"They would probably say that you are making a great sacrifice when you become a member of parliament instead of focusing on a civilian career, so inkomstgarantin is a kind of compensation for what you could have done instead," he says.
the Discussion of riksdagsledamöternas generous remuneration has been recurring for decades and the politicians have been forced to change the system in installments to soften the criticism.
Now, the question has acquired new urgency in connection with Emma Carlsson Löfdahls notice to maintain its riksdagsplats of, as it seems, for economic reasons. By sitting still as a maverick to 2022, she can most get out of almost 10 million without having to do anything.
– one-off events usually do not have so much importance but if many parties are involved and there is a system failure, there is a greater risk that it affects the electorate's trust.
" Then you have to see how it fits on the individual case and then this is a case in point: ”The up top takes care of and favors to themselves”. The show is already among the many people and already have a mistrust of politicians, you get a reason to. But it has had a dramatic big effect is hard to see, " says Peter Esaiasson.
Mps designing the actual legal framework for inkomstgarantin funded through taxpayers ' money. Then there arises a conflict where the self-interests against each other, according to Esaiasson.
" You're talking in theory, if the ”agency cost”, which is a principal - agentrelation: you pay an agent, the politicians, to do something that they should be paid for by the client, the taxpayer. Then there is the question of how much paid they should have. The agents are interested in to get as much paid as possible while we as the clients are interested they should get as little as possible.
Because the politicians can decide between themselves, and always have all the information, there must be supervisors who ensure that they are not enriching themselves too much, such as the media. But what is a reasonable level to satisfy themselves as well as the electorate seems to be impossible to find. Even when the politicians do if the system will get the criticism - and it is not every time the stringent conditions.
– They are adept at creating systems that basically still is advantageous for them themselves, " says Esaiasson.
at the same time, it is always a question of judgment if you think the system is beneficial or not. Peter Esaiasson illustrates with an economic calculus: What politicians miss the man if has a less favorable system and are the politicians you would miss out so much better than they would have received under less favourable conditions? Is it worth the splash this extra cash? Maybe not.
" If you are crass you could say: How good mps, we would get much less compensation.
" Yes, I think so, why would you not do it? Elected politicians are living under the conditions, they know that it is a time-limited mission - it goes poorly for the party so they go out, in all cases the member of parliament - and then they have to adjust and find another employment. Then, you may wonder why some people are not able to do it in over ten years, " says Peter Esaiasson.