Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the recent debate between Jürgen Habermas and Wolfgang Streeck on the relationship between capitalism and democracy in Europe. The article recounts Streeck's analysis of the financial crisis, the transformation of the tax state into the debt state, and the development of the EU towards an international consolidation state, which informs Streeck's call for a retreat from Europe to the nation-state as the last line of defense against neoliberal capitalism. The article proceeds to sketch Habermas's criticism of Streeck's argument, and it illustrates how Habermas' proposal for a reconstitution of the EU as a supranational democracy is motivated by foundational concerns in his critical theory of society. Finally, the article argues that the debate results in an unresolved dilemma: while only a democratized EU can reestablish the supremacy of politics over globalized markets, the EU is more likely to become further entrenched as an international consolidation state.

Iran is now subjected to the harshest economic sanctions ever imposed on any country in the world. This report discusses if and how these sanctions work, first by analysing their intended purposes and how the many phases and layers of sanctions imposed by the USA, the EU and the UN Security Council have created an almost impenetrable, escalating sanctions regime against Iran. Secondly, the report illustrates how the sanctions are experienced, debated and received in Iran, and what direct and indirect consequences the sanctions have on Iran's nuclear program, the country's financial crisis, social conditions and the upcoming presidential election in June 2013. The conclusion is that the sanctions do work, but not according to their intentions. The sanctions are contributing to changing Iran: The external pressure creates further tensions and fractions on the domestic political scene; the market moves from the West to the East, and people are subjected to a humanitarian crisis. But the sanctions have not limited Iran's nuclear program; it has only been further developed during the last seven years. Therefore, there is still a considerable risk that the increasing isolation of Iran in a worst case scenario can lead to a military confrontation.

Ansettelsen i 2020 av ny sjef for Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) har igjen skapt debatt om skatteparadiser som har vært et økende internasjonalt tema siden finanskrisen i 2008. Artikkelen analyserer Norges Banks tilnærming til skatteparadiser slik den fremkom gjennom ansettelsesprosessen, og illustrerer tradisjonelle skillelinjer i debatten om skatteparadiser. Artikkelen har derfor relevans ut over å klargjøre Norges Banks tilnærming. Analysen bygger på offentlig tilgjengelige muntlige og skriftlige uttalelser knyttet til ansettelsen, og relevante dokumenter som opplyser bakgrunnen for at skatt ble innlemmet i NBIMs etikkarbeid fra 2017. Vi argumenterer for at sentralbanken posisjonerer seg tydelig på en forsvarslinje som utfordrer en anmodning fra Stortinget om å innlemme selskapers skatteposisjon i etiske retningslinjer. Det begrunnes med fire aspekter ved sentralbankens tilnærming til skatteparadiser: en snevrest mulig definisjon av skatteparadiser som fenomen; en uklar holdning til aggressiv skatteplanlegging; en nedtoning av skatteparadisenes negative konsekvenser; en snever tolkning av eget ansvar. Diskusjonen illustrerer et behov for en avklaring av innholdet i norsk politikk på skatt og åpenhet, herunder skatteparadiser.
Abstract in English:In the Central Bank's Blind SpotThe appointment in 2020 of a new head of the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), has actualized a debate on tax havens, a growing concern following the international financial crisis of 2008. The article analyses the Norwegian central bank's approach to tax havens as it unfolded throughout the appointment process and illustrates traditional divisions in tax haven debates. The analysis builds on publicly available oral and written statements following the appointment, and relevant documents that inform the background of how tax and transparency became integrated in NBIM's work on ethics from 2017. The central argument put forward here is that the central bank position represents a traditional defense of tax haven use, in which challenges a request by the Norwegian Parliament to subordinate companies' tax strategies to ethical guidelines. We show that this is justified with four identified aspects of the central bank's tax haven approach: a narrow definition of the tax haven phenomenon; an unclear attitude to aggressive tax planning; a downplay of negative consequences of tax havens; a narrow interpretation of its own responsibilities. The discussions illustrate the need to clarify the content and practical management of the Norwegian policy on tax and transparency, including tax havens.