During the post-war era (1945-1989) two preeminent goals of Swedish education policy were an integrated school system and more equitable educational outcomes between social classes. These goals in education policy were not unique; they were in fact prevalent in the developed world at the time, but Sweden went further in implementing reforms to make integration and equitability of educational outcomes a reality, than most other countries. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, there was a shift in Swedish education policy towards new goals of decentralization and marketization of the school system; which led to a highly differentiated and partly privatized Swedish school system during the 2000s. Again, this change of education policy was not unique to Sweden, but the country went further than most other in implementing marketization of the school system. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, identify when and in which documents arguments for marketization of the school system first appear in Swedish education policy. Second, identify when ideas of marketization become hegemonic in in Swedish education policy.

 The paper takes it theoretical point of departure from Neo-Marxism. First, the configuration of education policy is understood as a result of the balance of power in society between social classes. Second, education policy is not understood as coherent, but as composed of many conflicting education ideologies, which of these education ideologies that are dominant however, is decided in the social struggle between groups with different conceptions of education. Five of these education ideologies, or principles, can be identified in Swedish education policy during the latter half of the 20^th century: the parental influence principle, the equity principle, the equality principle, the market principle and the client principle. The five education principles are the starting point for the empirical analysis of education policy documents.   

The empirical material consists of Swedish state policy documents 1984–1994; state public investigations and government bills. The method used is a qualitative ideology analysis and starts with the five education principles mentioned above. To each policy document I ask two questions: Which education principles can be identified? How strong is the impact of the education principles that can be identified? I use a three-dimensional scale (0–2): 0 not identified; 1 identified; 2 strongly identified. The differentiation between identified and strongly identified is based on a qualitative assessment of the impact of the ideas connected to education principle in the policy document as a whole.

The results indicate that ideas of marketization of the school system can first be identified in 1984, and then in opposition to other stronger education principles during 1984-1989. In the following period 1990-1994 ideas of market steering of the school system became Hegemonic in Swedish education policy. This ‘systemic’ shift in education policy and restructuring of the school system is understood in relation to interlocking economic crises, a rightward shift in the politic field, and the dominance of neoliberal ideas in Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s.

Althusser, Louis (1971/2008): On Ideology. London: Verso. Apple, Michael W. (1982): Education and Power. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bergström, Göran (1993): Jämlikhet och kunskap. Debatter och reformstrategier i socialdemokratisk skolpolitik 1975–1990. Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Politics, 47. Björklund, Anders, Clark, Melissa A., Edin, Per-Anders, Fredriksson, Peter & Krueger, Alan B. (2005): The Market Comes to Education in Sweden – an Evaluation of Sweden's Surprising School Reforms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Englund, Tomas (1996c): The public and the text. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(1), 1–35. Labaree, David F. (2007): Public goods, private goods – the American struggle over educational goals. I Education, Markets, and the Public Good: The Selected Works of David F. Labaree, s 89–108. London: Routledge. Lundgren, Ulf P. (1983): Between Hope and Happening: Text and Context in Curriculum. Victoria: Deakin University. Sahlberg, Pasi (2011): Finnish Lessons: What can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. SOU 1984:83. Folkstyret i kommunerna: Medverkan – Delaktighet – Ansvar. Diskussionsbetänkande från 1983 år demokratiberedning. SOU 1984:84. Lokalt folkstyre genom brukarmedverkan: Exempel och erfarenheter. Betänkande ifrån 1983 års demokratiberedning. SOU 1985:28. Aktivt folkstyre i kommuner och landsting. Betänkande från 1983 års demokratiberedning. SOU 1985:30. Skola för delaktighet. Betänkande ifrån arbetsgrupp inom 1983 års demokratiberedning. SOU 1987:3. Långtidsutredningen 1987. SOU 1988:20. En förändrad ansvarsfördelning och styrning på skolområdet. Betänkande från beredningen om ansvarsfördelning och styrning på skolområdet. SOU 1990:14. Långtidsutredningen 1990. SOU 1990:14. Långtidsutredningen 1990. Bilaga 22. Utbildning för 2000-talet. SOU 1990:44. Demokrati och makt i Sverige. Maktutredningen huvudrapport. SOU 1991:82. Drivkrafter för produktivitet och välstånd. Produktivitetsdelegationens betänkande. SOU 1992:38. Fristående skolor. Bidrag och elevavgifter. SOU 1992:54. Mer för mindre – nya styrformer för barn- och ungdomspolitiken. SOU 1992:94. Skola för bildning. SOU 1993:16. Nya villkor för ekonomi och politik. Ekonomikommissionens förslag. Trägårdh, Lars (2007): The “civil society” debate in Sweden: The welfare state challenged. I Lars Trägårdh red: State and Civil Society in Northern Europe: The Swedish Model Reconsidered, s 9–37.New York: Berghahn books.