Resilience – a buzzword without clear meaning in Swedish policy

Resilience has become a key concept in debates on security, climate and crisis management – but what does it actually mean? A new study from the Swedish Defence University shows that the term is often used vaguely and inconsistently in Swedish public policy documents.

The study, recently published in the journal Critical Policy Studies, reveals that the concept of resilience lacks a consistent definition within Swedish policy.

“We see that the term is used differently across policy areas, sometimes even with conflicting goals. Its meaning also varies over time”, says Noa Melin, Master’s student at the Swedish Defence University, who together with Associate Professor Oscar Larsson expanded on his undergraduate thesis in this field.

The concept has become common in both research and politics. It is often associated with normatively loaded values such as flexibility, adaptability and recovery after external shocks. But critics argue that it also risks turning into an empty phrase – a way of sounding decisive without saying anything concrete.

“Resilience is about both adapting to change and resisting it. This duality makes it difficult to apply the concept consistently in policy and strategy documents. It often functions as a kind of buzzword without a clear practical meaning”, says Melin.

Sweden diverges from the international trend

The study maps how frequently and in what ways resilience appears in environmental policy, crisis preparedness and total defence by analysing Swedish government reports between 2000 and 2024.

“We were surprised by how rarely the term is actually used. This suggests that Sweden has taken a different path compared to, for instance, the United States and the United Kingdom, where resilience has become central in both climate policy and national security”, says Larsson.

At the same time, the concept has gained greater attention in connection with Sweden’s NATO membership, where resilience plays an important role in civil defence.

Analytical model highlights the term’s duality

The analysis combines quantitative and qualitative methods, assessing each occurrence of the word resilience across three dimensions:

• System or actor – does it concern individual or systemic control?
• Resistance or adaptation – is the goal to withstand change or to adapt to it?
• Goal or process – is resilience seen as an end state or as an ongoing practice?

The results show that the concept is interpreted in many different ways. In some cases, it is equated with resistance, in others with adaptability. Sometimes it is described as a goal, sometimes as a process.

Risk of confusion and passivity

Although some international scholars have linked resilience to neoliberal governance, the researchers found no clear signs of this in the Swedish material. The problem lies rather in the ambiguity.

“It is often used to signal commitment but does not necessarily lead to action. It risks creating a false sense of security or decisiveness”, says Melin.

Call for clearer political language

The researchers hope their findings will encourage more conscious language use in the policy sector.

“Either define the term clearly and use it consistently, or replace it with more precise concepts. Otherwise, it remains just a signal word, something that sounds good but lacks substance”, Melin concludes.