Review · Safety & Crime
Sweden is expanding surveillance. Does it work?
The number of police cameras is growing and permit requirements have been loosened. Brå's own meta-study shows where the cameras work — and where they don't.
Sweden has expanded camera surveillance sharply since 2018, and since 2020 the police no longer need a permit. But does it work? Brå's own meta-study of around 80 evaluations worldwide gives a clear and partly uncomfortable answer: the cameras reduce planned property crime — vehicle crime, theft, drug offences — in car parks and residential areas. On violent crime and public-order offences there is no demonstrated effect. Below we show what the evaluations find, where researchers disagree, and what the build-out costs — with a source at every step.
The build-out — three legal steps
Exact national figures for the number of police cameras per year are not publicly aggregated. We therefore show the legal steps and the police's own situational reports — not estimated volumes.
- 2012
The police's first permanent cameras
The police begin permanent camera surveillance at locations such as Medborgarplatsen and Stureplan in Stockholm, after a permit from the then county administrative board.
Polismyndigheten, lägesredovisningar
- Aug 2018
New Camera Surveillance Act (2018:1200)
The Camera Surveillance Act enters into force. The permit requirement is narrowed — fewer actors need a permit, and law-enforcement purposes weigh more heavily in the balancing test.
SFS 2018:1200
- Jan 2020
Permit requirement removed for the police, Customs and the Coast Guard
An amendment removes the permit requirement entirely for law-enforcement authorities. The balancing test against personal privacy is now done more internally. IMY (the data protection authority) retains supervisory responsibility.
Prop. 2018/19:147 · IMY
What the meta-study actually shows
In 2018 Brå published the meta-study Does camera surveillance prevent crime? It is based on Welsh & Farrington's international review of around 80 evaluations.
Effect by crime type
| Crime type | Effect | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Vehicle-related crime | Works | Brå 2018 |
| Property crime (theft, burglary) | Works | Brå 2018 |
| Drug offences | Works | Brå 2018 |
| Violent crime | No demonstrated effect | Brå 2018 |
| Public-order offences | No demonstrated effect | Brå 2018 |
Effect by location
| Location | Effect | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Car parks | Works | Brå 2018 |
| Residential areas (general) | Works | Brå 2018 |
| City centres | No demonstrated effect | Brå 2018 |
| Public transport | No demonstrated effect | Brå 2018 |
| Specific multi-family housing areas | No demonstrated effect | Brå 2018 |
Camera surveillance mainly prevents planned property crime. The meta-study finds no demonstrated effect on violent crime or public-order offences — that is, not on the crimes that drive insecurity in the most vulnerable environments.
Source: Brå 2018
Where the research disagrees
The ESO critique: newer natural experiments
The Expert Group for Public Economics (ESO) has pointed out that several of the older studies in Brå's meta-analysis have methodological problems that make causality hard to establish. According to ESO, newer research based on natural experiments — where cameras are installed in some locations but not others for reasons unrelated to crime levels — shows a deterrent effect, particularly on planned crime such as pickpocketing.
We link to ESO's publications index in the source list below rather than citing a specific report number — several ESO texts touch on the question and we don't want to cite the wrong reference.
Local Swedish evaluations diverge
- Södra Sofielund, Malmö (Brå/Malmö University, 2024): The cameras were perceived to disrupt open drug dealing. But the effect is entangled with other measures — closed streets, BID work, increased police presence — so the camera's isolated contribution is hard to determine.
- Helsingborg, Landskrona, Medborgarplatsen: Brå's evaluations found no support for a general reduction in crime at the locations studied.
Cost vs benefit
Camera surveillance has investment and running costs: equipment, operation, storage, footage review and staff. Exact national figures are not publicly aggregated — we therefore give no total.
The empirical question becomes: is the scale of the build-out proportionate to the documented effect? Strong evidence exists for a subset (planned property crime in car parks and residential areas). On violent crime — what drives insecurity — there is no demonstrated effect.
Privacy — the actual trade-off
Removing the permit requirement for law-enforcement authorities in 2020 means the balancing test between surveillance needs and personal privacy is to a greater extent made internally by the police, instead of being reviewed ex ante by IMY. IMY retains supervisory responsibility after the fact.
This is a documented goal conflict — expanded state surveillance capacity vs. privacy protection — that the legislature and IMY handle themselves. The page presents the conflict neutrally and does not speculate about future regimes or systemic shifts.
Sources in the original
- Brå (2018): Fungerar kamerabevakning brottsförebyggande? — bra.se
- Brå: ämnessida — Kamerabevakning — bra.se
- Brå / Malmö universitet (2024): Kamerabevakning i Södra Sofielund — bra.se
- ESO: publikationer (kameraövervakning) — eso.expertgrupp.se
- Kamerabevakningslagen (SFS 2018:1200) — riksdagen.se
- IMY: Kamerabevakning — regler och tillsyn — imy.se