Search results

On the February 28, 1947, by way of royal decree, the University of
Oslo (UiO) was allowed to grant a degree in political science;
Norway's first department of political science was established at
the same university in 1957. Today, 60 years later, political
science departments can be found on each of Norway's largest
university campuses; their graduates are active and evident locally,
nationally, and internationally—with jobs in both the public and
private sectors. While it is difficult to provide an accurate survey
of the breadth and depth of contemporary Norwegian political
science, this short article aims to supply a brief historical and
institutional map for American political scientists interested in
working in Norway or with Norwegian political scientists. I would like to thank Nils Petter
Gleditsch, Torbjørn Knutsen, Ola Listhaug, Willy Martinusen, and
Knut Erik Solem for their helpful advice and comments. Any
errors and omissions are obviously the sole responsibility of
the author.

This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Decision Analysis and the definitive published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2018.0374 ; Decision analysis has been with us for at least half a century. Over that time it has developed from a theoretical paradigm for individual rational choice to a practical tool for individuals, small groups and 'unitary' organisations, which helps them towards a sound decision-making mindful of the behavioural characteristics of individuals and group dynamics. Decision analysis has also shown its worth in the context of stakeholder engagement and public participation. The time is right for it to be more widely used in making societal decisions. However, to achieve that we need to realise that in many circumstances it will only be one input to the political process that leads to the actual decision. Recognising that suggests that our community of decision analysts needs to deconstruct our paradigm and attend more to communicating the result of the analysis in comparison with other inputs to the societal decision.

POWER APPROACH IN POLITICAL SCIENCE IS ANALYZED BY FIRST CONTRASTING TRADITIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS OF POWER. SECONDLY, FIVE BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS OF POWER BY SUCH SCHOLARS AS CARTWRIGHT, DAHL, LASSWELL AND KAPLAN, MARCH, AND SIMON ARE EXAMINED TO ILLUSTRATE THE DIVERSITY OF DEFINITIONS OF POWER IN THE DISCIPLINE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

The relationship between political science and the 'real world' of public policy and politics has long been a complicated one. Current calls for more relevance in political science research echo back to the discipline's early days. This essay traces the intertwined history of practice and ivory tower, with specific attention to the rise of economics as a policy-engaged social science. A mini-case study of political scientists' involvement in contemporary health policymaking provides a concrete focus. Adapted from the source document.

▪ Abstract  We review the use of macroeconomics in political science over the past 40 years. The field has been dominated by new classical theory, which leaves little room for economic policy and focuses attention on what democratic governments can do wrong in the short term. The resulting literatures on political business cycles and central bank independence are large and sophisticated, but they fail, we argue, to account for most of the observed variance in economic policies and outcomes. In the past decade, mainstream macroeconomics has moved away from new classical approaches toward New Keynesian theories with greater scope for macroeconomic policy. These new approaches, with little impact so far in political science, are reviewed and their implications drawn out. Instead of explaining short-sighted government behavior in an economy with little scope for economic policy, the key question for political science may be why governments often pursue longer-run objectives in an economy with considerable scope for economic policy.

We review the use of macroeconomics in political science over the past 40 years. The field has been dominated by new classical theory, which leaves little room for economic policy & focuses attention on what democratic governments can do wrong in the short term. The resulting literatures on political business cycles & central bank independence are large & sophisticated, but they fail, we argue, to account for most of the observed variance in economic policies & outcomes. In the past decade, mainstream macroeconomics has moved away from new classical approaches toward New Keynesian theories with greater scope for macroeconomic policy. These new approaches, with little impact so far in political science, are reviewed & their implications drawn out. Instead of explaining short-sighted government behavior in an economy with little scope for economic policy, the key question for political science may be why governments often pursue longer-run objectives in an economy with considerable scope for economic policy. References. Adapted from the source document.

Political science has traditions in Finland and Sweden, but is a new academic discipline in Denmark, Iceland and Norway where it was introduced only after World War II. The differences in development, however, have not produced differences in style and outlook. Nordic political science has been and still is strongly dependent on basic influences from the US, and descriptions of problem areas and research approaches in the Nordic countries may well be carried out in terms of similarities rather than dissimilarities. Recent discussions about the state of the art have expressed concern about tendencies towards scientific disintegration, manifest in the institutionalization of political-science subfields and in the growth of so-called sector research based on short-term political priorities.