Abstract in English: Governance in Russian Regions: A Policy ComparisonHelge Blakkisrud reviews Governance in Russian Regions: A Policy Comparison, edited by Sabine Kropp, Aadne Aasland, Mikkel Berg-Nordlie, Jørn Holm-Hansen & Johannes Schumann. The book investigates the emergence and the workings of governance networks in a Russian context.
In: Christiansen , F J & Klemmensen , R 2015 , Danish Experiences with Coalition Governments and Coalition Governance . i H L Madsen (red.) , Coalition Building : Finding Solutions Together . Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy - DIPD , København , s. 26-43 .
In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails. ; In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails.
The Arctic is characterized by a well-functioning international governance regime. Arctic and non-Arctic states aim to solve the challenges following climate change in concert. However, certain challenges and processes may destabilize the intergovernmental order in the long run. This report distinguishes between global and regional dynamics. Future global struggles between the great powers may have repercussions in the high north. On the regional level itself, four questions may destabilize Arctic governance: the status of the North-East Passage, unresolved border disputes, the role of China, and the introduction of more military capabilities. The report offers two guidelines for the strategic approach of the Commonwealth of Denmark towards the Arctic. Firstly, the Commonwealth can play a constructive role for the future stability of the Arctic by aiming, to the extent possible, to solve the four regional challenges. Secondly, the approach of the Commonwealth towards the question of Arctic stability cannot be disentangled from Copenhagen's global priorities.
A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.
Intro -- Foreword DAPMARC'2015 -- CONTENTS -- 1. Are All We Need Heroes? - The New Role of the IT Project Manager -- 2. Fast or Smart? How the Use of Scrum Can Influence the Temporal Environment in a Project -- 3. Hidden Goals in Projects: A Qualitative Exploratory Study of their Occurrence and Causes -- 4. "Frontload" in Complex Project Program Management to Aim for Lifetime Sustainability of Offshore Windmill Parks -- 5. Metaphors in Projects - An Overlooked X-factor -- 6. Bridging Gaps between IT and Business: An Empirical Investigation of IT Project Portfolio Management using Process Mining and P3M3 Maturity Model -- 7. Governance of Projects and Value Generation in Project-oriented Organizations -- 8. Theory Meets Practice: Practical Implications of Process Theory in Project Management.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Omfattende kommersiell datasporing og salg av svært detaljerte digitale profiler for markedsføring kan utnyttes og manipuleres av fremmede makter for spionasje, sabotasje og subversion. Datasettenes digitale natur medfører større detaljgrad, maskinlesbarhet optimalisert for automatisering, lange tidsserier, sanntidspotensial og mindre ressurskrevende datainnhenting sammenlignet med analoge metoder. Et globalt, uoversiktlig datamarked er sårbart for dataangrep og manglende verdikjedekontroll. Påstått anonymisering er ikke tilfredsstillende, og økt lagrings- og prosesseringskraft gjør datasettene stadig mer sårbare for reidentifikasjon. Samfunnsdigitalisering, smarte enheter og overvåkningskapitalismen intensiverer og forenkler inntrengningen i den private sfære. Morgendagens ledere kan i teorien spores fra vugge til grav, den store datamengden kan utlede informasjon som burde være gradert. Overvåkningskapitalismen, i kombinasjon med åpenhetens dilemma, tilsier at store datamengder i fri dressur derfor bør være en kilde til bekymring. Samlet vil de strategiske effektene av persondata kunne få potensielle konsekvenser for både samfunns- og statssikkerheten. I det digitale rom blir derfor personvernsikkerhetsdilemma en falsk dikotomi. En demokratisk stat vil aldri kunne kontrollere borgernes totale digitale liv. Stadig økt overvåkning vil alltid møte kritikk knyttet til at det utfordrer demokratiske prinsipper. Og statens overvåkningsmonopol er utfordret. Artikkelen konkluderer derfor med at vi i større grad bør anse personvern som et kollektivt anliggende, og at sterk personvernlovgivning kan være et verktøy for nasjonal sikkerhet.
Abstract in English:Digital Tracking – a Matter of National SecurityMore complex threat actors and risk assessments, e.g., hybrid threats, are often met with calls for increased government surveillance, which is of concern for democratic integrity. The two are therefore often presented as opposite poles. However, surveillance capitalism and the sale of extensive digital profiles can be manipulated and exploited by foreign powers for espionage, sabotage and subversion. The strategic effect is likely to increase as digitalization of governance, Smart Cities and IoT, as well as data storage and processing capacity, increase. The large amount of data can uncover information that should have been subject to clearance, tomorrow's leaders can in theory be tracked from infancy. In essence, the sale of personal data can have strategic effects on national security. As Surveillance capitalisms challenge the government surveillance monopoly, we should view privacy as a collective value for national defense.
Artikkelen diskuterer EUs nye forsvarspakke med særlig vekt på CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) og EDF (European Defence Fund). Formålet er å styrke EU som sikkerhetspolitisk aktør og legge grunnlaget for europeisk strategisk autonomi. Forsvarspakken utfordrer norsk sikkerhets-, forsvars- og forsvarsindustripolitikk. Problemstillingene artikkelen besvarer er: Hvilke konsekvenser får de nyere EU-initiativene for norsk forsvarsindustri- og forsvarsforskningspolitikk? Hvordan opptrer myndighetene (Forsvarsdepartementet; FD) slik at Norge er i stand til å opprettholde en nasjonal forsvarsindustri? Vi legger instrumentelle og institusjonelle teorier og perspektiver til grunn for analysen. Instrumentelle teorier forteller at aktørene handler formålsrasjonelt etter en konsekvenslogikk. Institusjonelle teorier forteller at aktørene søker legitimitet, og handler i tråd med etablert kultur og forventninger i omgivelsene. EU får en økende betydning der unionens sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk blir likere EUs andre politikkområder. Et flernivåperspektiv blir derfor relevant for et område som tidligere var forbeholdt medlemsstatene. Våre intervjuer med representanter for norske myndigheter og forsvarsindustri forteller at de har fragmentert kunnskap om og forventninger til betydningen av EUs forsvarspakke. Vi konkluderer at aktørene har en instrumentell tilnærming, men at manglende helhetlig forståelse gjør det vanskelig å svare formålsrasjonelt. Aktørene handler derfor også i tråd med et kulturperspektiv.
Abstract in English:What Now, Norwegian Defence Industry? Instrumental and Institutional Answers to the EU's New Security and Defence PoliciesThe article discusses the EU's new defence package with emphasis on CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) and EDF (European Defence Fund). The aim is to strengthen the EU as a security actor and encourage strategic autonomy. This package challenges Norwegian security-, defence-, and defence industrial policies. The research questions are: What consequences will these EU-initiatives have for Norwegian defence industry- and defence research policy? How will the authorities (Ministry of Defence; MoD) act to maintain a national defence industry? We apply instrumental and institutional theories. Instrumental theories expect rational actions in accordance with logic of consequences. Institutional theories expect appropriate actions in line with established culture and expectations in their surroundings. The EU's security and defence policy becomes more similar with other fields of EU policies. Therefore, a multilevel governance approach is relevant. Our interviews with representatives for Norwegian authorities and defence industry tell that they have fragmented knowledge and expectations about the significance of the defence package. We conclude that the authorities act instrumentally, but lack of a comprehensive understanding makes it difficult to answer rationally. The authorities therefore also act according to a cultural perspective.