CANCELLED: Romania’s goal on a stronger and more cohesive EU
Due to unforeseen events we have to cancel this event.
Haukene tar over i Japan
(Norwegian only): Kina er i full fart mot supermaktstatus. Hva skjer så i Japan?
PODCAST: Friendships that move the world
What did two of the world’s most important state leaders – Barack Obama and David Cameron – signal by this image? Senior Research Fellow Kristin Haugevik has examined how relationships between states become ‘special’ in a new book.
Lonely Minds: Natural Resource Governance without Input from Society
This concluding chapter draws together the threads from the 18 case studies of oil- and gas-producing countries, relating them to the theoretical concept of ‘public brainpower’ and the arguments presented in the introductory chapter. It elaborates on the concept of public brainpower in greater detail, adding important caveats related to some possible detrimental effects of public debate: volatility, polarization, populism and mock democracy. Ten tenets on how to achieve public brainpower are formulated, and a ranking of the public brainpower of 33 resource-rich countries is presented. The chapter rounds off with suggestions for further research.
Variations on Public Brainpower: Findings from Country Case Studies of Oil- and Gas-Producing Countries
This chapter sums up the 18 case-study chapters that make up the bulk of this volume and prepares the ground for the concluding chapter. It begins by reviewing and highlighting the case-study findings, followed by notes and reflections on some general challenges encountered in the preparation of the book and the research conducted for the case studies. Inaccessibility of information and lack of expertise in some countries indicate a lack of available minds and voices to record, analyse, comment on and propose changes to petroleum policy in those countries. The impact of censorship extends well beyond the borders of authoritarian states, affecting, for instance, the statements and publications of foreign experts who may fear losing access to visas and contacts in countries where they have spent their entire careers building up their professional competence.
Russia: Public Debate and the Petroleum Sector
In Russia, civil society engagement with the petroleum sector is surprisingly rich and varied for a country that is ranked low on most democracy-related indicators. This chapter finds that there is a lively and varied public debate, with business associations, research institutes, independent experts, indigenous organizations and the few surviving independent media actively and often competently analysing and commenting on a broad range of issues related to the oil and gas sector. Russians were early users of social media, which occasionally also function as a platform for discussion of petroleum policy issues. However, the real impact of civil society on decision-making and policy formulation in the petroleum sector is not as great as the diversity of actors and discussion might imply. One key reason is the tight government control over mainstream media outlets. The situation for free speech and civil society worsened steadily from around 2004 to 2016. As in neighbouring Kazakhstan, the Russian population puts a high premium on stability over freedom. While a central concern in this book is whether the media and civil society have any influence on the petroleum sector, in Russia the paradoxical situation is that the relationship is often reversed: the gas company Gazprom, rather than another organizational vehicle, is used by the government to control key mass media; and the oil company Yukos played a central role in promoting civil society until its main owner Mikhail Khodorkovskiy was arrested and the company was carved up.
Norway: Public Debate and the Management of Petroleum Resources and Revenues
This chapter assesses the importance of civil society involvement and public debate for Norwegian petroleum governance. It finds that during the early years of the country’s oil and gas development most important choices were made by a small number of decision-makers in government with little input from the broader society. The attitude of government officials was therefore decisive for Norway’s early successes. During the two first decades of Norway’s petroleum era, also economists at the Ministry of Finance, the Norwegian School of Economics, Statistics Norway and the University of Oslo played important roles. One of the greatest successes of Norwegian oil and gas governance, the sovereign wealth fund, was created by technocrats in interaction with politicians. However, over time, and in a way similar to the Netherlands, civil society and public debate came to play more influential roles. What characterizes contemporary Norwegian petroleum governance is that it has many legs to stand on: an active and diverse civil society, free and diverse media, many political parties representing differing interests, numerous institutions of research and higher education and, importantly, a strong technocracy inside and outside government. In combination, these legs provide for both reliability and dynamism, as Norwegian petroleum governance is constantly evolving. Finally, a key aspect of Norway’s Nordic model is constant compromise – which is difficult to achieve in more polarized societies.
Introduction: Civil Society, Public Debate and Natural Resource Management
The introductory chapter establishes the analytical framework for this edited volume. The literature on the resource curse and institutions is briefly discussed, along with the work on civil society and the public sphere by Almond and Verba, Dahl, Habermas and Putnam. Drawing on these classics, the theoretical concept of ‘public brainpower’ is formulated. The main pillar of public brainpower is polycentricity, or the coexistence of many different public actors freely expressing their thoughts: individual citizens, political parties, trade unions, charities, companies, research institutes, religious institutions, mass media and government institutions. The more polycentric a society is, the greater is its brainpower: its memory becomes more comprehensive and multifaceted, different actors can perform quality control of each other’s ideas and arguments, and it is more difficult to repress challenging views. Above all, a polycentric society has a broader base for creativity. The greater the public brainpower of a society, the better its management of natural resources. Finally, the 18 case studies of oil- and gas-producing countries are presented, along with the methodology and definitions of key terminology used throughout the volume.
Codeword China
(From op-ed): When it comes to Arctic regional political governance and economic outlooks, the policy and academic communities have become good at asking ‘what about China’ and facilitating a conversation on several policy issues. All the main Arctic conferences have panels on China in the Arctic in some form or another and there is a small but strong and productive community of scholars analyzing how China approaches the Arctic.
The reconfiguration of clientelism and the failure of vote buying in Lebanon
One common demand in the 2011 uprisings in the MENA region was the call for ‘freedom, dignity, and social justice.’ Citizens rallied against corruption and clientelism, which for many protesters were deeply linked to political tyranny. This book takes the phenomenon of the 2011 uprisings as a point of departure for reassessing clientelism and patronage across the entire MENA region. Using case studies covering Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and the Gulf monarchies, it looks at how the relationships within and between clientelist and patronage networks changed before 2011. The book assesses how these changes contributed to the destabilization of the established political and social order, and how they affected less visible political processes. It then turns to look at how the political transformations since 2011 have in turn reconfigured these networks in terms of strategies and dynamics, and concomitantly, what implications this has had for the inclusion or exclusion of new actors. Are specific networks expanding or shrinking in the post-2011 contexts? Do these networks reproduce established forms of patron-client relations or do they translate into new modes and mechanisms? As the first book to systematically discuss clientelism, patronage and corruption against the background of the 2011 uprisings, it will be a valuable resource for students and scholars of Middle Eastern Studies. The book also addresses major debates in comparative politics and political sociology by offering ‘networks of dependency’ as an interdisciplinary conceptual approach that can ‘travel’ across place and time.