In this work, I classify Sweden as a unitary state with higher levels of interactive governance compared to countries such as Spain or France. According to the quote above from the interviewed expert, many (territorial) levels and channels are utilized in this unitary state to diffuse power, influence, and voice. The following paradox in Sweden is important: it is a consensual political system, but it is still able to produce significant levels of redistribution rather than the more distributive policies that would be expected from its governance structure. Sweden has a strong central government that governs as a whole rather than through different ministries, and the government agencies are independent of the cabinet, with representatives of different interests (Öberg, 2016). Sweden’s general characteristics are significant in testing the argument of the book on decentralization and inequality: the prevalence of social democracy, the long-standing compromise between labor and capital, and a comprehensive welfare state (Rothstein, 2016). Along with the importance of the territorial governance structure, these characteristics of Sweden provide an important foundation for our understanding of the Swedish case and its inequality levels. Furthermore, the recent changes to these characteristics also need emphasis in the analysis, as they shed light on increasing income inequality in Sweden, despite its continuing categorization as a low-inequality country in Western Europe and in the world. My classification of Sweden as a high interactive governance country is largely due to the nature of its intergovernmental relations, its corporatist structure, and the inclusion of the social actors in wage bargaining and policymaking in matters that have a bearing on income inequality.