Business of the day

I have an Exam for this subject in 45 minutes! Wish me luck!



Compare the models of government-business relations in Sweden and Canada, focusing on Forestry. Which model is best? Why?


The forests of Sweden and Canada have been used for hundreds of years by the native people and continue to be used today on a global scale. As such the forestry industries are corner stones to the economies of each nation state. This essay will compare the two distinct models of government-business relations operating in the forestry industries of Sweden and Canada. It will be shown that the Swedish model of Government-Business relations is superior to the Canadian model. It will be argued that the transparency of government, public participation of citizens, and the regulatory quality in Sweden are all superior to the Canadian models. Firstly, however, the importance and relevance of these three factors will be discussed.

To establish effective and beneficial government-business relations it is important to maintain a high level of consultation between governments, businesses and citizens to ensure that the policies that are introduced are in the best interest of all parties. It must be made sure that such policies work towards progression, not restriction, of industries. Taylor and O’Riordan (n.d.) found that public participation is vital in ensuring that policy implementation and development are efficient and effective, but it is important that there is plurality of involvement between public and private interest groups. However, public participation is only made possible if governments are transparent and information is widely accessible.

In any form of democracy, it is important that all government decisions are transparent and open. If public participation is to be effective and practical, the public must have access to policy information to be able to make informed decisions and conclusions. The OECD states that transparency of the regulatory system is essential to a stable regulatory environment and promotes competition, trade and investment (OECD 2002). More importantly, the OECD states that transparency insures against excessive and unwarranted influence from certain interest groups (OECD 2007c). The OECD illustrates that transparency and openness of decision making are key in attaining good government-business relations (OECD 2007). Furthermore, to guarantee transparency and openness governments must make policy and supporting information easily understandable, have standardised processes for making policy changes, and make published policy widely accessible (OECD 2002). This promotes educated public participation and high quality regulation.

Good regulation and regulatory reform are essential in maintaining government-business relations and ensuring economies are operating in an internationally harmonious way, keeping up to date with economic and market trends. To certify regulation is beneficial to nation states and industries, the regulatory process must be transparent, coherent, comprehensive and competitive (OECD 2007). However, in an industry which has the potential to cause significant environmental damage, such as forestry, there must be further regulation to guarantee natural resources and national assets are not endangered or lost (Ministry of Agriculture 2010). Nonetheless, these regulations must not overly restrict the industry and must therefore be constructed with great care, promoting public participation and in a transparent and open manner.

Sweden, a Nordic social democracy located in the north of Europe, has become a strong global economic force ranking high in many areas (OECD 2007a, OECD 2007b). The forestry industry in Sweden has long been an important industry and key to the economy (Ministry of Agriculture, 2010), Swedish forests have been used by man for hundreds of years (Borealforest.org, n.d.). The forestry industry constitutes a substantial portion of Sweden’s net exports and employs over 100,000 people (Ministry of Agriculture, 2010). Because of this, forestry regulation has always been an important topic dating back as early as the thirteenth century (Borealforest.org, n.d.). Today there is a belief in promoting shared responsibility between foresters and the government (Ministry of the Environment, 2010). More widely, there is a strong culture for producing high quality regulations with transparent procedures and broad consultation mechanisms (OECD 2007).

Similarly, Canada is constitutionally a federation and has a history of high levels of income, good quality of life and strong economic growth (OECD 2002). The forestry industry in Canada is one of the cornerstones of the Canadian economy and is a major component of industrial structure and employment of all provinces (Industry Canada 2010). Canadian power lies largely in the provincial governments but, in some areas, regulatory jurisdiction is shared between federal and provincial governments. Canada was one of the first countries within the OECD to reform trade regulations and continues to do so (OECD 2002). While Canada’s close trade ties to the United States and Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) represent liberal deregulation, Canada continues to refine regulatory practices and was one of the original countries to move from complete deregulation to regulatory reform and regulatory management (OECD 2002).

To begin, public participation in policy making is essential in assuring good government-business relations. In Sweden there is a high level of public participation. During the policy making processes there are a number of enquiry points to ensure interested parties can provide input and help identify and remove unnecessary restrictions (OECD 2007b). Non-government organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council are invited to comment and develop policy, especially regarding environmental concerns (Laurell 2010). Milner (1989) argues that public participation is ingrained in Swedish culture and that one of the fundamental values for Swedes is the “responsibility to participate in common activities” (Milner 1989, p. 49). Additionally, Swedish workers unions are powerful and influential groups with the majority of Swedes belonging to one. The Swedish Forest Collar is a highly active union in Sweden and has around 1300 members, the union promotes member participation in order to help influence and shape forestry management (Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund n.d.). There is a strong culture of cooperation and collaboration with workers unions and they continue to help influence policy decisions (Milner 1989). Because of these enquiry points and the influence of unions, public participation is excellent in Sweden.

In Canada public participation is also an important area. In 1983, Canada outlined a new policy that would focus on increasing public participation in the consultative process by providing early notice of proposed changes (OECD 2002). The Government of Canada’s website provides a section where one can contribute and share opinions on a wide range of specific topics, including forestry initiatives (Government of Canada 2010). Consulting With Canadians is an online government initiative which states that the Government of Canada is “Committed to finding new and innovative ways to consult with [the public]” (Consulting With Canadians 2010). The internet has become a central tool in distributing information including the development of an interactive online training tool to improve understanding and guidance on regulatory policy related topics, making Canada a leader in this area (OECD 2002). However, as of 2007 only 30.3% of workers were members of a union (Human Resources and Skills Development 2007) and therefore, contrary to individual participation, union capacity to pressure and influence government on a common front is difficult, this restricts public participation in Canada. Whilst efforts to promote individual public participation have been large and effective, the low membership levels of workers unions in makes public participation in Canada inferior to Sweden.

Secondly, without accessible information public participation is impossible. Therefore government transparency and openness in the decision making process is essential to maintain good government-business relations. The decision making process in Sweden is extremely transparent and open to discussion from interested parties in all areas of industry. Information is free, easily accessible and protected by legislation ensuring the government publishes all relevant material (OECD, 2007b). According to Transparency International 2009 Corruption Perception Index, Sweden is the third least corrupt country in the world (CountryWatch 2008, Transparency International 2009), it is reasonable to assume that this is heavily influenced by government transparency. The Swedish Government shares information through weekly and annually paper publications, online databases and websites and direct inquiry points aimed at disseminating information (OECD 2007b). There are enquiry points specifically designed for foreign enquiries where interested parties, such as foreign investors, can find specific information on Swedish regulations, and regulations currently being discussed (OECD 2007b). It can thus be seen that public participation is highly valued in Swedish culture.

Canada is similarly transparent and open and the regulatory system has been described as “one of the most transparent among OECD Members” (OECD 2002, p. 33). It is a requirement by law that all draft regulations are published for at least 30 days in the Canada Gazette, the official newspaper of the Canadian government, which allows and encourages participation and comments (OECD 2002, Canada Gazette 2010). The Canada Gazette, published sine 1841, provides the public with detailed information regarding laws and regulations (Canada Gazette 2010). However, initiatives such as the Canada Gazette are tools predominately of the Federal Government. As such information from provincial governments is spread elsewhere and thus can be difficult to find. This in no way implies that the information is not attainable, but that it is perhaps less accessible. For this reason, transparency and openness in decision making in Canada is inferior to Sweden.

The forestry industries in both Sweden and Canada are both key to their respective economies, but they are also natural resources and as such must be regulated with environmental concerns in mind. According to the Ministry of Agriculture (2010) the forests of Sweden are national assets and should be used in a manner which promotes high yields for industries but preserves biological diversity and environmental sustainability. The Swedish ministries for environment and agriculture have made a number of efforts to help protect forests. For example, very recently the government announced that a target of 900,000 hectares will be protected as land of high nature conservation value (Ministry of Environment, 2010). The Swedish Forestry Act dictates a number of regulations, for example forest regeneration and replanting must take place after felling, areas larger than 50 hectares must not be felled and all forest owners must prepare reports on the forest and surrounding environment (Swedish Forestry Agency, 2009). The regulations by the Swedish Forestry Act do not unnecessarily restrict the forestry industry but ensure environmental sustainability and responsibility is achieved. For this reason, regulation within the forestry industry in Sweden is fair and necessary.

As in Sweden, the forestry industry in Canada is necessarily regulated but is far more complex due to its decentralised model. The Canadian constitution states that each province has power over their territory (Department of Justice, 2010) and as such each province retains different laws and regulates the forestry industry differently (Government of Alberta, 2010, Ministry of Forestry and Range, 2004). This has the potential to cause difficulties for interested parties when trying to research legislation and regulation because interested parties must research each province they wish to operate in separately as well as national legislation and comply with a range of different laws. For example, it is in the legislation of British Columbia that no area larger than 40 hectares may be felled (Osberg & Murphy n.d.), however in Alberta no such limit applies and foresters are issued with a timber quota (Government of Alberta, 2010). Simple differences such as this means companies need to go through more bureaucratic processes and slow down operations. However there are a number of cooperative and national groups which promote inter-provincial dialogue. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) provides a forum for ministers from each province to collaborate and discuss issues regarding the forestry (CCFM, 2010). Nonetheless the regulations are generally necessary and do not unnecessarily restrict the forestry industry however they do provide difficulties in finding relevant legislation and this has the potential to slow down forestry operations due to bureaucratic barriers. For this reason, Swedish regulation is superior to Canadian regulation.

To conclude, this essay has emphasised the importance of public participation in policy making, government transparency and openness in decision making, and the importance of high quality regulation in maintaining good government-business relations. It has been shown that the forestry industry in both Sweden and Canada are important natural resources and national assets. It has been argued that Canada and Sweden both have high levels of individual public participation with many enquiry points provided by the government; however the superior membership of workers within unions in Sweden provides a greater point for public participation through worker cooperation on a common front. It has also been argued that government transparency is excellent in both Sweden and Canada, however due to Canada’s decentralised model; provincial barriers can restrict accessibility to policy and regulatory information. Finally it has been shown that a culture for high quality regulation is inherent in both Sweden and Canada and that many regulations are necessary within the forestry industry to ensure that forests are sustainable and treated responsibly. This is done so successfully in both nations; however, Canada’s provincial laws present bureaucratic barriers and threaten to slow forestry operations. Because of these reasons, it can be concluded that the Swedish model of government-business relations within the forestry industry is superior to the Canadian model.



References

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. (2010). About Us. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://www.ccfm.org/english/aboutus.asp.

Canadian Forests. (2010). Provincial Governments. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.canadian-forests.com/prov-gov.html.

Canada Gazette. (2010). Consultation. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.gazette.gc.ca/consult/consult-eng.html.

Consulting With Canadians. (2010). Welcome. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/hm.jspx?lang=eng.

CountryWatch Incorporated (2008). Investment Overview. Sweden Country Review, 13, 91. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from Business Source Premier database.

Department of Justice. (1867). Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_58.

Forest Stewardship Council Sweden (n.d.). Statistics and Facts. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.fsc-sweden.org/statistik-och-fakta.

Government of Alberta. (2010a). Legislation. Retrieved 6 June , 2010 from http://srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Publications/Legislation.aspx.

Government of Alberta. (2010b). Forests Act. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=F22.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779744855.

Government of Canada. (2010). Public Participation. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://canada.gc.ca/forms-formulaires/transac-eng.html.

Government Offices of Sweden. (2007). Nature Conservation and Biological Diversity. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3879.

Government Offices of Sweden. (2010). Government Reaching Target for Protecting Forest of High Nature Conservation Value. Retrieved 3 June from
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12872/a/142959.

Human Resources and Skills development. (2007). Union Membership in Canada – 2007. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/wid/union_membership.shtml.

Industry Canada. (2010). Forest Industries. Retrieved 3 June 2010 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/fi-if.nsf/eng/home.

Milner, H. (1990). Sweden: Social Democracy in Practice. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Mikic, M. (1998). International Trade. New York: Macmillan Press.
Ministry of Forestry and Range. (2004). Legislation and Regulation. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/.

Ms Laurell (Personal communication, March 4 2010) of the Forest Stewardship Council in Sweden.

OECD (2002). Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation in Canada. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/42/1960472.pdf.

OECD (2007a). Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation in Sweden. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/23/38286959.pdf.

OECD (2007b).Enhancing market openness through regulatory reform in Sweden. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/43/38287525.pdf

Osberg, M. & Murphy B. (n.d.). British Columbia Forest Practices code. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w3646e/w3646e0a.htm#TopOfPage.

Swedish Forestry Agency. (2009). The Swedish Forestry Act. Retrieved 3 June 2010 from http://www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11303.

Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund. (n.d.). Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from http://www.ssf.ledarna.se/.

Transparency International. (2009). Corruption Perceptions Index 2009. retrieved 30 May 2010 from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table.



Word Limit: 2000

Grade Awarded: Credit (75%)

Markers comments: "This is a clear, well written, well structured essay. It’s interesting that with an industry like forestry you’ve chosen to focus on transparency and public participation rather than environmental and sustainability issues."