Suchergebnisse

"Post-war expansion of the welfare state is one of the most central changes in Norwegian society
today and is often a topic in public debate. When certain conceptions about the welfare state
are developed and they are no longer based on systematic analyses but rather ideas and attitudes,
they can turn into myths. However, to be termed myths requires documentation, and
here social research plays an important role. This book rejects and elaborates central myths in
the public debate about the welfare state. The book is structured as an anthology, written by six
welfare sociologists at the University of Bergen. The first article introduces the history of The
Myth of the Welfare State, a book published by Pax in 1970, then revised a few years later, and
with a follow-up version in 1995, 25 years after that. The book became a flaming light within
the social policy debate, because it criticized the welfare state for not solving the problem of
poverty. Although this problem, relatively seen, is reduced, the following five articles show
that, within the framework of the welfare state, there is room for new important critical discussions.
One myth focuses on the idea that a combination of a comprehensive state and an active
civil society with much voluntary work is not possible. Another concerns the idea that welfare
results in dependency. A third is about the "Elder Boom". A fourth concerns single mothers
and assumes that these unlawfully try to get access to welfare. And finally, the last discusses
the ideas that crime should result in punishment and "prison pain". Together, the articles are a
contribution to make the debate about the welfare state richer and more dynamic." - "Utbyggingen av velferdsstaten i etterkrigstiden hører til en av de mest sentrale endringer i
det norske samfunn, og er ofte et tema i den offentlige debatt. Når bestemte forestillinger om
velferdsstaten utvikles og de ikke lenger bygger på systematiske analyser, men på ideer og
holdninger, kan de bli til myter. At det er snakk om myter, må imidlertid dokumenteres, og her
spiller samfunnsforskningen en viktig rolle. Denne boken tilbakeviser og nyanserer sentrale
myter i den offentlige debatt om velferdsstaten. Boken er bygget opp som en antologi, skrevet
av seks velferdssosiologer fra Universitetet i Bergen. Den første artikkelen gir en innføring
i historien om Myten om velferdsstaten, en bok utgitt av Pax i 1970, siden revidert noen år
etter og med en oppfølger i 1995, 25 år etter. Boken ble en brannfakkel i den sosialpolitiske
debatt, fordi den kritiserte velferdsstaten for ikke å håndtere fattigdomsproblemet. Selv om
dette problemet, relativt sett, er redusert, utgjør de etterfølgende artiklene om fem aktuelle
velferdsmyter en argumentasjon for, at det, innenfor velferdsstatens rammer, er rom for nye
viktige kritiske diskusjoner. Én myte handler om at en sterk stat ikke kan forenes med et aktivt
samfunn med stor grad av frivillighet. En annen handler om at velferd skaper avhengighet. En
tredje handler om eldrebølgen. En fjerde handler om at alenemødre antas å lure til seg velferd.
Og endelig handler en siste myte om at kriminalitet må møtes med straff og 'fengselspine'.
Artiklene er samlet sett et bidrag til å gjøre debatten om velferdsstaten rikere og mer dynamisk."

Multilateralism has been low on the American foreign policy agenda during the Bush-administration, but many Europeans seem to think that this will change after the upcoming elections. This might be right, but the changes will not reflect European desires. This article starts out by debunking some prevalent European myths about US politics. This is followed by a discussion of the central aspects of American foreign policy thought, & how the presidential candidates reappraise historical themes. In the last part of the article, American neo-sovereignty is contrasted with European post-sovereignty & the conclusion spells out some of the dilemmas facing them both. Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.

This thesis studies three major reforms in the public sector of Norway. The sectors studied are the police, higher education, and primary schools. The main motive for studying these reforms are of a theoretical nature, the reason to study them is to produce general knowledge about reforms. The study aims to answer two main questions. One is about the possibilities and limitations contained in using reforms to change organizations. The second is about how organizations can promote the ideals of representative democracy. In its efforts to attain answers to these questions the thesis blends empirically-oriented research with aspects of organization theory and political theory. The thesis is divided into four different parts. First, there is a descriptive presentation of the three reforms. Secondly, there is a discussion of various theories of reforms and organizations. The primary aim of this analysis is to illuminate and explain the empirical data, but this discussion should also provide its own answers to the main questions asked in the thesis. Thirdly, these theories are applied to analyze data from the three reforms. And finally, the study concludes with a summary of what general insights about the reforms we are left with after studying the Quality Reform, The Police Reform 2000, and the Knowledge Reform. The study shows that reforms have both policy and content aspects, and that it is important to distinguish between the two in order to analyse and understand them. The policy aspect is that reforms are a strategy for change - they are tools for implementing change in organizations. The content aspect is that reforms have a specific content - they have certain objectives that they want to realize. The study concludes that in order to understand this complex and fascinating phenomenon, we need to understand reforms both as instrumental tools, institutional adaptations and symbols.

It is well established in International Relations that the modem state & the state system originated at the Peace of Westphalia (1648). In this article, the author argues that there is little evidence to support such an understanding, neither in the texts of the treaties nor in the political situation before or in the wake of 1648. Rather, the Peace of Westphalia can in many ways be understood to be a step backwards from a modem understanding of sovereignty (cuius regio, eius religio: whose region it is, his religion it is), which to some extent was represented in the Peace of Augsburg (1555). International Relations' understanding of the Peace of Westphalia is based on a mythical understanding of historical processes. Furthermore, the author argues, International Relations should abandon the mythical watershed which 1648 represents. However, instead of searching for another myth to explain the origin of its main object of study, one should instead re-conceptualise the discipline in a new & more dynamic way, taking into account the heterogeneous character of the international system. 60 References. Adapted from the source document.