The NPM portfolio offers several solutions to improve organisational performance and . One of the most crucial of them is to split up integrated organisations into more autonomous operational units. The idea of arm’s length government is gaining ground in Norwegian local government and has materialised itself through the proliferation of agencies, especially in the shape of different forms of local government bodies and enterprises. Agencies are regarded as useful organisational designs for promoting transparency and, in consequence, better fiscal and political control. They are supposed to provide a more output oriented type of democracy. But does this form of government actually improve transparency and are Norwegian municipalities attuned to and prepared for this type of democracy? This article builds on case studies of local government enterprises in two municipalities. Here we ask: how transparent are the activities and outputs of these agencies; do they have specified contracts; do they have easy-to-follow structures and are the owners in control? Our findings make us question local governments’ ability to accommodate the form of transparency associated with agencies and output oriented democracy. In our cases, arm’s length government has not led to the intended increase in transparency and political control, mainly because of weak contractualisation between local government and agencies, complex ownership structures, lack of interest among average local politicians, side-lined municipal administrations and even mayors striving to get the information and the influence they deem necessary and legitimate.
Since the end of the Cold War, a flourishing network of collaboration has grown up between Russia and neighbouring Nordic countries in the European North, especially Norway. The Barents Euro-Arctic Region (BEAR) was established in 1993 by several North European states and regional administrative entities in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Its aim is to promote relations across the old East-Westdivide in the European North, and enable joint projects in a number of areas, including trade and industry, student exchange and indigenous issues. In addition,Russia and Norway are pursuing various bilateral schemes focused on a particular problem or challenge in the North. One of them is the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission, which manages the valuable fish resources in the Barents Sea.In various bilateral and multilateral partnerships, Norway is working to address the environmental problems on the Kola Peninsula. This article gives a brief overview of these cooperative arrangements.
This article discusses what role(s) member governments want the Arctic Council to have in Arctic affairs. It compares the foreign policies of the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States. It identifies and examines three determining debates on a ministerial level over the Arctic Council and the issues it might address: The first debate preceded the Arctic Council's creation in 1996; the second thrived as the five Arctic littoral states convened in Ilulissat, Greenland in 2008; and the third followed a political shift inthe United States in 2009.
The article is based on a study of a local council in Australia where women representatives
hold a majority of the seats. How do these representatives understand their role in this
context? What is their preferred style of doing politics, and what can explain their political
aims and behaviour?
What we find is that these women representatives are oriented toward green politics and prefer deliberative decision-making. This case study of a local council in Queensland suggests that the political objectives and style of women representatives largely reflect the specific local context, the electoral system and the political composition of the council, and not just the fact that women hold more than 70% of the seats. However, women representatives do feel that “numbers matter” for their ability to be acting out “who they are” in politics.
This article raises three main questions: (i) What characterizes the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic? (ii) What issues/areas have caused problems for the EU in becoming a more relevant actor in the Arctic? (iii) To what degree has Norway been able to exert influence on the Union's ongoing Arctic policy development? By chronologically reviewing the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic the article demonstrates that the intensity and interest for the Northern region has varied dramatically from great interest to near ignorance. While the Greenlandic population in 1982, due to cultural and economic disputes, left the EEC, the Union's most recent challenges with respect to becoming a relevant actor in the Arctic has concerned disagreements with some of the Arctic states. These disputes have primarily included discord on 1. The Law of the seas' role in the Arctic, 2. the EU's desire to become a permanent observer in the Arctic Council and finally, 3. The EU's ban on seal products in the Common market. The article concludes by describing how Norway has been one, if not the most, important Arctic state for the Union, and that Norway has benefitted from a cooperative approach towards the EU. The cooperative approach has indirectly given Norway an opportunity to influence the outcome of the EU's Arctic policy.