debate lies in the sectorisation of the Swedish welfare system, where the traditional model has been deemed unfit. There is concern about technical coordination, as officials are unaware of work occurring outside their own department as well as apprehensions related to a sectorised political organisation. Implemented by approximately 20 percent of Swedish municipalities, a new organisational trend of committee organisation has subsequently achieved social authority as a solution. However, the organisational pendulum has swung once more, as some municipalities have reverted to the traditional model. It is fascinating how municipalities facing the same contemporary issues choose differing organisational solutions. This study aims to analyse why municipalities differ using a theoretically driven case-based method that applies recent institutional approaches to change. The study follows a qualitative approach and compares three municipalities’ organisational change through conducting interviews. The analyses show that the reasons why they change are more closely related to the reform to which they adapt rather than a coherent perspective. Historical-institutional patterns showcase the reasons why municipalities revert to the traditional model and that external factors create pressure to choose committee organisation. Keywords: organisational change, sectorisation, coordination, municipalities, public administration Words: 20 30
