Suchergebnisse

Centre of Excellence (CoE) is a politically initiated financing scheme from the Research Council in Norway aiming for long term, high quality and innovative research, contributing towards solving the big challenges of our society. Two evaluations conclude that this scheme is a success. These evaluations does not however pay much attention to the role of the administration in that regard. This master-thesis investigate how administrative leaders in the CoE contribute towards goal achievement. This has not previously been studied. For the data collection individual interviews was chosen, because they provide an open and investigative approach, well suited to gather relevant information. The analysis are based on organizational theory for public organizations, theories about organization types and previous research regarding the role of administrative personnel in research and higher education. The administrative leaders in CoE work in the interface between academic work and administration. My research shows that most of them have an academic background. They are highly educated, on master or PhD level, and some have research experience beyond that. Most of them have relevant work experience with a good overview of how the research and university systems work. The administrative leaders can further be recognised by their ability to create a good work environment and their social integration skills. This is very important in CoE, not the least because the centres depends heavily on recruitment of international research staff. In this regard good language skills and intercultural competence are also important. These leaders contribute to goal achievement through relieving the researchers and facilitating research related tasks, like conferences and meeting places, and haveing a good overview and ensure internal and external information flow. They also organize social activities and function as a central hub or connector. The administrative leader role demands a mix of knowledge and competencies, resembling the role of the classic middle range leader in the professional bureaucracy of today. With a great variety of different assignments coupled with being a connector for tasks and functions, both vertical and horizontal in the organization. In addition the administrative leader in a CoE also works close with the research leaders and the research activities at the centre. CoE are organized as time-limited projects with high demands and expectations. My study shows that the administration apparatus in CoE is important for goal achievement, but also that it is necessary with one 100% administrative leader or coordinator in a CoE, in order to take care of and coordinate the interests of the centre, both internally and in relation to the host institution. These CoE administrative leaders are a highly selected group regarding qualifications and background, which is something to be aware of when planning these kinds of research units, but also concerning the status- and role of administrative research personnel in general. ; publishedVersion

Bakgrunn: Tillit som en del av sosial kapital er et viktig fundament for et helsefremmende og velfungerende samfunn. Til tross for at det i Norge generelt er høye nivåer av tillit og relativt små sosiale ulikheter i befolkningen, er det tidligere funnet forskjeller mellom ulike sosioøkonomiske grupper i grad av tillit. Det er derfor behov for mer kunnskap om nivået av tillit hos befolkningen, og hvordan tilliten fordeler seg. Formål: Å undersøke både grad av tillit til institusjoner (vertikal tillit) og generell tillit (horisontal tillit) i et utvalg av befolkningen i Østfold. Videre var et mål å undersøke om demografiske og sosioøkonomiske faktorer var assosiert med grad av tillit. Metode: Det ble benyttet data fra tverrsnittstudien "Oss i Øsfold 2019" utført av Østfold fylkeskommune, med et representativt utvalg (n=16 558) av befolkningen i Østfold i alderen 18-79 år. Assosiasjonen mellom de sosiodemografiske variablene kjønn, alder, utdanning og opplevd økonomisk situasjon, og grad av tillit, ble undersøkt ved hjelp av logistiske regresjonsanalyser. Institusjonene som ble undersøkt var helsevesenet, skolevesenet, NAV, kommunestyret, politiet, rettsvesenet og massemedia. Forskjeller mellom gruppene ble oppgitt ved odds ratio (OR). Resultater: For utvalget som helhet var helsevesenet den institusjonen flest hadde høy tillit til (83.0 %), mens færrest hadde høy tillit til massemedia (42.9 %). Det var 65.9 % av utvalget som oppga at de generelt hadde høy tillit til andre mennesker. Funnene viste at det var klare sosiodemografiske forskjeller i grad av tillit. Kvinner hadde høyere tillit til institusjoner og høyere generell tillit enn menn. Den generelle tilliten økte med alderen. Funnene viste også at utdanningsnivå og opplevd økonomisk situasjon var positivt assosiert med grad av både institusjonell- og generell tillit. Konklusjon: Det ble funnet en klar sosial gradient i forekomst av både vertikal og horisontal tillit. Dette er viktig å ta på alvor, da økende grad av mistillit kan føre til en utvikling som undergraver demokratiske verdier, og svekker den generelle viljen i samfunnet til å slutte opp om kollektive velferdsordninger. I Østfold kan det være behov for å ha et bevisst forhold til tillitsbyggende arbeid, for å generere sosial kapital som en viktig ressurs i samfunnet. Det bør fokuseres på strategier som sikrer høy sysselsetting, rettferdig inntektsfordeling og gode velferdsordninger. I tillegg, kan det være behov for målrettede tiltak mot grupper med lav sosioøkonomisk posisjon. ; Background: Trust as a part of social capital is an important foundation for a healthpromoting and well-functioning society. Even though there are generally high levels of trust in Norway and relatively small social inequalities in the population, differences between socio-economic groups in levels of trust have been found in previous research. There is therefore a need for more knowledge about the levels of trust among the population, and how trust is distributed. Aim: To study the levels of trust in public institutions (vertical trust) and general trust (horizontal trust) within a representative sample of the population in Østfold aged 18-79 years. Furthermore, examine whether demographic (gender and age) and socioeconomic (education level and economic situation) factors are associated with levels of trust. Method: Data from the cross-sectional study "Oss i Østfold 2019", conducted by the county municipality Østfold was used, with a representative sample (n=16 558) of the population of Østfold. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether the sociodemographic variables gender, age, education and perceived economic self-sufficiency were associated with levels of trust. The institutions examined were the healthcare system, the school system, NAV (Social Security office), the municipal council, the police, the legal system and the media. Differences between the groups were measured using odds ratio (OR). Results: Overall, the majority in the sample had high levels of trust in the healthcare system (83.0 %). Fewest in the analysed sample had high levels of trust in the media (42.9 %). 65.9 % of the sample reported high levels of general trust in other people. The findings showed significant sociodemographic factors in terms of trust. The women in the study had higher institutional and general trust, than the male participants. Horizontal trust increased with the age. Education level and perceived economic self-sufficiency were positively associated with the degree of both institutional trust and general trust. Conclusion: A clear social gradient was found in the incidence of both vertical and horizontal trust. It is important to take this seriously, as an increase of distrust can lead to a development that undermines democratic values and reduces the general will in society to support collective welfare schemes. In Østfold there may be a need for a conscious approach to trustbuilding work, in order to generate social capital as an important resource in society. Strategies that focus on high employment, economic equality and good welfare schemes should be in focus. In addition, these findings may imply that targeted measures to build trust in low socio-economic groups are needed. ; M-FOL

- ; In critically important parts of the cold war era the Democratic Party was the steward of American foreign policy. But since September 11. 2001, the party has, however, mostly been a bystander to the major transformation of U.S. foreign policy carried out by the Bush administration. Will the party continue to play such a passive and reactive role or will it be able to formulate a coherent and realistic alternative the Bush foreign policy? Both the U.S. international behavior and world politics will be greatly affected by the outcome of the ongoing internal debate in the party. This paper takes a closer look at this debate and the various fractions that now compete for being the foreign policy face of the party. It is still too early to tell the outcome of this jockeying for power, and consequently the Bush administration will most likely continue as the dominant force behind American foreign policy.

The article analyses the results of a nationally representative survey on local democracy conducted in Ukraine in the autumn of 2017, offering insights into attitudes towards local authorities and ongoing decentralization reforms, as well as participation in local politics. The survey shows that people have very low trust in the authorities, but more trust in them than in national institutions. Respondents feel that they have little influence on local politics and that local authorities do not take their opinion into account. On the other hand, the majority report being active in various forms of local political activity. Further, there is considerable support of decentralization reforms; people have already noted certain local improvements since the decentralization reform was launched in 2015. Differences among the several geographical regions of Ukraine are small. Survey findings are explained through three analytical frameworks that emphasize the historical heritage, important economic and political conditions, and structural adjustment to European institutions. ; Artikkelen er skrevet med finansiering fra det norske Utenriksdepartementet (prosjekt UKR-14/0013) og Norges Forskningsråd (NORRUSS Pluss-programmet, prosjektnr. 287620). Norges forskningsråd 287620 Utenriksdepartementet UKR-14/0013 ; 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