Response to interpellation 2024/25:484 on efficiency, productivity and cost monitoring regarding Sweden's defense
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns efficiency, productivity, and cost monitoring regarding Sweden's defense. M believes that the government prioritizes rapid buildup of military capability and that the Armed Forces have good cost monitoring 1 2. M argues that the Armed Forces have historically managed large economic volumes and that the current buildup follows the plans 2. M believes that the Riksdag has a twelve-year materiel investment plan 3, that it is faster to grow materially than personnel-wise 3 and that less central control requires better monitoring to increase productivity 3. S argues that it is an enormous challenge to manage the resources and that the risk of unnecessary waste is great 4 5. S proposes more frequent cost monitoring 6. S believes that the materiel agency lacks trackable investment plans 6, that the financing requires increased taxes and loans 6 and that lack of training productivity increases the cost for war units 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Markus Selin has asked me how we ensure that the additional funds for defense are used effectively and productively, and that the necessary cost monitoring is carried out.
The government's priority for the upcoming defense decision period is to quickly build military capability and to achieve materially and personnel-filled as well as self-sufficient war units that correspond to the requirements of global developments and Sweden's ambition to be a credible, reliable and solidary ally.
The Government attaches great importance to good cost monitoring and monitoring of the operations. The Armed Forces' appropriations increased by approximately 59 percent between the years 2022 and 2025. Based on the Armed Forces' latest annual report, I can state that the increase in funds has served to increase the pace of growth in the military defense. For example, during the year 2024, extensive material deliveries took place, more than 7,300 conscripts began their basic training, and 310 new professional officers were employed in the Armed Forces. Parallel to this, the Armed Forces continued to provide extensive support to Ukraine.
The Armed Forces, like other agencies, has requirements for efficiency, good management, and accurate reporting. The Armed Forces shall also have an internal audit. In addition, there is the Riksdag's oversight through the National Audit Office and its annual audit.
For two years now, there has also been a specific agency whose task is to monitor the development and evaluate the implementation of the defense decision. It is called the Agency for Total Defense Analysis, abbreviated as MTFA. MTFA's task is to follow up, analyze, and evaluate activities within the total defense as well as to assist the government with qualified knowledge bases.
Markus Selin (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Defence, for the answer!
I would like to initially lift my gaze slightly, so that the listeners and followers are aware of what we are talking about. I intend to bring up things that the Minister for Defence touched upon, such as cost-effectiveness, productivity, and cost monitoring.
We live in a serious time. We see an aggressive, totalitarian Russia that we cannot trust at all for a long period ahead. We also see a capricious president who is back in the White House. The global situation is clearly serious, and therefore, as a social democrat, I am in great agreement with the Minister of Defence that we must ramp up our joint defense very quickly. We do this, of course, to preserve our freedoms here and now and for our children and grandchildren.
We are, therefore, in agreement on where we are going, and measured in kronor and öre, we have probably not seen such an increase since the 1950s. In other words, Madam Speaker, there are probably not many left alive who have seen an increase like the one we face now, measured in kronor and öre. It is with that approach that I intended to continue the debate, Madam Speaker.
There is something we must be very careful with, and that is, of course, our common money. I do not doubt that the Minister for Defence, just as I do, has that ambition, but given the history, where we are now and what we are to do moving forward, I mean to say that it is well worth discussing these subjects.
If you visited the government's website a couple of days ago, you could see that in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030, Sweden will allocate 836 billion kronor to defense. That is good. It was needed. A few days ago, the SD-supported M-KD-L government also announced that even more will be added, which is good. But if I extrapolate these figures until 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, and 2035, and land on an estimated 3.5 percent of GDP for the budget for our common defense, we are talking about amounts around 2,000 billion kronor, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker! Regardless of whether it concerns small or large organizations or small or large companies, I know that it is an immense challenge to manage all these resources, and it is with that approach that I intended to begin this debate with the Minister for Defence. In the latest total defense bill, from last autumn, I know that precisely these concepts are mentioned, that is to say, that the government's ambition is and shall be a better follow-up and to ensure that crowns and öres go to the right purpose.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Selin, for an important interpellation!
I will begin with security policy. We find ourselves, as said, in the most serious security policy situation in the world since the end of the Second World War, and that means we will need to expand the defense. It will need to grow rapidly.
If five or ten years ago it was perceived that there was a shortage of money but plenty of time, it is now exactly the opposite: Now we have significantly more money, but we have a shortage of time. We know that the Russian armed forces are currently tied up in and around Ukraine, but we also know that there are great ambitions to build up a stronger military defense. There are both intentions and capabilities that constitute a direct threat to us and our allies. Time is therefore a cost, and it means that we will need to take a risk when we build up a stronger defense.
Previously, much of the management both within the total defense and between the Ministry of Defence, the Government Offices, and the Armed Forces was strongly centralized, and we now need to decentralize the decisions so that they come closer to, among other things, the unit operations. It is the challenge that we will need to manage – all to create the conditions for faster growth.
The second question that Markus Selin is raising is the very large economic resources that are now being allocated to the defense. I want to provide a perspective on that question: In 2015, defense was the eighth largest expenditure item in the state budget, and now defense constitutes the second largest expenditure item. With so many economic resources, a significant responsibility naturally follows to ensure that the funds are also converted into military capability so that we have a good ability, together with our allies, to conduct deterrence and defense – ultimately in the sense that we can continue to live in peace. That is the goal.
How do we work? I still think that we work quite thoroughly with the follow-up of this. We naturally have recurring goal and result reports with the Armed Forces. We also have an agency in the form of the Total Defence Analysis Agency, which actually came about after a proposal from the Defence Committee during the previous parliamentary term. Precisely when one adds a lot of funds, one must also ensure that every krona really makes a difference in building up a stronger total defence. The agency reports to the Ministry of Defence, and we follow it closely. I also know that it has been in the Defence Committee and discussed and followed up. It has the task of following and ensuring that every krona is used well and effectively.
The next question is whether there is a balance between goals and means. Can the Armed Forces work up this much more economic means? I want to provide a perspective on the material supply: Over the last two years, we have made decisions on and procured defense materiel for 254 billion. These are very large sums. What I am impressed by is that the Armed Forces managed to work up 98.5 percent of its budget during the last year. I think that is quite impressive. I believe it was 600 million, of a very large budget, that one could not work up.
I think it shows that there is a balance when it comes to funds and that there is a forward-looking spirit within the Armed Forces, as well as naturally within the Defence Materiel Administration, when it comes to material supply and ensuring that we now ultimately convert the economic resources into military capability – all with a focus on stronger combat units.
Markus Selin (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer. In large parts, or for the most part, I agree with the Minister for Defence. But I still want to take this opportunity to air certain reflections and some concern.
Let me continue with a very rough calculation. We do not know what the growth figures for Sweden's economy or inflation will look like in five or ten years, but we can always assume some figures. Let us say that we inject 2,000 billion to Swedish defense over the next ten years. If we miscalculate and lose only 2 percent of these funds, it concerns 40 billion kronor, just in a few percent of bad luck. I can say this, Madam Speaker: That corresponds to approximately 50 modern Jas 39 Gripen in defense capability – 50 of them! It is roughly calculated but still relevant.
I also share the Minister of Defence's reasoning regarding goals and means, and it is somewhere here that I feel it chafes a bit. I understand the process with the Defence Preparedness Committee and the total defence bill, but sometimes I experience the situation becoming a bit inverted. I know that ultimately it is the war organization that governs our goal, which is very good. But that the goal can become the means and that the means can become the goal itself can sometimes be a bit up and down for me. That is why I want to air these thoughts.
Then there are other things. I agree with the Minister of Defence; it is interesting what shifts Sweden has made. I myself did my military service in the 90s, and then the Armed Forces were in decline. A few years later, it was only cost control that mattered – and now it is, as the Minister of Defence emphasizes, full throttle. It is full throttle, which for us as elected representatives also requires cost discipline.
In 2026, the defense budget will be the largest budget item. It is soon. I want to return to the fact that I, the Minister for Defence, and we who are elected representatives have a shared responsibility. The Defence Preparation Committee has raised this, and it is also mentioned in the latest total defense bill. There are already passages about strengthening the government's follow-up, about the government wanting to develop the economic management, and about the degree of economic uncertainty being clarified.
I agree with this, but I want us to move the positions here and now. I am convinced that the risk of us ending up in the wrong place and incurring unnecessary waste along the way is great – significantly greater – if we have a poorly tailored suit and the wrong attitude already when we enter such a massive resource allocation.
I can also point out that we in Sweden have nevertheless done some things well. The Director General of the Armed Forces, for example, turns 20 years in the role this year. They were appointed precisely to take care of the economy and economic follow-up. The Swedish Defence Economics Agency is also doing a good job with following up on this.
As the Minister for Defence mentioned, we have the Agency for Total Defence Analysis. This agency is, however, very new; it is barely a couple of years old.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to raise a few things, and I am in no way trying to misinterpret what Markus Selin said.
Can the Armed Forces manage large economic blocks, and can one manage growth? I believe there are two aspects to this.
This year we have a defense appropriation that stands at 2.4 percent of GDP, as Nato calculated. During the Cold War, we had a defense appropriation of 3 or 4 percent. It was then, therefore, an even larger part of the economy. Historically, the Armed Forces have managed to handle large economic volumes. Here, one must naturally take into account that we then had a much larger defense force in terms of volume.
We partially began this journey during the previous government. The Chamber adopted a total defense decision on December 15, 2020, which laid the foundation for much of the defense decision we took in December last year. Are there signs that this would not go well? Are there signs of financial mismanagement from the Armed Forces? No, not according to the National Audit Office's review, which left the Armed Forces' annual report without comment.
I dare to assert that this has gone well so far. Both the previous and the current government have succeeded when it comes to governance and good economic management, and I think that is a testament to their strength.
Markus Selin spoke about the upcoming defense appropriations, which are based on the total defense decision we made in December last year. In light of the very serious security policy situation in the world and the fact that Europe needs to take greater responsibility for its own security, we will need to accelerate the total defense decision we have just taken. We will also need to take care of the military capability requirements from Nato. Therefore, I hope that during the spring, in broad political consensus, we reach an agreement on increased economic appropriations to be able to move even faster with building up an even stronger total defense. I also hope that together with the other allies, we can build up a stronger European Nato.
I want to emphasize that this is a challenge that lies ahead of us. I do, however, dare to assert that the vast majority of parameters so far have indicated that the buildup of the total defense is following the plan.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say that the build-up of the total defense – both that we have decided on and that lies ahead of us – in terms of economic volumes is one of the largest societal reforms Sweden has undertaken since the early 1990s. It is my and Markus Selin's responsibility to ensure that we are successful in this build-up. The responsibility lies primarily with me, but I know that the Riksdag and the Committee on Defence also have a very important mission in this to ensure that every krona invested in the defense contributes to increased capability.
Markus Selin (S)
Madam Speaker! For the most part, I agree with the Minister of Defence. However, I would like to highlight a few things and perhaps offer some tips along the way.
I am wondering if the government and we should follow up on the cost development even more closely than annually – perhaps quarterly. That is a reflection I am carrying.
The Economic Management Authority has released several good reports on defense expenditures. The authority has concrete proposals that are only a couple of years old. One proposal is that planning and financing are combined in one and the same authority. The argument for this is quite logical: If the authority's management cannot obtain authority over what they are doing, they become tied up.
The Economic Management Authority has also highlighted a deficiency. The Defence Materiel Administration has no investment plans that we can follow. It is very concrete. It is probably the Swedish Armed Forces, the Defence Materiel Administration, and the Fortification Agency that hold the very largest budgets, so I think this is very interesting to mention in this context.
How we are to finance this is a future political question, Madam Speaker. I can only say that as a Social Democrat, I believe that we need to raise taxes and borrow. I do not believe that we can simply borrow and shift the cost onto future generations. As a Social Democrat, I also want us to conduct an updated security policy analysis.
In conclusion, I want to say something about the link between the initial phase and productivity. If we slack off on educational productivity here and now, the cost of setting up our war units will increase.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Markus Selin for the interpellation.
I want to make a few points. One of them concerns long-term perspective. The previous government allowed an investigation to be carried out which resulted in the fact that it is the Riksdag that makes the decision on the twelve-year investment plan. The fact that we have a twelve-year materiel investment plan means that we have a plan for the buildup of the total defense. When other countries say "Buy!" or "Spend!", we are greatly helped by the fact that we have such a long-term perspective in our materiel supply plan. Last year, for example, we gave the Armed Forces and FMV an authorization to purchase defense materiel for 126 billion. This is therefore partly achieved through the long-term perspective we have.
Markus Selin was at FMV. In economic terms, we see that the defense budget is increasing most of all on the materiel side, and there are reasons for this. It is faster, especially if one has a plan, to grow materially than to grow personnel. It takes time to train new people. We are therefore in a slightly different position. This is because we began our defense buildup already a few years ago, not least through the total defense decision 2020. This means that we have a bit more emphasis on materiel than on personnel.
We must let go. We cannot have a strong central control, because that costs time. The more we let go, the more important it becomes with follow-up and with goal and result reporting. It is also about productivity. How does it look in the war units? Is the combat readiness, or KDU, going up? We are working very hard to ensure that the Armed Forces' budget basis and, above all, goal and result reporting can be followed, as well as ensuring that this contributes to a stronger defense. I urge the Defense Committee to work in the same spirit.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.