<p>To create a more accessible environment for disabled people, the Swedish government, in the year of 2001, made the national act of easily eliminated obstacles valid. This national act states that all easily eliminated obstacles in the municipalities, in places and in premises that are public, shall be removed before the end of 2010, no matter if the owner of the place or premise is private or public. According to Boverket, most of the municipalities are not going to be able to reach that goal, why?</p><p> </p><p>The aim of this thesis is to compare the two municipalities Kalmar and Karlskrona in their way of implementing this national act, to see where it went wrong and why. By using implementation theories and qualitative empirical data in the form of interwievs with the total of eight people from different administrations in both of the municipalities, the subject was analyzed and discussed. The conclusion argues that the biggest difference between Kalmar and Karlskrona is that the puplic administration employees in Kalmar have a lack of knowledge, concerning the supervision responsibility that the municipalities have towards the private property owners. This leads to a non-working society-steering in Kalmar. Also, a lack of money is a big problem in both of the municipalities, as well as the problems with the national act which are indistinct in the way that it’s hard to know what exactly an easily eliminated obstacle is.</p><p> </p>

To create a more accessible environment for disabled people, the Swedish government, in the year of 2001, made the national act of easily eliminated obstacles valid. This national act states that all easily eliminated obstacles in the municipalities, in places and in premises that are public, shall be removed before the end of 2010, no matter if the owner of the place or premise is private or public. According to Boverket, most of the municipalities are not going to be able to reach that goal, why?   The aim of this thesis is to compare the two municipalities Kalmar and Karlskrona in their way of implementing this national act, to see where it went wrong and why. By using implementation theories and qualitative empirical data in the form of interwievs with the total of eight people from different administrations in both of the municipalities, the subject was analyzed and discussed. The conclusion argues that the biggest difference between Kalmar and Karlskrona is that the puplic administration employees in Kalmar have a lack of knowledge, concerning the supervision responsibility that the municipalities have towards the private property owners. This leads to a non-working society-steering in Kalmar. Also, a lack of money is a big problem in both of the municipalities, as well as the problems with the national act which are indistinct in the way that it’s hard to know what exactly an easily eliminated obstacle is.