Suchergebnisse

In recent years, the Swedish Armed Forces have produced and distributed highly edited video clips on YouTube that show moving images of military activity. Along- side this development, mobile phone apps have emerged as an important channel through which the user can experience and take an interactive part in the staging of contemporary armed conflict. This article examines the way in which the aes- thetic and affective experience of Swedish defence and security policy is socially and (media-)culturally (co-)constructed and how the official representation of Swedish military intervention (re)produces political and economic effects when these activi- ties are distributed through traditional and social media such as YouTube and digital apps. Based on Isabela and Norman Fairclough's thoughts on political discourse, Michel Foucault's dialectic idea of power/knowledge, and Sara Ahmed's concept of the affective, I discuss how the Swedish digital military aesthetic is part of a broader political and economic practice that has consequences beyond the digital, the semi- otic, and what might at first glance appear to be pure entertainment. ; In recent years, the Swedish Armed Forces have produced and distributed highly edited video clips on YouTube that show moving images of military activity. Alongside this development, mobile phone apps have emerged as an important channel through which the user can experience and take an interactive part in the staging of contemporary armed conflict. This article examines the way in which the aesthetic and affective experience of Swedish defence and security policy is socially and (media-)culturally (co-)constructed and how the official representation of Swedish military intervention (re)produces political and economic effects when these activities are distributed through traditional and social media such as YouTube and digital apps. Based on Isabela and Norman Fairclough's thoughts on political discourse, Michel Foucault's dialectic idea of power/knowledge, and Sara Ahmed's concept of the affective, I discuss how the Swedish digital military aesthetic is part of a broader political and economic practice which has consequences beyond the digital, the semiotic and what might at first glance appear to be pure entertainment.

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.

Utenlandske investeringer er en viktig del av økonomien i mange land. Det gjelder også Norge, hvor utenlandskontrollerte foretak sysselsetter 21 prosent av arbeidstakerne i privat næringsliv. Samtidig vet vi at strømmene av investeringer internasjonalt er i endring, med vekst i aktiviteten fra stater som tidligere har investert lite utenlands. Det gjelder spesielt Kina, men også India, Russland og noen andre ikke-tradisjonelle investorland. I denne artikkelen studerer vi hvordan Norges posisjon som destinasjon for investeringer endrer seg. Vi diskuterer utviklingen i lys av etablerte teorier innen samfunnsøkonomi og statsvitenskap.
Abstract in English:Norway as a Destination for Foreign Investment: Trends and ExplanationsForeign investment is an important component of the economy of many countries. This is the case for Norway too, where foreign-controlled enterprises employ 21 percent of the workers in the (private) business sectors. We know that foreign investment flows are changing, with increased activity from countries that have traditionally invested little abroad. This is true for China, especially, but also for India, Russia, and some other non-traditional investor countries. In this article, we study how Norway's position as a destination for investment is changing. We discuss the developments in relation to established theories within economics and political science.

A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.

I kjølvannet av terrorangrepene 11. september utviklet det seg et partnerskap mellom USA og Putins Russland. I dag synes det selvfølgelig at partnerskapet ikke ville vare. Men hvorfor sprakk det egentlig? Russland forkaster partnerskapet fordi det ikke møter Kremls forventninger om gjensidighet. Dessuten har Russland en helt annen oppfatning av hva årsakene til internasjonal terrorisme er og hvordan krigen mot terror skal utkjempes. Russlands gjenreisning under Putin er en underliggende faktor og innebærer at terrortrusselen etter hvert underordnes den mer tradisjonelle frykten for amerikansk militærmakt og dominans. Selv om en felles kamp mot terror stadig foreslås som bindemiddel for dårlige relasjoner, kan det neppe fungere som det i dagens nye kalde krig.
Abstract in English:The Unsustainable Russia-US Partnership in the War on TerrorRussia and the USA forged a strategic partnership following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today it seems obvious that such a partnership would not last. But why did it break? The article argues that the Kremlin leaves the partnership because its expectations of mutuality were not met. Russia also fundamentally disagreed with the USA on the sources of international terrorism and how best to conduct GWOT. Russia's revival under Putin's leadership is an underlying cause and implies that the terrorist threat is overshadowed be the traditional fear of NATO and US dominance. Albeit still figuring among the issue-areas suggested for US-Russian collaboration, the common fight against international terrorism will not function as a vehicle for rapprochement in the current cold war climate.

Denne artikkelen undersøker hvordan nylig inntrufne endringer i amerikansk atomvåpenstrategi kan påvirke krisestabiliteten mellom USA og Russland og hvilke implikasjoner det kan ha for Norge. Enkelt oppsummert fremstår moderniseringsprogrammene til atomvåpnene, introduksjonen av nye våpen og den deklaratoriske politikken egnet til å undergrave krisestabiliteten fordi det gir USA økte counterforce-kapasiteter. Dette har implikasjoner for norsk alliansepolitikk: Endringene i amerikansk atomvåpenstrategi kan senke terskelen for etablering av bastionforsvaret og øke russisk usikkerhet om norsk tilrettelegging for amerikansk politikk. Med utgangspunkt i tradisjonell teori om krisestabilitet, fremstår flere av de identifiserte endringene i USAs atomvåpenstrategi som destabiliserende. Den tyder på at amerikanske myndigheter ikke aksepterer ideen om den «kjernefysiske revolusjonen». Til tross for dette, skal bekymringen for atomkrig ikke overdrives. Militære analyser må omsettes til politikk. Selv om sannsynligheten for et vellykket førsteslag øker, er det vanskelig å forestille seg politikere som vil risikere atomkrig. Det betyr at avskrekking er mer robust enn hva rene militæranalyser tilsier.
Abstract in EnglishIn the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons: American Nuclear Policy and NorwayThe aim of this article is to provide insight into how recent changes in U.S. nuclear weapon strategy might affect crisis stability between the U.S. and Russia and what implications they might have for Norway. In brief, the nuclear modernization programs, introduction of new systems and changes in declaratory policy may undermine crisis stability because they enhance U.S. "counterforce" capabilities. This has implications for Norwegian alliance policy: changes in U.S. nuclear strategy might lower the threshold for Russia to establish the bastion concept and increase Russia's uncertainty about the scope of Norwegian facilitation of U.S. policy. Utilizing traditional theories of crisis stability on recent policy changes indicates that the current stability is tenuous. It seems as if subsequent U.S. administrations do not accept the idea of a "nuclear revolution". Despite this, concerns about a nuclear war should not be exaggerated. Military analyses must be translated into political action. Even if the chance of a successful first strike increases, it is difficult to imagine politicians willing to risk a nuclear war. This indicates that deterrence is more robust than what pure military analyses suggest.

Siden Gulfkrigen i 1991 har skandinaviske land deltatt i nesten 30 år med sammenhengende krig, på blant annet Balkan, i Afghanistan, i Irak, Libya, Mali og Syria. Hvordan kan vi forstå denne formen for militæraktivisme? Tradisjonelle teorier fra realismen, institusjonalismen og konstruktivismen gir ingen gode svar. Innenfor organisasjonsteorien derimot, finnes det forklaringer knyttet til begrepet «strategisk kultur». Ved å utforske den strategiske kulturen i USAs militære styrker under krigene i Afghanistan, Irak og Libya trer det frem et tydelig mønster: det bombes for mye på militær side, og det snakkes for lite på diplomatisk side. I USAs doktriner levnes det lite til overs for dialog, forhandling og kompromiss. Dermed blir den strategiske kulturen innad i de militære styrkene et outrert uttrykk for en krigføringsform der operasjonene ses på som et null-sum spill. Resultatet blir oftest systemkollaps i statene som angripes. Denne kulturen har store konsekvenser for små skandinaviske allianseavhengige land: knappe forsvarsressurser trekkes inn i hengemyrerer det er vanskelig å komme ut av, ikke minst fordi koalisjonslederen selv, USA, forårsaker dem.
Abstract in English:How Should Scandinavian Military Activism Be Understand?Since the 1991 Gulf War, Scandinavian states have continuously been engaged in various international operations, i.e. on the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Mali and Syria. How can we comprehend this peculiar form of Scandinavian military activism? Traditional theories derived from realism, institutionalism and constructivism provides few convincing explanations. Within organisational theory however, plausible explanations may be found though the concept of 'strategic culture'. By exploring the military culture prevailing inside US forces operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, a consistent pattern arises: too much bombing from the military side, coupled with insufficient diplomatic talks. Little effort is paid to dialogue, negotiations and compromises. US warfighting thereby becomes a one-dimensional expression of a zero-sum game where the winner takes it all. The result is a collapse inside the states that are attacked. This culture has grave consequences for small Scandinavian allies: scarce military resources are trapped into a quagmire made by the coalition leader itself, the United States.

Nesten to tiår etter den USA-ledete intervensjonen i Afghanistan, på tross av massiv innsats for å bygge en afghansk stat, så kollapset den afghanske regjeringsstrukturen i august 2021, og Taliban gjeninntok hovedstaden Kabul. Hvorfor mislyktes det internasjonale statsbyggingsprosjektet? Kunne ekstern statsbygging ha lykkes om tilnærmingen var en annen? Denne artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i nyere litteratur (David Lake, Melissa Lee, Roland Paris, Timothy Sisk) og gjør en analyse av hvordan dilemmaer i ekstern statsbygging manifesterte seg i Afghanistan henholdsvis på det politiske, militære og økonomiske området. Historisk har stabilitet i Afghanistan hvilt på en balanse mellom en svak sentralmakt og et betydelig rom for tradisjonelle samfunnsstrukturer. USA, som ekstern statsbygger, var opptatt av lojalitet fra en sterk sentralmakt, og underminerte derfor en maktfordeling som kunne gitt større grad av legitimitet. Resultatet ble en stat som var helt avhengig av ekstern støtte, og idet USA inngikk en avtale direkte med den væpnede opposisjonen, Taliban, så går den afghanske staten i oppløsning.
Abstract in EnglishDoomed to Fail? The US and the Afghan State-building Project, 2001–2021Nearly two decades after the US-led intervention in Afghanistan, following a massive effort to build an Afghan state, the country's government structure collapsed in August 2021, and the Taliban took control of the capitol Kabul. Why did international state-building fail? Could external state-building have been successful if the approach had been a different one? This article takes recent contributions to the literature on the dilemmas of external state-building as its point of departure (David Lake, Melissa Lee, Roland Paris, Timothy Sisk), and presents an analysis if how these dilemmas came to the fore in the political, military, and economic domains. Historically, Afghan stability have rested on a balance between a weak central authority, with considerable influence resting with traditional societal actors. The US, as an external state-builder, was concerned with loyalty from a strong central power, and thereby undermined the division of power that could otherwise have gained a higher degree of legitimacy. The result is a state which was fully dependent on external support, and as the US entered a treaty with the armed opposition, the Taliban, the Afghan state apparatus collapses.

Bærekraftsmålene har blåst nytt liv i debatten om hvorvidt globale fellesgoder kan og bør finansieres med bistand. I denne replikken til Nikolai Hegertuns essay En stille revolusjon av utviklingspolitikken, argumenterer jeg for at det er liten grunn til å være strengt normativ i dette spørsmålet, blant annet fordi den statistiske definisjonen av bistand ikke utelukker dette; det er presedens for en viss bruk av bistand for slike formål; bistandsvolum uansett ikke er et fullstendig mål på givernes innsats og sier lite om kvaliteten på den; og fordi en rekke nasjonale og regionale fellesgoder – som uten tvil kan finansieres med bistand – er nødvendige for at globale fellesgoder skal kunne produseres eller konsumeres av innbyggere i fattige land. Vi vet heller ikke med sikkerhet at tradisjonell bistand gir større velferdsøkninger i fattige land enn finansiering av globale fellesgoder. Det er mulig å se for seg både at de globale utfordringene sluker bistanden og at de gir støtet til internasjonalt samarbeid i et omfang vi ikke har sett før. Gitt de underliggende drivkreftene – en kombinasjon av altruisme og egeninteresser – er det mer sannsynlig med gradvise endringer i utviklingspolitikken enn en revolusjon.
Abstract in English:Development Policy: Revolution is an Illusion?The Sustainable Development Goals have reinvigorated the debate on whether aid can and should be used to finance global collective goods. In this comment on Nikolai Hegertun's essay Aid's Silent Revolution? (En stille revolusjon av utviklingspolitikken), I argue that the statistical definition of aid does not categorically rule out such financing, for which there are precedents; that aid volumes in any case do not tell the full story about the extent and quality of donor efforts; and that many national and regional collective goods – which certainly can be financed by aid – are necessary for the production and enjoyment of global collective goods by individuals living in developing countries. Moreover, we do not know with certainty that traditional aid produces greater welfare improvements in such countries than global collective goods do. It is possible to envisage both that current global challenges will swamp aid and that they will induce international cooperation on an unprecedented scale. However, given the underlying forces of altruism and national self-interest, a gradual change in development policy is more likely than a revolution.