Suchergebnisse

The study outlined in the article has the goal of describe & explain the trend of increasing presidential character within the parliamentary system. The project consists of three parts: 1) a comparative quantitative analysis of European governments, 2) field studies of European governments, & 3) a normative evaluation of the empirical results. References. Adapted from the source document.

This dissertation examines key characteristics and factors shaping the leadership style of Swedish Prime Ministers (PMs). Based on the research of the American presidency, an interactionist framework is developed which draws upon institutional theory and political psychological theory. The analysis is advanced by exploring multiple sources and is based on four cases of leadership styles: two single party Social Democratic PMs, Ingvar Carlsson and Göran Persson, as well as two center/right coalition PMs, Thorbjörn Fälldin and Carl Bildt. Leadership style is studied through a focused comparison of the PMs' performance of four functions. Thus, the four PMs are studied as staffers and organizers of the cabinet and the Government Offices, decision makers, communicators and crisis managers. The results indicate that the office of the PM is elastic, accommodating a wide-ranging variation of leadership styles. The Social Democratic PMs display the most uniform leadership styles, but, rather surprisingly, they also have the most dissimilar leadership styles among the four cases. The center/right PMs' approaches differ to a great extent from one another, displaying mixed forms of leadership styles. The analysis explains how the PMs' leadership styles are shaped based on the interaction between their distinct personal characteristics and surrounding institutions. Thus, the dissertation concludes that leadership theories developed in a presidential setting are largely applicable in a parliamentary setting and that political behavior is not dictated by institutions such as formal structures or norms. The results encourage a reassessment of how personality, as an explanatory factor, is applied in mainstream political science. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need for reconsidering the presidentialisation thesis and the notion of dominant leadership as there are alternative pathways to prime ministerial influence which are disregarded in the debate.

Research on Europeanization clearly shows that membership in the European Union over time affects the national political systems of member states. Given Norway's extensive integration within the EU, it is relevant and important to assess whether and, if so, how the Norwegian political system, too, has changed as a result, and how these effects compare with the general patterns among EU member states. Exploring the Europeanization of Norway in a comparative perspective, the article maps the effects of European integration for four central power relationships in the Norwegian political system: national-supranational authority, executive-legislative-judicial authority, political-administrative authority and national-regional authority. It is demonstrated that integration within the EU to a large extent has had the same effects in Norway as in the member states of the EU, despite Norway's alternative form of affiliation: extensive delegation of power to the supranational level, strengthening of the government in relation to the parliament, an increasingly important role for national courts, expanded power and autonomy of the executive administration in relation to the political leadership, and some strengthening of the regions vis-a-vis the central government. Adapted from the source document.

This paper examines how a transnational corporation (TNC) translates global standards and corporate policies into programs at sites of extraction. We explore this question through a comparative analysis of ExxonMobil's operations in two different politico-economic contexts: the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia and the Point Thomson project on the North Slope of Alaska, with field work on Sakhalin Island in 2013–2015 and in Alaska in 2015–2018. Theoretically, we use the Deleuzian concept of "diagram" as a lens through which to examine corporate policies, and a governance generating network (GGN) approach to analyze similarities and differences in benefit-sharing programs in both localities. We show that while global commitments and corporate principles contribute to a standardized approach to community engagement, Indigenous movements and associations, the government, and other corporate actors may play important roles in influencing how corporate policies and global standards are implemented at sites of extraction. Moreover, adaptation of community engagement, benefit-sharing, and environmental monitoring in one location may shape how the company's strategies are implemented in other sites of extraction.

Comparative research emphasize Social Democratic parties as leading political forces when universal welfare states are reformed in accordance with market-oriented principles. Considering the traditional portrayal of universal welfare states as an institutional feature of Nordic political economics, which tends to favor the Social Democrats in the political power struggle, this is a highly surprising conclusion. In contrast to the conventional wisdom, that Social Democratic market reforms are caused by economic constraints, this article postulate reforms to be conducted for political & strategic purposes. The theoretical argument goes like this: Social Democrat governments decide upon reforms when the parry-elite perceive policy problems as potential threats to the legitimacy of the universal welfare state. Hence, market-oriented reforms are expected to re-invigorate the legitimacy of the universal welfare institutions. For political institutions to be efficient power resources they are requited to be deemed legitimate by a democratic constituency. Otherwise they can work counterproductive in the ongoing power-struggle. The theory is tested empirically in a structured comparison of Swedish & Danish school policy in the 1990s, & is confirmed with some slight modifications. References. Adapted from the source document.

This study deals with the issue of democratization in Latin America during the 20th century, and in particular the role of the left in this process. The purpose of this study is to empirically analyze the role of the left as a political actor in the process of democratization toward the deepening of the democratic rule in Latin America. The research questions are: what role did the left have in the transitions to electoral democracies during the 20th century in Latin America? Why did the left have the role it had in the transitions? How does the left's view of democracy affect the transition to electoral democracy, and the further democratization to deepen democratic rule? What structural constraints affect the left's ability to deepen democratic rule? A comparative qualitative method and different theoretical concepts of democracy, democratization, elite perspective, mobilization and organizations have been used, and examples from different Latin American cases are given. One empirical conclusion is that the role of the left in the transitions to electoral democracies varies from participation with active left leaders, collective left actions, to not have any significant role at all. A second empirical conclusion is that in cases where left wing governments have tried to enforce a model of participatory democracy, the result has been " coup d'état" or rebellions conducted by military forces and supported by the economic elite and the United States of America. In other cases when left parties in government instead have remained within the framework of an elite democracy, the result has rather been stabilization of the liberal democratic rule. The main theoretical conclusions are as follows: the theoretical discussion about democratic consolidation and the deepening of democracy have to consider that different actors' (in this study the left) preferences for various models of democracy differ; the actors' view of democracy matter in the game of democratic development and democratic consolidation; and the relations between the elite actors' preferences for different models of democracy determine the outcome of a specific form of democratic model (in this study electoral democracy, liberal democracy or participatory democracy).

On 1 January 1995 Sweden became member of the European Union. This basic fact is not mentioned in Sweden's fundamental law. Nor does the Swedish constitution have anything to say about the important changes to the practice of public policymaking that have taken place since Sweden joined the EU. At the same time, it is indeed apparent that the basic rules of the political game in Sweden have been transformed dramatically after EU accession. This constitutional change, however has taken place without any substantial changes being made to the wording of the most important of Sweden's four fundamental laws, i.e., the Instrument of Government (regeringsformen). Constitutional change can be brought about in two different ways: Constitutional amendment, or explicit constitutional change, refers to a change of the rules of the game which implies a modified wording of the constitutional text. Constitutional alteration, or implicit constitutional change, means the constitutional document itself remains unaltered while its meaning is changed through judicial interpretation or legislative action. How frequently used are these different methods when it comes to the constitutional changes brought about by EU membership? How can we explain the differences between member states? How can these competing methods for constitutional change be normatively justified? Is one of them to be preferred? The research project "Hur regleras EU-medlemskapet?" seeks to answer these questions in a comparative study on how EU membership regulated in different member states. Adapted from the source document.

Is there a common notion amongst the political and military leadership in Sweden on how to defend the country? Several events in the arena of international politics during the 20th century argue for the importance of coherence between political and military thinking. Different focus during peacetime has subsequently caused fatal consequences in times of war. This thesis studies a less obvious case: Sweden, a small-state, during the 1990's in the aftermath of the Cold War. In the effort of identifying inconsistency between the political and military level the study deals with a more comprehensive issue for any democratic society: How shall the elected political leadership exercise control over an authority (subordinated the government and) with deeply rooted professional values and with authority vested in it of crucial importance for national survival? Although several of government authorities play key roles in this respect the Armed Forces stands out to be the single most important entity. The thesis approaches the problem by studying one measure of control: the defence doctrine. The doctrine is analysed by studying various documents provided by the political decisionsprocess and with interviews involving a significant number of actors in the politico-military leaderships. The purpose has been to identify whether there is any inconsistency prevailing in the perception of values to be protected by the Armed Forces in case or war, what poses threat to these values and finally how to counter the threats. Hence, the political and military views on defence doctrine are examined. The last element of the doctrine, how to deal with the perceived threats, is embodied in the strategy for countering threats. Comparative studies involving Norway and Finland have been made to provide relevant references for the findings and provide a framework for elaboration on the differences between political and military priorities encapsulated in the research hypothesis. In addition, the research hypothesis involved the assumption that technical, tactical and operational decisions would serve as explanations for any inconsistency between military and political priorities. Piecemealed low-level decisions were assumed to unintentionally diverge bottom- up perceptions and create tensions if the politico-military interaction is not fully functional or if the politicians do not fully comprehend the implications of their decisions. The empirical findings suggest differences in the consistency of the politico-military leadership when comparing Sweden with Norway and Finland. For Sweden, the findings suggest a relative good politico-military adherence regarding values and threat perceptions. However there is a disparity in the views on what strategy to adopt and the military leadership has a more offensive mindset than the political leadership. The empirical data has primarily been collected from processes. To provide a better explanation for the findings the structure of security policymaking has been adopted in a new conceptual model based on Edward Luttwak's 'vertical dimension'.