No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>The aim of this master-thesis is to investigate the emergence of bureaucratic drift in connection with implementation of EU-legislation in Sweden. To narrow it down I have chosen to look at the Swedish implementation of the Working Time Directive, directive 93/104/EG. To be able to fulfil the purpose of this master-thesis I have used two research questions; [1] How did Sweden implement the Working Time Directive into Swedish law? and [2] Why did Sweden omit to correct implement the Working Time Directive? To be able to understand and explain the situation I have used the principal-agent perspective as a theoretical framework. An analysis of motives has been used as analytical method.</p><p>The results from the analysis show that Sweden, in order to keep the contractual model used on the labour market, which is a part of the well known Swedish model, shirked while implementing the directive and implemented as to be able to fulfil its own agenda. This gives a new dimension to implementation research, since Sweden and Scandinavia is considered a ‘black hole’ regarding research on implementation in connection with EU-legislation.</p>

The aim of this master-thesis is to investigate the emergence of bureaucratic drift in connection with implementation of EU-legislation in Sweden. To narrow it down I have chosen to look at the Swedish implementation of the Working Time Directive, directive 93/104/EG. To be able to fulfil the purpose of this master-thesis I have used two research questions; [1] How did Sweden implement the Working Time Directive into Swedish law? and [2] Why did Sweden omit to correct implement the Working Time Directive? To be able to understand and explain the situation I have used the principal-agent perspective as a theoretical framework. An analysis of motives has been used as analytical method. The results from the analysis show that Sweden, in order to keep the contractual model used on the labour market, which is a part of the well known Swedish model, shirked while implementing the directive and implemented as to be able to fulfil its own agenda. This gives a new dimension to implementation research, since Sweden and Scandinavia is considered a ‘black hole’ regarding research on implementation in connection with EU-legislation.

This essay stresses the questions regarding whether or not the Swedish implementation of the European Union’s directive 2003/88/EG should be considered sufficient enough to fulfil the purpose of the scope of the directive. The essay will also consider the gender equality perspective regarding how different solutions concerning the organization of working time within two different collective agreements can give workers more or less favourable opportunities, amongst men and women.  The study of the Swedish legislation in relation to the directive shows that the way the directive has been implemented into the Swedish judicial system must be interpreted so that it is compatible with the purpose set out by the European Union. Despite this, the study spots an issue. The issue regarding how the regulations in both the directive, but also throughout the Swedish law are enunciated. The way the regulations are phrased bring on questions considering how far the European Union should be allowed to go regarding their right to control the Member States when it comes to legislation within their own countries. This raise the question regarding the interpretation of the autonomy of the Member States. The study also shows that the regulations within the collective agreements does not, alone, indicate a difference regarding more or less favourable conditions for men or women. Despite this, the study did show a difference regarding how the collective agreements emphasize different characteristics of the regulations as the most important ones. Which collective agreement provides the most favourable conditions regarding the promotion of equal rights for men and women must therefore be answered by every single individual themselves. Based on how they define gender equality and how the characteristics of the different agreements promote those aspects of gender equality.