Response to interpellation 2025/26:507 on state grants for cooperative development
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns state subsidies for cooperative development and the abolition of a specific regulation. KD argues that the government wants to improve entrepreneurship through simplification and reduced administrative burden 1. KD argues that tax money should be used effectively through general, association-neutral support 1, which promotes a greater diversity in entrepreneurship 2. KD argues that the decision is cost-effective as the subsidies in Coompanion are higher than in Nyföretagarcentrum 3. S argues that cooperative entrepreneurship is an important solution for welfare and local communities 4 5 6. S argues that cooperatives require special expertise 5 and that the decision weakens local development 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me what measures I intend to take to compensate for the negative consequences that the decision to repeal the ordinance on cooperative development risks entailing.
The government has stated goals to improve the conditions for entrepreneurship and business in Sweden, not least for the many companies operating in rural areas. This applies to all forms of companies, including cooperative companies. During the mandate period, a number of measures to improve and simplify for companies across the country have been implemented. Simplification and reduced administrative burden free up time and reduce costs and are therefore a central part of the work to strengthen the competitiveness of different types of companies.
The government wants to strengthen entrepreneurship throughout Sweden. When people come together and start companies – whether it happens in a limited company, a sole proprietorship, or a cooperative form – jobs, services, and faith in the future are created, even in rural areas. Cooperative entrepreneurship is a part of this and something the government sees the value of. At the same time, the government has a responsibility to use taxpayers' money in an effective way. Every tax krona shall be used wisely, and state-funded activities shall constantly be subject to reassessment and prioritization.
The state's promotional efforts aimed primarily at small and medium-sized enterprises as well as prospective and existing entrepreneurs shall be effective and purposeful. This also applies to efforts that are relevant for cooperative entrepreneurship. Against that background, the government has decided to repeal the Ordinance on Cooperative Development (2001:1194). Support for the development of cooperation shall instead be included within the broader efforts that already exist for entrepreneurship, new business creation, and business development. The starting point is that similar activities shall be treated equally and that the support shall primarily be general and association-neutral.
The government will continue to work to strengthen the conditions for all of Sweden's companies, regardless of the form in which they are operated and where in the country they are active. This does not mean that the government wants to phase out all support for cooperative companies. My assessment is on the contrary that cooperative companies will also in the future be able to participate in state promotional measures on the same terms as others, and that within a more unified and efficient system. All companies shall have good opportunities to develop and thereby be able to contribute to strengthening Swedish competitiveness.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I begin by addressing a thank you to the Minister for Energy and Business for the answer and for the opportunity to debate this issue.
What happens when the last shop in the village risks closing, when the business owner retires and there is no buyer, and when people who have long been outside the labor market need a way in? In many parts of Sweden, the answer is not that the market solves it. The answer is that people come together and solve the problems themselves. They form economic associations. They start worker cooperatives. They run services together. They invest in their community and in their future. This is precisely what cooperative development is about. That is why the government's decision to abolish the ordinance on cooperative development is so concerning. When people choose to take responsibility together, politics should stand by their side, not withdraw support.
The government has decided to repeal the ordinance on cooperative development. It may sound like a technical change in an administrative world, far from people's everyday lives, but in reality, it is about something significantly larger. It is about what tools people shall have when they want to take responsibility for their region, save services that would otherwise disappear, or create jobs when the market is unable to do so.
Cooperative entrepreneurship is not a marginal phenomenon, but on the contrary, it is often the solution when other solutions are lacking. All around Sweden, there are examples of how people have come together to save the local shop, the gas station, or other community services.
There are worker cooperatives that provide people far from the labor market a way back to work and self-sufficiency. There are community cooperatives that create development where the distance to the nearest alternatives is long. Behind very many of these initiatives is Coompanion. For more than 40 years, that organization has helped people and transformed commitment into entrepreneurship. With advice, education, and business development, they have contributed to hundreds of operations being able to start and grow.
Sweden faces major future challenges, and the cooperative model is becoming increasingly important. A quarter of the country's small business owners are expected to leave their companies within five years. At the same time, around 40 percent state that they lack a plan for a change of ownership. Many businesses therefore risk being shut down – not because they are unprofitable, but because no one takes over. Here, cooperative ownership offers a proven solution. Employees can join together, form a cooperative, and take over the business. The jobs remain, the expertise remains, and the tax base remains.
We also see how issues of preparedness are growing in importance. In Ukraine, for example, cooperative solutions have become crucial for people's everyday lives when the central power grid has been subjected to attacks.
Cooperative development is a well-functioning activity that has been of great importance for Swedish entrepreneurship, for Swedish development and for many regions in Sweden – for all of Sweden to live. When the government removes this, we risk becoming poorer and less rich in collective responsibility. I wonder why the government is doing this.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to debate! However, it was an answer that systematically avoided the question that my colleague Eva Lindh asked. The question was not whether the government in general terms thinks that entrepreneurship is important. The question was what is to replace what is now being removed. The answer was: Nothing.
Madam Speaker! The Government is abolishing a regulation that enabled 25 million SEK in support for cooperative development, a structure that has meant that local capacity has been built up across the entire country for a long time.
It is not about an authority in Stockholm. It is about people in places where alternatives are sometimes completely lacking. It is about villages that organize services when the market withdraws and employees who take over operations to save jobs in the locality. It is about associations that ensure there is childcare, broadband, or care.
Has this been inefficient? Has it been unnecessary? No. This is local development built from the bottom up, and it is precisely this that the government is now weakening.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Enterprise speaks of general support, but the reality across our country is not general. In many smaller towns, there are no venture capitalists, no business angels, and no large consulting firms. But there, we have people who cooperate, build together, and solve problems jointly. For them, cooperative consulting has been absolutely crucial. When the government now says that this shall be accommodated within the existing system, I mean that it shows that one does not see what our country looks like and how our regions function.
Madam Speaker! This is not neutral politics. It is an active choice to remove a support that works, is cost-effective, and has a very strong local anchoring. It is being done without a reported impact assessment, without alternatives, and without a plan for how the knowledge shall remain. This is not effective governance. It is a risk-taking with entire local communities at stake.
So, Madam Speaker, let us speak plainly. When the local advice disappears, it means that the possibility for many ideas to become reality and for many companies to come into being also disappears. It means fewer companies in our sparsely populated areas and rural regions, fewer initiatives within social economy, and fewer solutions where the market does not suffice. This is not a side effect, but it is a predictable consequence.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Enterprise says that all business forms shall be treated equally. But I mean that politics is not about treating everything equally. It is about understanding what is required in different parts of the country depending on what the regions look like. Here I mean that it is lacking. In practice, the decision means that one centralizes the support, weakens local presence, and leaves people with less support just where the needs are greatest. It goes directly against the ambition of a more vibrant Sweden.
Madam Speaker! I mean that this is ultimately about trust – trust that people themselves, together, can build their local communities. But it is also, Madam Speaker, about the state's responsibility not to tear down what actually works. We are now witnessing a decision that does just that.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe that most understand that I do not agree with the picture being painted here – neither that these would be the consequences nor that the justification would be that we do not see or do not safeguard cooperative forms.
What we agree on, which is noticeable both in Hanna Westerén's contribution – we have also had the opportunity to discuss these issues in another format earlier – and not least in the interpellator Eva Lindh's contribution, is the view on the great value that cooperative organization adds to our country. I want to go as far as to say that this is not just any form at all. I believe that there is a special strength in all entrepreneurship that is clearly idea-driven, but there also comes a special strength when one chooses to start an activity to compensate for something that is often missing from the public sector. My view is that a special commitment and a special strength and ability to succeed with the task arises when this has been the path to entrepreneurship.
With this said, why are we removing this? I will willingly admit that this might not be my favorite measure among all of them. But I still stand by it as Minister for Enterprise because I see that in many of the other engagements and initiatives that exist locally, there are conditions to capture precisely the function that, for example, Coompanion has filled. But I mean that it is unreasonable both that we have a special regulation for a specific corporate form, which we do not have for another, and that we primarily choose a single actor to fill that function. I mean that, if this format disappears, there are other actors standing ready to take over the responsibility and pass on both competence, experience, and necessary support.
The offensive simplification agenda that the government is driving will benefit all companies, regardless of legal form, and that is important. It is here that we have the opportunity to truly unleash the power of entrepreneurship. The enormous regulatory burden on our companies, which seems to increase year after year, often primarily affects idea-driven organizations.
Where previous governments sometimes spoke poorly about foundation forms or idea-driven actors, we are now moving in the opposite direction. I could mention many proposals: the physical receipts that have disappeared, the VAT threshold that has been raised from 80,000 to 120,000, the reformed 3:12 rules, lowered taxes in general, the reduced administrative burden for over 60,000 entrepreneurs, and in addition, small and large measures such as the abolition of dance and hotel permits, which have been replaced with a simple notification, simplified building permit rules, and so on. I can continue almost indefinitely. This is the type of broad simplification agenda that we know makes a big difference.
We mean that diversity is created through breadth, not through separate regulation for a single corporate form.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I understand that this is not a favorite issue. It would not have been if I had been the Minister for Enterprise either.
I want to start a bit there. In the survey that has been sent out to all parties, there is a clear question about whether the state funding for cooperative development and business promotion should also be ensured in the future. Three of the parties that make up the government and the coalition parties have answered yes; one party has not done so. Therefore, it is surprising that one continues to defend this so clearly.
The Christian Democrats do not seem to think this is a good proposal, and neither do the Liberals or the Sweden Democrats. It is only the Moderates who have responded that they do not want to continue supporting and financing the undertaking that cooperative development is about.
I want to comment on part of what the Minister for Enterprise says. If this format disappears, will everything then proceed as usual? No. It is many people's assessment, and also mine, that it will not. I will explain why.
Is it smart? No, it is not smart, because this support concerns very little money from which we have had an incredible amount of utility and effect. That is probably why I am upset – not just because we are to have partisan debates here, but because I seriously mean that these have been funds that have truly done great good. That we have also seen.
No one, neither Hanna Westerén nor I, has claimed from this rostrum that all other business-promoting work will disappear; we know that. The question is whether the general systems and the other systems that exist can replace the specific competence that exists around cooperative and social entrepreneurship. There is nothing that indicates that – I would be glad if it did.
A cooperative is not just an ordinary company with multiple owners. It is about specific legal structures, democratic ownership, member governance, social goals, and local anchoring. It requires special knowledge when one wants to save their shop, when employees take over a company in connection with a generational shift, or when people far from the labor market build a work-integrating social enterprise. Special competence is therefore needed.
Through these funds, which the government has now removed and for which the Minister for Enterprise is responsible, a very cost-effective support has been obtained that has provided incredibly great benefit out in the country.
It naturally concerns the larger cities – we have seen many examples of that – but it is particularly painful in many places out in the country where it is difficult to get the market to solve the problems that the region faces. In those cases, cooperative entrepreneurship can be a solution. That is why we also highlight this so strongly.
We believe in and fight for all of Sweden to live when it comes to welfare and also when it comes to entrepreneurship. It is about wanting and working for all of Sweden to live. Here, there is truly a great concern.
I wonder why, because I actually do not think I am getting an answer from the Minister for Enterprise. Why was this removed? It is not possible to read in any documents.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to be very clear during my final two minutes in this debate. I mean that this is not solely a principled discussion. One could almost be misled to believe that otherwise when listening to parts of the Minister for Enterprise's speech.
Both Eva Lindh and I think it is fantastic that we have a lot of entrepreneurs who make Sweden stronger. But this is about real, concrete consequences in our Swedish local communities.
That the support disappears also means that the advisor you can call disappears. Then the meeting place where new business ideas can take shape disappears. Then the competence that makes people dare to take the step disappears. This does not happen in theory or on paper, but it happens locally all around the country.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Enterprise says that cooperative companies shall be able to take part in existing measures. I note that. But the Minister for Enterprise also says that it is not a so-called favorite decision.
Then I wonder if it is not time to say "do it over, do it right." Politics is about wanting, but it is also about choosing. Here, I would really wish that the government chose a different path.
It is still not an answer to the question that Eva Lindh has asked the Minister for Enterprise. When the support disappears, who will remain locally? Who carries the knowledge? Who helps to get the operations started? This cannot be replaced with general programs. I want to know what specific structure and what support system will replace the cooperative development support.
Cooperation builds Sweden where other solutions are not sufficient. To dismantle those prerequisites is not neutral. It is a choice of path, and it risks leaving the country with less power, not more.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! This is, as has been said, not a favorite decision, and that is partly because the right decision is sometimes more difficult to communicate. Sometimes it also chafes to challenge structures that are well-intentioned and appreciated in many circles, but where we believe it could be done in a more efficient way.
Madam Speaker! It was spoken here earlier about cost-effectiveness and that this specific form would have been so cost-effective. Let us look at the figures. A newly started venture within Coompanion costs on average 65,000 kronor in support measures. If we look instead at the results from Nyföretagarcentrum, we can see that the figure there is not 65,000 but only 13,000 kronor per newly started company.
Could one then imagine that there will be a somewhat higher figure for companies that require special competence or have other prerequisites? Yes, that is perfectly reasonable. But if the average figure for companies in general is 13,000, let us then double it. Then we land at 26,000. We are still not up to 65,000, which it has cost in efforts from Coompanion to get a newly started company. I mean that there is reason for some self-reflection.
It is also said that the competence simply disappears and that everything ceases. But there are other forms of support, and one can use their pioneering spirit and apply their competence and knowledge somewhere else. You all know exactly how many different instances there are at both regional and municipal levels to support entrepreneurship broadly, and there one can also choose to prioritize this.
This occurs with an orderly transition. We are talking about 25 million kronor, Madam Speaker. This occurs in an orderly manner and with a good margin. It ceases on January 1, 2027. This is the second or perhaps third time I have debated this here in the Riksdag.
Tillväxtverket has an ongoing dialogue with Coompanion, and the long transition period also provides time to ensure that the knowledge and advice are also utilized in the broader structures for entrepreneurship and business development that exist.
This is happening in an orderly fashion, and if one wishes, one can now redirect one's efforts from resisting a decision that has been made and will be implemented to finding the right path together with Tillväxtverket and taking advantage of the experience and knowledge that we know is needed, because here we are in complete agreement. We believe that it can happen in a more cost-effective and perhaps also more accurate way.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! After this exchange with the Minister for Enterprise, I feel that I am becoming a bit more concerned and would have needed more time to discuss this. I believe that we have different views on cost-effectiveness.
Cost-effectiveness is also about the price of local development. What is the cost when the social benefit fails or when local development actually does not occur? That is what I mean when I talk about cost-effectiveness.
I understand that it costs more with the support, because it is very complicated. There are also many who want to start companies and do not have previous experience. They need a different type of competence than the one that already exists.
The Minister for Enterprise still does not answer anything other than in general terms: Yes, hurrah, now we are going to do something much better, and we are going to build it in a different way! But how is that going to happen? We have not received any answer to that.
I do not understand the logic. There is an undertaking called cooperative development that has provided so much social benefit throughout all of Sweden. It has functioned where the market cannot provide the solution. It is about saving shops, giving hope, and giving faith in the future. It has been about providing work for people who have been far away from the labor market. Why should one throw that out? One also has no idea – or perhaps one does? – or at least no answer to all of us who are concerned that all of Sweden should not be able to develop as it did before. There, the cooperative development has been part of the answers.
The Minister for Enterprise is still responsible, and my concern has not diminished. I believe that we should preserve what works, for the sake of all of Sweden.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe in Sweden. I believe that Sweden has more power that should be unleashed. The inherent power that is channeled in the cooperative companies we have in Sweden is welcome and should be utilized.
I mean that Eva Lindh has today received a brutally straight answer to her questions. It does not always get quite that straight in interpellation debates in the chamber. I also know that Eva Lindh is very well aware that we do not practice ministerial rule in Sweden. It is not my task to micro-manage exactly how municipalities or regions should organize this.
That is why this decision has been taken with a good margin. It has been announced well in advance. Tillväxtverket has also received an important assignment to conduct the dialogue with Coompanion and with other relevant parties who are responsible for business establishments and for business consultancy.
The advantage of this entering into a somewhat broader system is also that actors who otherwise would not have gotten on track for cooperative entrepreneurship are given the opportunity; it thus becomes a bit easier than if one already has to know in advance that it is the desired form of enterprise. This is the reason why I defend the decision.
In addition to this, we have our major priority on regulatory simplification in general and on promoting greater diversity in entrepreneurship. We have given the Swedish Agency for Economic and Innovation Growth the mandate to promote, for example, women's entrepreneurship. It is also about getting companies into more types of operating models. We have 40,000 economic associations in Sweden, for example. And it is about the many measures that have been taken regarding growth support, raised amount limits for having employees and lowered employer contributions, and to strengthen the countryside as a whole. I believe that will also be good for the cooperative companies.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.