From Policy to Possibility: Rethinking Municipal Impact Through Intersectionality and Prevention
Sandra Altebo Nyathi
Örebo University, Sweden
A politically engaged early-career researcher reflects on how local governance can become more just, inclusive, and prevention-oriented, if intersectionality were embedded at its core.
Introduction
Despite Sweden’s formal commitment to equality and evidence-based governance, the practice of policymaking, particularly at the municipal level, often falls short. Political motions submitted to the Municipal Council are required to include impact assessments, yet these assessments frequently lack depth, consistency, or a preventive perspective. Structural inequalities are rarely interrogated, and policies are too often developed without understanding how they might differentially affect people with intersecting identities. Local governance plays a crucial role in shaping everyday life, whether through housing, education, social care, or transportation. Municipalities make decisions that directly impact people’s well-being and opportunities, and yet the tools they use to anticipate those impacts often miss the mark. While equity is often cited as a guiding principle, the mechanisms to ensure it, such as impact assessments, are rarely robust enough to identify or address complex structural issues. This creates a disconnect between policy intent and real-life outcomes.
As a politically active single mother of three, as well as a researcher engaged in psychology, gender studies and intersectionality, I experience firsthand how overlapping systems of power shape daily life. By navigating in society as a sole guardian, institutional power structures and economical barriers often become apparent. These everyday encounters reveal the structural gaps that policies too often overlook. Public transportation, housing, education, and social services are all areas where a stronger preventive, intersectional lens could meaningfully reduce harm before it happens. Yet prevention is too often treated as a downstream fix rather than a design principle. Sweden has long taken pride in its welfare state, but we must confront the reality that current governance structures are not always equipped to recognize how ethnicity, gender, class, disability, migration status, or family composition intersect to produce vulnerability (Crenshaw, 1989). We also need to question why prevention is still viewed as something secondary, rather than essential, to a long-term, sustainable policy.
This blog post presents an idea rooted in the frustration stemmed from this lack of perspective, but also in hope: of a structural intervention at the local level that could help bridge the gap between our ideals and our outcomes. What if we had municipal teams dedicated to supporting political decision-makers with robust, intersectional, and prevention-oriented impact assessments? By embedding such work into existing policy processes, we could move toward a model of local governance that does more than react to inequality, it could anticipate it and prevent it.
What’s missing from today’s policy practice? Municipalities in Sweden are formally required to include impact assessments with motions submitted to the council. In theory, these assessments are meant to evaluate the consequences of a policy, including social, economic, and environmental, before it is presented for voting and later implemented. In practice, however, these documents are often treated as formalities rather than tools for meaningful analysis. Too many assessments are brief, vague, or lacking in quality. They might recognize gender or economic impacts in broad terms but often fail to consider how these factors interact — and how a policy could affect, for example, a low-income migrant woman with a disability differently than it would a middle-class, Swedish-born man belonging to the ethnic majority population. Without that lens of intersectionality, policies can unintentionally reproduce or even deepen existing inequalities. Additionally, these assessments rarely take on a preventive orientation. That is, they do not explore how a policy could reduce long-term harm or address structural root causes before they escalate into larger issues. Prevention in policymaking should not be an afterthought- it should be foundational.
Building a New Structure: From Frustration to Framework
Envisioning a utopic future enables us to imagine how these gaps could be addressed (Shafiei, 2021). But this is not just a fantasy, it’s a provocation, a challenge to our institutions to do better. What if municipalities had independent, interdisciplinary teams whose sole focus was to support and strengthen the impact assessments that underpin political motions? Such teams could provide analytical expertise, intersectional frameworks, and methodological guidance, assuring that policies are not only reactive but also proactively designed to support equity and well-being. This idea is not about adding bureaucracy. It’s about adding quality. It’s also about embedding reflection, complexity, and care into policymaking processes (Fry & Tlostanova, 2020) that are often rushed and under-resourced. It’s about making sure our tools match our values, which is foundationally essential in a well-fare state build on socialism like Sweden supposedly is.
A Typical Workday — Dreamed in Future Tense
A glimpse into how intersectionality and prevention could come to life in future municipal policy work. On a Tuesday morning, the office might begin to stir with quiet energy. I’d join my colleagues—analysts trained in gender studies, sociology, political science, and data analysis—for a short check-in. Around us, whiteboards, sticky notes, and policy drafts would trace our ongoing work: helping shape decisions that account for complexity and prevent harm before it begins. That day, our focus could be a proposed housing policy suggesting the sale of a significant portion of the municipality’s public housing stock. As I would review the accompanying impact assessment, a familiar gap might emerge—little attention paid to how the policy could affect single mothers or newly arrived immigrants, particularly in terms of increased segregation and reduced access to affordable public transportation. I’d pause, not just as an analyst, but as a single mother of three. The absence of intersectional perspective would speak volumes, echoing in my visions of whether my children will one day be able to financially secure a home of their own.
In response, I’d draft feedback that highlights the oversight, offering concrete ways to embed intersectional awareness and preventive thinking, listing possible effects and consequences of the policy proposal. Later, during a consultation with the political group behind the proposal, I’d hope to encounter openness—and perhaps we’d revise the motion together, layering in the voices and needs it had missed. The afternoon could involve co-facilitating a workshop on public transportation. Discussions might turn to how route changes disproportionately affect low-income areas and people with disabilities. One participant could share her experience navigating inaccessible transit, shifting the room’s understanding from abstract concern to lived urgency.
Back at my desk, I might work on our annual trends report. The data could show incremental progress: more policies acknowledging intersectional realities, a few even reflecting preventive foresight. But persistent gaps—especially in areas tied to racialized and economic inequalities—would remain. As the day fades into twilight, I’d reflect on the rhythm of our work. It wouldn’t be perfect. There’d be resistance, debate, slow-moving change. Yet each small interventional clarified policy, a reframed question, a more inclusive outcome—would feel like a stitch in a broader fabric of justice.
This vision might be imagined, but it wouldn’t be impossible, as a renowned dreamer and visionary before my time once said: “With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair, a stone of hope.” (Luther King, 1963).
Final Reflection: Prevention as Justice
The vision I’ve outlined is speculative, yes, but it’s also deeply grounded in lived experience and real gaps I’ve observed in today’s policy landscape. Intersectionality isn’t just an academic framework to me. It’s how I move through the world. It shapes the questions I ask and the futures I hope to build, not only for myself and my children, but for everyone navigating overlapping systems of exclusion. I often reflect on the many privileges I hold, and how they can be an asset in my work for justice. As a politically engaged researcher, I often find myself between worlds: the rigor of academic analysis, and the urgency of daily life. It’s from this place of frustration that I argue for prevention—not just as a downstream service, but as an upstream responsibility embedded in policymaking itself. If we can anticipate harm, we can reduce it. If we understand complexity, we can plan for it. If we center those most at risk, we are more likely to build systems that work better for everyone. If we can identify the structural imbalances and injustices in society, we can rebuild the structures.
There’s no shortage of technical skill or data. What’s often missing is the political will to ask harder questions—and the structural support to embed those questions into everyday governance. That’s where interdisciplinary, intersectional work can make a real difference. Much of this work can begin now. We can advocate for better assessments. We can design research that speaks across silos. We can listen—to those affected, to those overlooked, to those whose experiences carry insight. So, while this imagined workplace may not yet exist, the principles it’s built upon are available to us already (Almeida et al., 2021). By working across disciplines and across identities, we can bring prevention closer to justice, and policy closer to the people it affects.
Preparing for the next EUSPR Conference (September 23-26, 2025 in Berlin)
Sandra is planning to participate in the upcoming EUSPR conference in Berlin and is passionate about bridging the gap between research, political practice, and lived experience.
About the author
Sandra Altebo Nyathi is a member of the EUSPR Early Career Forum and a master’s student in Gender Studies. She works as a research assistant at Örebro University, where she is involved in the implementation of the PIA project. Sandra has a strong interest in prevention science, intersectionality, and equity-focused policy work.
References
Almeida, C. M. V. B., Giannetti, B. F., Agostinho, F., Liu, G., & Yang, Z. (2021). What are the stimuli to change to a sustainable post-COVID-19 society? Sustainability, 13(23), 12939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312939
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Fry, T., & Tlostanova, M. (2020). Democracy and crisis. Design Philosophy Press.
Godhe, M., & Goode, L. (2025). Beyond capitalist realism – Why we need critical future studies. Culture Unbound, 9(1), 109–127.
King, M. L. Jr. (1963, August 28). I have a dream [Speech transcript]. March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
Shafiei, K. (2021). Sky’s the limit: A case study in envisioning real anti-racist utopias. In B. Hogan, M. Cholbi, A. Madva, & B. Yost (Eds.), The movement for Black lives (pp. 280–298). Oxford University Press.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
EUSPR Early Careers Forum (April 14, 2025). From Policy to Possibility: Rethinking Municipal Impact Through Intersectionality and Prevention. Preventing disease and ill health. Retrieved May 17, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13qyj