Search results

Gjennom EØS-avtalen ble det norske forskningssystemet koblet til en overnasjonal politikk preget av lagvis endring og ekspansjon. EUs økende engasjement i forskningspolitikken har resultert i et bredt sammensatt sett av forsknings- og innovasjonspolitiske virkemidler og en økende andel av EUs budsjett. Dette politikkområdet er båret av overnasjonale prinsipper for forskningsfinansiering og intense transnasjonale nettverk i sektoren. EØS-avtalen skapte en forutsigbar ramme for samhandling mellom norske og europeiske forskningsmiljøer med EUs rammeprogram for forskning som gravitasjonspunkt. Denne artikkelen retter oppmerksomheten mot de effekter denne 25-årige koblingen har hatt på det nasjonale forskningspolitiske nivå og på forskningsmiljøenes faglige aktiviteter.
Abstract in English:Free Flow of Science? The EEA Agreement's Significance for Research in NorwayThe EEA agreement linked the Norwegian research system with the EU's research policy domain, a policy area marked by layered change and expansion. The EU's increasing research policy engagement has resulted in a broad panoply of research and innovation instruments and an increasing share of the EU's budget. Integration in this policy area is carried by supranational principles for research funding and set of intense transnational policy and research networks. The EEA agreement created a predictable frame for interaction between Norwegian and European research with the Framework programmes for research as the node. This article looks at the effects that this connection has had on the national policy and research performing levels for the past 25 years.

The paper proceeds as follows: The first section sketches some main theoretical arguments concerning the dynamics of executive governance: first a set of arguments based on organisation theory is developed, after which we look into how policies can determine politics. The subsequent section outlines how executive governance has developed in EU research policy, reviewing the studies that form the basis for claims of technocratic dominance, segmentation and path dependence particular to EU research policy. Finally an overview is given of some main developments in the executive governance of research policy in the last decade, looking first into change and stability in its structure and capacity at the European level and then on empirical patterns of executive governance in committees and networks as evidenced in data on the Commission's expert group system.

This study addresses two main issues that refer to aspects of the relationship between producers and users of research. The first half of the study is focused on the stage of the research process where research problems are selected. The role that potential users of research play in the selection of research problems is investigated, and the extent to which potential applications of research results are defined as important in problem choice. Second, the study analyses the ways in which scientific information is used by government agencies and examines the factors that affect the use of such information in bureaucratic decision-making, and in other activities of government agencies. The two main issues are addressed with a core focus on the possible effects of the organisational context within which research processes and bureaucratic utilisation of research are conducted. The empirical setting of this study is the agricultural and fishery sectors in Norway. Norwegian fisheries and agriculture are sectors where nature, science and public management are intertwined. The two sectors have organisational arrangements that underline the strong ties between science and public administration.

Processes of knowledge production and dissemination are increasingly set in an international context. In research and higher education the links between local actors and the international environments are both proliferating and intensifying. Individual level self-organised international collaboration is increasingly supplemented by national and supranational organised activities, and by market oriented activity with a global scope. Starting from these observations, this book analyses patterns of internationalisation comprising the national and supranational level, the level of higher education

Expertise has played a pivotal role in EU executives since the European Union (EU) was established, but its significance is arguably increasing and takes on new shapes. This issue explores the role and use of expert knowledge in decision-making in and by EU executive institutions.

The elaborate system of expert groups that the European Commission organises is a key feature of EU everyday governance and also a potential channel of societal involvement in EU policy making. This article examines the patterns of participation in the expert group system of a broad set of societal actors—NGOs, social partners/unions, consumer organisations, and business/enterprise. The analysis is based on a large-N study of Commission expert groups. Taking on an "executive politics" perspective, we identify main patterns of participation and analyse organisational factors that affect the inclusion of societal actors in the expert group system. We find that such actors are strongly involved in this system. Yet, there is a striking heterogeneity in the extent to which the Commission's administrative units include societal groups as experts in the policy process. The logics that underpin the inclusion of business organisations are not identical to the logics of inclusion applied to social partners and NGOs. The Commission as the core supranational executive is thus selectively open for societal involvement in its expert groups system, and this bureaucratic openness is patterned, clustered, and conditioned by structural factors that affect how the Commission as a multi-organisation operates.

The elaborate system of expert groups that the European Commission organises is a key feature of EU everyday governance and also a potential channel of societal involvement in EU policy making. This article examines the patterns of participation in the expert group system of a broad set of societal actors—NGOs, social partners/unions, consumer organisations, and business/enterprise. The analysis is based on a large-N study of Commission expert groups. Taking on an "executive politics" perspective, we identify main patterns of participation and analyse organisational factors that affect the inclusion of societal actors in the expert group system. We find that such actors are strongly involved in this system. Yet, there is a striking heterogeneity in the extent to which the Commission's administrative units include societal groups as experts in the policy process. The logics that underpin the inclusion of business organisations are not identical to the logics of inclusion applied to social partners and NGOs. The Commission as the core supranational executive is thus selectively open for societal involvement in its expert groups system, and this bureaucratic openness is patterned, clustered, and conditioned by structural factors that affect how the Commission as a multi-organisation operates.

Expertise has played a pivotal role in EU executives since the European Union (EU) was established, but its significance is arguably increasing and takes on new shapes. This issue explores the role and use of expert knowledge in decision-making in and by EU executive institutions.

The elaborate system of expert groups that the European Commission organises is a key feature of EU everyday governance and also a potential channel of societal involvement in EU policy making. This article examines the patterns of participation in the expert group system of a broad set of societal actors—NGOs, social partners/unions, consumer organisations, and business/enterprise. The analysis is based on a large-N study of Commission expert groups. Taking on an "executive politics" perspective, we identify main patterns of participation and analyse organisational factors that affect the inclusion of societal actors in the expert group system. We find that such actors are strongly involved in this system. Yet, there is a striking heterogeneity in the extent to which the Commission's administrative units include societal groups as experts in the policy process. The logics that underpin the inclusion of business organisations are not identical to the logics of inclusion applied to social partners and NGOs. The Commission as the core supranational executive is thus selectively open for societal involvement in its expert groups system, and this bureaucratic openness is patterned, clustered, and conditioned by structural factors that affect how the Commission as a multi-organisation operates.