Suchergebnisse

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

Rad počiva na ideji evropskog kulturnog identiteta, pojma koji se, poslednjih decenija posebno, etablirao kao važno uporište evropske političke zajednice, zajedničkih evropskih vrednosti ali i značajnih drugosti koje uprkos heterogenosti i asimetričnosti prisutnih kultura, zajedno tvore jedinstveni evropski kulturno-istorijski prostor Evrope. Različiti integrativni procesi koji se danas sve intenzivnije odvijaju, doprinose brzoj promeni konstelacija društava i re-konfiguraciji geopolitičkog, socio-ekonomskog i kulturnog ambijenta Evrope, tražeći novo sagledavanje tvorbe evropskog kulturnog identiteta koji nastaje kao rezultat tih različitih kretanja. Medij filma stoga, predstavlja idealnu perspektivu sagledavanja tvorbe evropskog transnacionanog kulturnog identiteta. Pitanje (ne)postojanja evropskog identiteta sagledano je kroz korpus teorija studija filma i medija i drugih, a na primerima dvadeset sedam (27) filmova laureata godišnje nagrade za najbolji evropski film (EFAs), Evropske filmske akademije (EFA), u periodu 1989–2014. godine, čiji su autori, između ostalih, Pedro Almodovar (Pedro Almodovar), Mihael haneke (Michael Haneke), Paolo Sorentino (Paolo Sorrentino), Lars fon Trir (Lars von Trier, i drugi. U ovoj disertaciji, evropski kulturni identitet sagledan je kroz filmske i kinematografske upise, preko kategorija identitetske drugosti, akcentovanih i asimilovanih identiteta, kao i preko elemenata (ko)produkcione drugosti. U istraživanju smo pošli od pretpostavke da filmovi nagrađeni za najbolji evropski fil nagradom EFAs nose elemente narativa interne drugosti, duboko podeljene Evrope, koji učestvuju u konstrukciji evropskog kulturno supra-identiteta u/na filmu kao i da se evropksi kulturni identitet u filmskim ostvarenjima laureata EFAs, gradi kroz dijalog Evrope, odnosno Evropske unije sa nacionalnim kinematografijama. Sa tog polazišta pristupilo se i istraživanju fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta drugosti. Cilj istraživanja bio je da se u kontekstu društveno-istorijskih i političkih procesa identifikuju i objasne elementi građenja identiteta kao i da se istakne uloga drugosti u formiranju evropskog kulturnog identiteta. Istraživačka pitanja u vezi sa odnosima međuzavisnosti koje formiraju pojmovi Evropa, identitet, drugost, evropski film i evropska nagrada u građenju prepoznatljivog fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta i fenomena evropskog filma. Problemska osnova na temelju koje je strukturisana analiza i sistematizovani naslovi nagrađenih filmskih ostvarenja u studiji slučaja, izvedena je iz teorijskih postavki koje se odnose na sledeće fenomene i pojmove: fazu ogledala Žaka Lakana (Jacques Lacan), heterotopije Mišela Fukoa (Michael Foucault), deteritorijalizacije / nomadizma Žila Deleza i Feliksa Gatarija ( Jules Deleuze / Félix Guattari), granice Jurija Lotmana (Yuri Lottman) i liminalnosti Arnolda van Genepa (Arnold van Gennep), kao postuliranje postmodernističkih tendencija u kojima se reflektuje pitanje (evropskog) kulturnog identiteta, primenjeno na polje filmske odnosno ekranske umetnosti. Svedoci smo da se u složenim procesima integracije i previranja nacionalnih i transnacionalnih tokova u Evropi, u periodu nakon pada Berlinskog zida (1989–2014), evropski kulturni identitet u/na filmu iznova konstruisao kroz narative drugosti, rezultirajući višestrukim akcentovanim i asimilovanim identitetima, što se pokazuje na primerima filmskih ostvarenja nagrađenih za najbolji evropski film EFAs. Činjenica je da značajne evrospke institucije u svojim dokumentima evropski identitet navode kao realitet, uprkos činjenici da sama konstrukcija evropskog identiteta ukazuje na (nezavršen) permanentan proces. Temeljne pretpostavke ovog istraživana su stoga: 1. nije reč o (id)entitetu kao o datosti; 2. identitet se gradi u društvenoj interakciji; 3. drugosti su sastavni deo (kulturnog) identiteta; 4. razlikama se obogaćuju i druge kulture; 5. evropski kulturni identitet je proces tj. gradilište u permanentnom nastajanju. Ishod analitičko-istraživačkog procesa je potvrđivanje da evropski kulturni identitet jeste skup različitosti tj. drugosti koje tvore jedan entitet, evropski kulturni identitet, koji međutim nije moguće fiksirati i precizno definisati, te on nadalje ostaje fenomen otvoren za različite interpretacije. ; The work is based on the idea of European cultural identity, a concept that, in recent decades, in particular, has established itself as an important mainstay of the European political community, common European values but also significant otherness which, despite the heterogeneity and asymmetry of present cultures, together form a unique cultural and historical space of Europe. The various integrative processes that are increasingly intensifying nowadays contribute to the rapid change of constellations of societies and re-configuration of the geopolitical, socioeconomic and cultural environment of Europe, seeking a new perception and definition of both national and European cultural identity that ensues from these various developments. The medium of film, therefore, represents an ideal perspective of perceiving the creation of a European transnational cultural identity. The issue of (non)existence of European identity is considered through a corpus of theories of Film and Media Studies and others, and on the examples of twenty-seven (27) films, laureates of the annual award for the best European film (EFAs) of the European Film Academy (EFA) in the period 1989−2014, whose authors are, among others, Pedro Almodovar, Michael Haneke, Paolo Sorrentino, Lars von Trier and others. In this dissertation, European cultural identity is viewed through film and cinematic inscriptions, through the categories of identity otherness, accented and assimilated identities, as well as through the elements of (co)production otherness. In the research we started from the assumption that the films awarded for the best European film by the EFAs award carry elements of narratives of internal otherness, of a deeply divided Europe, which participate in the construction of European cultural supra-identity in/on film and that European cultural identity in the film achievements of EFAs laureates is built through the dialogue of Europe, i.e. the European Union with national cinemas. That was the starting point for the research of the phenomenon of the European cultural identity of otherness. The aim of the research was to identify and explain the elements of identity construction in the context of socio-historical and political processes, as well as to emphasize the role of otherness in the formation of European cultural identity. Research questions are related to the interdependence relations formed by the concepts of Europe, identity, otherness, European film and the European award in building a recognizable phenomenon of European cultural identity and the phenomenon of European film. The problem basis on which the analysis and systematized titles of the awarded film achievements in the case study are structured is derived from theoretical assumptions related to the following phenomena and concepts: Jacques Lacan's mirror phase, Michael Foucault's heterotopias, deterritorialization and the nomadism of Jules Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the boundaries of Yuri Lottman and the liminality of Arnold van Gennep, as a postulation of postmodernist tendencies that reflect the question of (European) cultural identity, applied to the field of film or screen arts. We are witnesses that in the complex processes of integration and turmoil of national and transnational trends in Europe, in the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989–2014), European cultural identity in/on film was reconstructed through narratives of otherness, resulting in multiple accented and assimilated identities, as shown by examples of film achievements awarded with EFAs for the best European film. The fact is that important European institutions recognize European identity as a reality in their documents, despite the fact that the very construction of European identity indicates a(n) (unfinished) permanent process. The basic assumptions of this research are therefore: 1. it is not about (id)entity as a given; 2. identity is built in social interaction; 3. otherness is an integral part of (cultural) identity; 4. differences also enrich other cultures; 5. European cultural identity is a process, i.e. a permanent construction site. The outcome of the analytical-research process is the confirmation that the European cultural identity is a set of differences/othernesses that form one entity, the European cultural identity, which, however, cannot be fixed and precisely defined, and it still remains a phenomenon open to different interpretations.