Page 1 of 2

While countries such as Switzerland and Austria are almost back to normal, Swedes are getting used to the idea that they aren't welcome anywhere. That's the price the country is paying for its different approach to the pandemic, says Swedish economist Stefan Westerberg in an interview with finews.asia.

Europe is slowly emerging from the lockdown measures as new cases of Covid-19 have dropped substantially. Sweden still seems to be in the grip of the virus – how do you assess the handling of the crisis?

It is difficult to reach any conclusions on how the Swedish authorities and the government have handled the pandemic because we may not have seen the end of the development yet. Maybe we will know only in a year’s time whether the Swedish strategy was successful or not.

Having said that it is very problematic that so many elderly people have died in Sweden so far, both in absolute numbers but also relative to the size of our population and to our Nordic neighbors.

Has the Swedish way been a success if you look at it from a business point of view?

The Swedish economy, business and the labor market have been hit very hard by the corona-crisis. It is true that Sweden closed down to a lesser degree than other countries, but we still closed down large parts of society, introduced massive internal and external travel restrictions and tough recommendations on how to keep social distance. These measures contributed to the strongly negative consequences for the economy and the labor market.

«It took relatively long for the government to introduce support measures»

We think that business has been very responsive to the travel restrictions and social distancing recommendations, but these must be combined with proportionate and rightful financial support measures by the state to allow businesses to survive.

Did the Swedish government act fast enough?

We believe that it took relatively long for the government to introduce the proper support measures and that they were – and still are – less extensive than in other countries. This contributed to the fact that many people became unemployed and a lot of companies went bust.

In the long run we will see how an open economy such as Sweden’s, which is heavily dependent on trade, will be affected both on the demand and the supply side by the closure of other economies and the global recession this year.

The strategy was criticized by neighboring countries.

Sweden is asymmetrically affected by many countries’ assessment about the risks of welcoming Swedish tourists, and this will likely affect the inflow of foreign tourists to Sweden. This can lead to hugely negative consequences for the Swedish tourism industry, which relies heavily on the income generated over the summer months.

«Anders Tegnell had a large room for maneuver in connection with the Swedish strategy»

In this context, it is very problematic that the government has only guaranteed financial support for companies for the months of March and April. We believe that support will have to be extended to May and even further months.

From the perspective of an outsider, the Swedish strategy was heavily personalized and thought to be the result of the considerations of one person – Anders Tegnell. Is that a fair assessment? If not, what is the level of responsibility of the government and will this affect the standing of the government?

It is true that Anders Tegnell received a large room for maneuver in connection with the Swedish strategy. This is partly linked to the different structure of our civil service, which is far more independent and has a bigger influence than in other countries.

But it is important to underline that the elected government has given the health authorities and Tegnell the mandate to come up with recommendations of how it should deal with the pandemic. It is thus the government, and not an authority, that holds the judicial mandate.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the Swedish strategy, concluding that the country had paid a heavy price for a certain degree of success. I based this on the assumptions that the numbers of deaths had far exceeded those in comparable countries and that the economic situation was somewhat better as a consequence of the less strict approach. Is this correct to say?

Difficult to say today, but you may be right. The numbers of deaths in Sweden is larger than in neighboring countries. But I’m not sure about when we can do the maths, so to speak. The numbers may yet change in countries which are opening up again. Still, from today’s perspective, it looks unlikely that our neighbors will reach the same level soon, but only time will tell.

«Maybe Sweden was not hit as hard as other countries economically»

We haven't seen such an economic downturn in Sweden in modern times. Still, maybe Sweden was not hit as hard as other countries. Retail sales for instance fell by (only) 3 percent in April from a year ago, while the EU average was minus 27 percent.

Looking back over the past months, do you think that the government should have handled the crisis differently?