Search Results

This introductory chapter discusses the theoretical approach used in this book, which focuses on Wittgenstein's Notes on Logic. Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus during the First World War, but it had its birth in the two years he spent working in Cambridge with Russell between 1911 and 1913. He compiled the Notes on Logic at the very end of that period, as a summary for Russell of the work he had accomplished. The destruction of his notebooks makes the Notes almost the only guide to the work he had been doing in Cambridge. Studying them provides insight on which of his ideas Wittgenstein owed to this period, and which to the very different circumstances in which he worked later, first in Norway and then on active service during the war. It also lays bare some of the influences which helped to form Wittgenstein's views.

This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Nordic countries — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland — which stretches back at least to the late eighteenth century, gathered force in the mid‐nineteenth century, and extended into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The patent system began relatively early, which facilitated inward technology transfer in two ways: first, via foreign patenting in the Nordic region and, second, via patent systems (“imported patents”) that permitted Nordic citizens to appropriate foreign‐developed inventions. However, there were many methods of acquiring and developing intellectual property, including societies, foreign work experience, immigration, exhibitions, and industrial espionage, and many ways to protect it. The chapter thus emphasizes the broader dimensions of learning and the creation of knowledge assets, and therefore the need to set IPRs within a wide context of knowledge creation.

This chapter, based on four surveys covering the period from 1973 to 1995, focuses on changes in the Norwegian class structure, and on trends in absolute as well as in relative social mobility. The access to rewarded positions in Norway has become easier for all due to the expansion of the service class in the period studied. The pervasive sex segregation in work does, however, show few signs of weakening: women are still concentrated in the lower service class and in routine non-manual work. The analysis of both absolute and relative social mobility shows that, despite educational expansion, privileged social background is still important in Norway, although this study points to a weakening of the vertical barriers to social mobility between 1973 and 1995.

The experience of environmentalism in the US, UK, Germany, and Norway is introduced in detail, with special reference to the relationship between the state and the movement. The history of each country in the modern environmental era is sketched. The movement took a very different form in each country. The oppositional public sphere confronting the state in Germany looks very different from the well‐behaved set of interest groups in the US or the Norwegian organizations that are tightly integrated into government. The shape and fortunes of environmentalism are heavily influenced by the state's orientation to societal interests, which can feature inclusion or exclusion, and be passive or active.

Sometimes the inclusion of the environmental movement in the state that has occurred has been genuine, and sometimes it has involved co‐option, i.e. access without real influence. We argue that inclusion can be genuine when the movement's defining interest can be attached to one of the core state imperatives; this explains why the US alone could prove such an environmental success story around 1970. Later in the 1970s, energy crisis meant that environmentalism was kept away from the state's core in all four countries, though there was substantial variation in how this was played out. More recent history reveals environmentalism generally kept away from the core, though there are exceptions (especially in Norway and, later, Germany).

This chapter looks at the implications of inclusion in the state for the movement itself, especially in terms of moderation and bureaucratization. Groups themselves can change in two ways as a result of being included within the state. First, they may have to moderate their positions substantially in order to be more consistent with the political mainstream—especially as conditioned by state imperatives. Second, they may have to develop a much more professional and bureaucratic character, replete with a large full‐time staff, internal hierarchy, and division of labour, and specialists in fund‐raising, organizational maintenance, and management. Moderation and bureaucratization compromise the ‘social movement’ character of environmental groups. Developments in the US, UK, Germany, and Norway are documented, and comparisons are made across time and space in their character and degree, and the possibility of movement resistance to them are considered.

Analyses efforts of the Norwegian government to come to terms with sustainable development. It analyses the domestic reception of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development after 1987. Attention is paid to the positive role that Norway has played internationally with respect to many areas of the sustainable development agenda (for example, in encouraging the debate about sustainable production and consumption). But contradictions and inconsistencies in the Norwegian implementation effort are also explored.

In Scandinavia, as demonstrated by the analysis of the World Values Survey in Ch. 2, people remain highly positive towards the political community and democratic principles; nevertheless, support for the remaining three levels of measure—regime performance, political institutions, and politicians—is more problematic. This chapter therefore focuses on how trust in politicians has evolved over the last twenty to thirty years in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland all established, parliamentary, multi‐party, unitary, welfare state democracies. The analysis starts at the bottom level—trust in politicians—since that is where the greatest change over time might be expected, and where there is access to some of the longest measured time‐series in the Scandinavian countries. Subsequent sections of the chapter analyse support for Swedish political institutions (parties, elections, the Rikstag, and the Cabinet), and democratic processes too. Considers explanations for trends in trust in politicians and regime institutions over time.

Previous chapters have demonstrated that low and declining citizen respect for government institutions and political leaders is characteristic of contemporary industrialized societies. Evidence since the early 1970s reveals a trend toward growing distrust of government institutions in a number of countries. While this trend is evident, the interpretation of this phenomenon has proved far more controversial. One explanation focuses upon public dissatisfaction with government performance. This chapter explores this question. First, it examines the direct link between government performance, as measured by objective indicators of inflation, unemployment, or government deficits, and institutional confidence in support for government. It then considers the dynamics of political trust and government performance, before moving on to examine the role that expectations play in translating evaluations of government performance into political distrust in three countries where long‐term time‐series data are available—the US, Norway, and Sweden. The study explores how ethical expectations about government standards influence trust in politicians and the conclusion draws some general lessons from the results. The survey data employed in the analysis include the 1990–1 World Values Survey, the Norwegian, Swedish, and US Election Studies, surveys in the US, Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania; data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and OECD are used to measure inflation, unemployment, and government deficits.

In the first section, the analysis defines the general feminist aims and parameters of the sub‐area of Blueprint Policy. It then discusses the range and timing of policies found in the 13 countries and closes with a discussion of the criteria for selecting the four policy cases covered in the chapter. Blueprint policies consist of the range of constitutional provisions, legislation, equality plans, reports, and policy machineries that governments use to establish general principles, or a blueprint, for feminist state action at the national and sub‐national levels. In the second section, the results of the analysis of the policy case literature on the dynamics of feminist policy formation is presented for the following four cases: The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada; The 1978 Equal Status Act in Norway; The 1985 Emancipation Program in the Netherlands; and The 1988 Equality Plan in Spain. The analysis concludes that the most important factors in determining feminist policy success in this particular sub‐area of feminist policy may be strategic partnerships between women's policy agencies, women's movement actors, and women in public office and non‐feminist allies.

In the first section, the analysis defines the general feminist aims and parameters of the sub‐area of Political Representation Policy. It then discusses the range and timing of policies found in the 13 countries and closes with a discussion of the criteria for selecting the four policy cases covered in the chapter. Political Representation policies include symbolic and material policies that enable women to achieve positions in elected and appointed office, semi‐public and public advisory boards, political parties, trade unions, and, more recently, organizations in the private sector. In the second section, the results of the analysis of the policy case literature on the dynamics of feminist policy formation is presented for the following four cases: The 1982 Affirmative Action Resolution of the ONDP in Canada; Institutionalising Pre‐Election Campaigns in Norway; The 1999 Constitutional Parity Amendment in France; and 1993 and 1995 Quota Legislation in Italy. The analysis concludes that the most important factors in determining feminist policy success in this particular sub‐sector of feminist policy may be strategic partnerships between women's policy agencies, women's movement actors in political parties, and women in political offices, the presence of a constitutional culture, and non‐feminist allies

In the first section, the analysis defines the general feminist aims and parameters of the first type of Body Politics Policy: Reproductive Rights Policy. It then discusses the range and timing of policies found in the 13 countries and closes with a discussion of the criteria for selecting the four policy cases covered in the chapter. Body Politics policy seeks to improve the status and situation of women by focusing on their biological distinctiveness and the social construction of their sexuality, often in the context of women's bodies being the object of men's desire, control, and violence. Reproductive rights policies seek to provide optimal situations for women to choose if and when to have children. In the second section, the results of the analysis of the policy case literature on the dynamics of feminist policy formation is presented for the following four cases: The 1978 Abortion Law in Norway; Abortion Reform in the Netherlands Since 1973; US Abortion Reform Since 1978; and The 1978 Abortion Law in Italy. The analysis concludes that the most important factors in determining feminist policy success in this particular sub‐sector of feminist policy may be religion and the territorial distribution of policy‐making power.

A discussion of peripheral and unification nationalisms. Peripheral nationalism is directly spurred by the onset of direct rule: increasing political centralization threatens local leaders and provides an incentive for them to mobilize nationalist opposition to central authorities. Unification nationalism is a more indirect by‐product of direct rule. Since states adopting direct rule attain geopolitical advantages, the rulers of culturally homogeneous but politically divided territories have an incentive to merge their separate territories into a single political unit for defensive purposes.

Scandinavian party systems have often been seen as ‘ultra stable’, a view that was certainly justified between 1945 and the early 1970; however, the general election of 1973 in Denmark signalled a new era of instability as the three major parties saw their aggregate share of the vote slashed; soon similar developments became visible in Norway, to some extent in Finland, and (a little later) in Sweden. The main political actors in the Scandinavian democracies are organized around conflicts between labour and capital, and between the rural peripheries and urban centres; the five party families of the classic Scandinavian model (social democracy, conservatism, liberalism, agrarian ‘centrism’, and communism) are deeply anchored in these social bases, with class especially having been a more important determinant of party loyalty than in other west European democracies; in particular, the mutual tolerance and moderation that parties typically accord each other in consensus democracies has resulted in the creation of an extensive and well‐known mixed welfare economy. However, the classic five‐party model no longer provides a comprehensive account of party politics in Scandinavia: since the early 1970s a variety of other parties, old and new, have emerged, and this has led to doubt as to whether the Scandinavian party systems remain distinctive, although they may still be located in the category of moderate pluralism. The increasing fragmentation of parliaments has also affected governments in different ways in the four countries. The introduction discusses these changes; the next three sections cover the same topics as those in the other country case studies in the book, and examine (the erosion of) party legitimacy, party organizational strength (finance, members), and the systemic functionality of political parties (in governance, political recruitment, interest articulation and aggregation, political participation, and political communication).

Discusses the expansion of the cooperation established between the US and Western Europe in the period 1950–1962, and analyses the Atlantic community, Germany's role in the relationship, and Western European integration. The first section looks at the dominant status that America had achieved in Europe by 1950, and at Europe's centrality to American–European cooperation—the shared assumption that Europe was the area of the world that mattered most, and that the struggle between East and West was primarily a struggle over Europe. The second section discusses the (North) Atlantic community in terms of balance of power (notably the threat of Soviet communism), the domestic threat from communists and other anti‐democratic groups, and from Germany, and the third discusses European integration in relation to this Atlantic framework. The fourth and fifth sections examine the motives for America's support of European integration, and the European economic challenge to the Atlantic framework. The sixth section analyses the development of the ‘special relationships’ formed between the US and various European countries, notably Britain, but also West Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and Yugoslavia. The last section looks at some of the concessions that the US had to make, and some of its defeats, in its relationship with Western Europe.

Utilizing a framework based on three gender policy regimes, this chapter analyses the inscription of gender relations in the social provision of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In contrast to the mainstream literature that emphasizes the similarities between Swedish and Norwegian social policies and that the two countries are the closest approximation of the social democratic welfare regime, policy differences stand out when gender is considered. The next part of the analysis seeks to explain the differences in terms of variations in women's movement strategies, party constellations, and policy legacies. The concluding sections discuss the features of the social democratic welfare regime that undercut gender inequalities and the emergence of a common gender policy regime.