The purpose of this study was to examine whether the success of theconcept of empowerment in the field of social science can be explained by referring to it as the new paradigm replacing the former paternalistic era. Therefore, I investigate if the character of its history, domicile and practice has the same distinguishing features as the scientific progress. The analysis is based on Thomas Kuhn's definition of a scientific paradigm through the concepts of consensus, crisis and revolution. I also look for alternative ways to explain the sudden appearance of empowerment at the world agenda. Due to the lack of a uniform definition of the concept and the absence of common approaches in the stimulation of empowerment it's difficult to argue that the situation is marked by consensus. The discussion about empowerment was intensified in Sweden as the economic crisis in the beginning of the 1990´s evolved, which led to that the legitimacy of the welfare state was seriously questioned. Therefore, one could argue that today we find ourselves in between two paradigms, which means that existing cientific views, strategies and approaches have been questioned but that the outcome of the discussion is uncertain. There are also reasons to question that the so called "paternalism" has been a universally prevailing paradigm, excluding all alternative ideas. Among other things it was possible to identify forces in the Swedish social politics that have been almost the opposite of "the social engineers", and rather similar to empowerment. From this I draw the conclusion that it is hard to explain the success of the concept by referring to it, as it is often described in the literature, as a new paradigm. An alternative explanation could be that the success of the concept has to do with ideological and political changes in today's society. From a political perspective of conflicts it is arguable that the Swedish welfare discourse that has dominated for a long time for the moment finds itself in a ...
