Suchergebnisse

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.

Challenges James Godbolt's article titled 'the Vietnam War in Norway' by claiming that there were in fact two different Norwegian perspectives - one was found in the anti-war movement, the other in the political elite. A closer inspection of the Labor Party dominated journals, which lead the government, reveals that in the 1960's the Norwegian government, as a NATO member, was supporting America's efforts, whereas a shift occurred after 1967 when the anti-war minority opinion started to gain traction. L. Pitkaniemi

In a response to Ole Peter Kolby's (2003) account of Norway's 2-year service on the UN Security Council, the question of Norway's low profile internationally, despite its good works in foreign policy, reflects on the Norwegian government itself. The current foreign policy apparatus in Norway, it is charged, has been too accommodating to American unilateralism, among other things. The Norwegian media & Norwegian public opinion are also to blame for putting insufficient pressure on Norwegian decisionmakers to take strong stands & make difficult decisions. A. Siegel

In the 1990s, American public diplomacy was built down & neglected following its merits during the Cold War. After September 11, (2001), this field has, however, had a renaissance. But at present, the Cold War situation is inverted. In the struggle against communism, the US typically faced hostile regimes with populations yearning for Western ideology & values. Today a heavy reliance on mechanisms of marketing seems to have deteriorated US public diplomacy, whereas the Arab world is far from fertile soil for US public diplomacy. America's current enemies tend to be sub-national actors with hostile perceptions of the US, & larger populations show strong anti-American sentiments. Most activities that are labeled public diplomacy also belong in the realm of propaganda, but so-called white propaganda -- ie, the sender is known. But can public diplomacy work unless the state it originates from combines it with a policy that is saleable to the target audience? 1 Figure, 51 References. Adapted from the source document.