Master's thesis Innovative governance and public management ME523 - University of Agder 2019 ; Developing schoolsexualityeducation policies is a complex matterdue to the controversial and politicized nature of sexuality. This thesisaims at understanding the development of institutional change in the presence of complex policy systems that involvemultiple actors in the policy process. To achieve this aim, itanalyses the actionsof an advocacy coalition that works to change sexuality education policies in Norway.The study adopts the Advocacy CoalitionFramework (ACF)for understanding the interconnections among the macro-level of the political and historicalcontext, the micro-level of the actor's motivationsand the meso-level ofcoalition's goals and strategies. Moreover, it supports the ACF with the Historical Institutionalism (HI) approach toexplain the struggle between the actors' effortsto achieve policy change and the persistence of cultural and political institutions.Through the conduction of interviews and the analysis of relevant policy documents, this study identified aclose interaction and co-dependence among differentelements of the political system. In implementing its strategy, the coalition encountered facilitating and hindering factors that determined the achievement of aslow incremental change. The advocacy coalition started and continuouslyinfluenced the change process through a strategy of knowledge production and sharingthat contributed inchangingattitudes and perception of policy participantson sexuality education.The active agency of the coalition's actors in creating arenas and channels of sharing and coordination facilitated the learning process. Nonetheless, fixed institutions and conflictsof interests hindered the achievement of a major policy change.Therefore, this thesis identifiesthe policy process as a complex interaction among different factors and elements that generate reciprocal influence and jointly determine the process' outcomes. Hence, the study concluded that the institutional setting is essential in determining rules and constraints for the actors.However,the active agency of policy participantscan strategically exploit the historicaland institutional setting for achieving the actors' goals.Keywords: Sexuality education, Norway, advocacy coalitions, institutional change, policy-learning, historical institutionalism
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
This paper examines participation in water management, more specifically in implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Norway. Attainment of the goals of the WFD depends on new ways of coordinating the activities, knowledge and resources of many sectors and levels of government, including the private sector. The WFD explicitly emphasizes broad stakeholder involvement and public participation. The new network arena of River Basin District Water Boards at the regional level and Sub-District Boards at the sub-regional level, cut across existing municipal, regional and national borders. In each River Basin District, broad reference groups are established. Through surveys and qualitative case studies, we examine how this norm of participation is operationalized in the River Basin Districts, and how different actors evaluate it. We find that the reference grou ps have mobilized many actors from civil society and the private sector, but they do not report having influe nce. The role of the reference group is unclear. ; Artikkelen er skrevet i forskningsprosjektet «Water Pollution Abatement in a System of Multi-level Governance: A study of Norway's implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WAPABAT), finansiert av MILJØ2015-programmet i Norges forskningsråd.
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
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
