Scholars of the “Swedish model” have historically pointed to various defining characteristics in an attempt to describe its attributes and failures, with varying success. Some point to the importance of labor unions, others to gender equality, and still others to the relatively homogeneous nature of the Swedish population. Lars Tragardh and other contributors to this volume emphasize what they believe to be a more fundamental characteristic: that the construct of social capital is an important feature in the Swedish civil society landscape; how much of it exists, how expansive it is, and more importantly, how relevant it is as a point of comparison to other civil societies. It is this latter point, namely, that the nature of Sweden’s unique civil society owes its existence to a high level of social capital, and that this social capital, combined with trust in state institutions, creates a Hegelian “associative democracy” that is at the heart of this edited volume.

In articulating and defending this claim on the relation between associative democracy and social capital, the contributors go to great lengths to assert that, unlike Anglo-American models of civil society, the state and civil society are not seen as diametrically opposed. In fact, through various detailed examples provided by the authors, it is shown that even though there exists a strong central government and that Swedes have historically placed much reliance upon centralized public administration, civil society activities have been allowed to flourish; for example in the form of “neutral organizations” where “state representatives and leaders from the organizations in civil society could meet” and foster trust between the state and civil society actors (Rothstein and Tragardh, p. 249). Indeed, this state–civil society relationship can be seen in the Swedish language: in many cases, samhället means both “state” and “(civil) society.”

At times, however, this critical central point is lost on the reader through a somewhat disjointed presentation that includes other issues such as globalization and a roughly hewn inclusion of Norwegian data. These inclusions need not completely deter the reader as other notable points serve to throw a light on the current state of Swedish civil society and hypothesize on future trends. Of particular note is Jeppson Grassman and Svedberg’s critique of the theory that a strong central government leads to an undermined civil society and a decrease in volunteerism. Additionally, they make the bold claim that non-organizational informal helping should be factored into the discussion of Swedish civil society. They readily acknowledge that this may add ambiguity, but advocate that ignoring these activities omits a vital feature of the Swedish sense of civicness. This suggests a fresh take on the widely accepted criteria for who is and is not part of the civil society puzzle and speaks to the relative nature of civil societies.

The book also provides a good overview of the historical influences that have shaped the current Swedish civil society, and offers insight into future challenges and opportunities. Rich in theoretical references, it is an essential resource in comparative studies of civil societies.