Suchergebnisse

In this thesis, we compare two organizational reforms within one policy area. How the "Modernization reform for development management" from 2002/03 and the "Reform for the organization of grant management" from 2018/19, affected the relationship between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norad - the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Central is the political choice of the overall organizational model in the reforms, with two main alternatives: an integrated model in which the directorate becomes part of the ministry, and a delegated model that assigns the directorate additional tasks (enhanced vertical autonomy). In the thesis, we examine what led to the reform in 2003, and whether the newer reform can be regarded as a continuation of the 2003 reform. We have chosen to base our analysis on the theoretical framework for reforms by Pollitt and Bouckaert. The thesis is a comparative case study, and the analysis is based on three types of data sources: semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and media coverage. In the thesis, we find that several driving forces contributed to the initiation of reform in 2002/03, but that the Minister of Development's political ambitions must be regarded as a main reason to reform. The result of the reform was a mixed model, which can best be explained by the interaction - or tug-of-war - between two ministers, between foreign policy and development policy and the meeting between political desires and what was administratively feasible. Unresolved issues in the 2003 reform led to constant attempts to find an administrative balance in the years between the two reforms. In 2019, driving forces within the political system, especially party politics, became decisive for the choice of model, after the political party KrF (the Christian Democrats) entered the government. By studying the two reforms over time, we show in the thesis that ongoing discussions about the interface between politics and administration, as well as tensions between foreign policy and development policy interests, were central to the reform processes. This may help explain why reforms are repeated. The thesis is a contribution to understanding reforms in a context that also includes the time perspective. ; publishedVersion

Master i styring og ledelse ; I denne masteroppgaven har jeg undersøkt hvorfor Haugesund og Karmøy har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i kommunereformen. Haugesund ønsker en storkommune på Haugalandet, mens det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, vil at Karmøy skal være egen kommune også i fremtiden. Kommunene er store i norsk sammenheng med rundt 40.000 innbyggere hver. De har en rekke likhetstrekk, likevel er de ulike på noen sentrale punkt. Haugesund er en sentralisert by, mens Karmøy er desentralisert, med tre byer og flere bygder. Reformen er initiert nasjonalt, mens gjennomføringen skjer lokalt. Regjeringens argumentasjon ligger hovedsakelig i reformens mål og virkemidler. Tidligere undersøkelser viser imidlertid at ulike lokale forhold også kan virke inn på sammenslåingsprosesser lokalt. Hensikten med undersøkelsen har vært å finne ut hvorfor kommunene har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i reformen, om Regjeringens argumentasjon har hatt ulik betydning i beslutningsprosessene, og hvilken betydning lokale forhold har hatt for utfallet. Undersøkelsen har vært gjennomført som en komparativ casestudie, med personlige intervjuer. Informasjonen fra intervjuene danner grunnlaget for analysen. Reformens målsettinger har vært vesentlige for begge kommunene. Særlig aktuell er målsettingen om en mer helhetlig og samordnet samfunnsutvikling. Kommunene er en del av det Regjeringen kaller flerkommunale byområder. Kommunegrensene samsvarer ikke med de funksjonelle samfunnsutviklingsområdene. Dette gir utfordringer i forhold til arealplanlegging. Haugesund er regionsenter med regionsenter-utfordringer, den mangler eksempelvis areal til videre vekst. Kommunen ser kommunesammenslåing som løsningen på mange av sine utfordringer. Det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, ser ikke at reformens målsettinger nås ved kommunesammenslåing. Karmøy er en stor, veldreven kommune. Den har lite å hente på å inngå i en storkommune. De interkommunale problemene løses gjennom interkommunalt samarbeid. Når det gjelder styringsvirkemidlene har disse hatt liten betydning for utfallet. De fleste informantene etterlyser hardere virkemiddelbruk for å lykkes med reformen. Alle informantene beskriver at lokale forhold har vært viktige i reformprosessen. Langvarige, historiske og kulturelle konflikter mellom kommunene har gjort sammenslåing vanskelig. Lokale forhold som ulik kommuneøkonomi, forholdet by-land, identitet og til dels tjenestelokasjon har bidratt til det negative utfallet i Karmøy. Til tross for at Karmøy er større enn Haugesund, ser det ut for at sentrum-periferi konflikten har vært viktig for utfallet i de to kommunene. ; In this study, I have tried to find out why Haugesund and Karmøy have reached different outcome in the local government reform. Haugesund wanted one large municipality in the region, while the political majority in Karmøy, wanted Karmøy to remain as one municipality, further on. The municipalities are big in a Norwegian scale, with approximately 40.000 citizens. They are very much alike, but differ at some points. Haugesund is a city with centralized structure, while Karmøy is decentralized, consisting of three villages and several rural centres. The reform is a national initiative from the government, but is carried out locally. The arguments from the government contain both political goals and -instruments. According to previous studies, several local conditions may influence on local merging- processes. The intention of the study is to find out why the two municipalities have reached different outcomes in the reform, whether political goals and instruments have different impact on the local decision making processes, and whether local conditions have influenced on the outcome. The study is a comparative case study using personal interviews. Information from the interviews is used in the analysis. According to the political goals, they seem to have been important to both municipalities. Most relevant is a more holistic and coordinated community development. The municipalities are a part of what the government calls multi-communal city areas. These are areas where the administrative boundaries no longer reflect people's daily-life areas. This gives certain challenges according to spatial planning. Haugesund is the center of the region with some typical city-problems. One is lack of space to further growth. Haugesund sees the reform as the solution to their problems. The political majority in Karmøy do not think that the reform will contribute to goal achievement. Karmøy is large, and does well. It will not have much to gain by joining a merged municipality. Inter-municipal cooperation solves regional problems. The political instruments of the reform, have been quite unimportant to the outcome in the municipalities. Most informants believe that the instruments should be harder, for the government to succeed. All informants report that local conditions have been important to the outcome. Longlasting historical and cultural conflicts have complicated the process. Differences in economy, the center-periphery relation, identity and partly location questions, have contributed to the negative outcome in Karmøy. Even though Karmøy is the largest of the two, it seems that the center-periphery conflict has been important in both municipalities. ; acceptedVersion