Suchergebnisse

Did the terrorist attacks in Norway affect citizens' attitudes to security‐related institutions and policies? To answer this question this study pools two cross‐sectional surveys, collected shortly before and after the 2011 terrorist attacks, to determine the attacks' effects on people's attitudes. One important finding is that general support for the institutions responsible for security increased slightly, whereas specific support for government agencies capability to prevent and cope with crises decreased markedly. A second important finding concerns the potential for politicisation of crises: On issues of security, the distance between right‐wing voters and other party voters increased after the attack. Irrespective of party attachment, Norwegians have become less satisfied with governmental policies on security‐related issues, but dissatisfaction has increased significantly more among right‐wing than among left‐wing voters. Thus, even in a country where politicians responded to the crisis with an appeal to togetherness and common values, citizens' attitudes on security policies were politicised.

The question raised in this article concerns the impact of local associational life on citizens' attitudes towards local government. Our case is Norway. The empirical analysis reveals that citizens tend to be less approving of their local councillors where there is a high density of local voluntary associations. We conclude that a differentiated associational infrastructure provides a channel through which local decision makers can be held to account, and that a vibrant associational life brings about an environment where the public sphere is to some degree performing its role as scrutinisers of local authorities.

Résumé Le présent article examine deux questions. Premièrement, quelles sont les idées et les politiques ou programmes en matière de vieillissement actif en Norvège et au Royaume-Uni ? Deuxièmement, les deux pays ont-ils une approche différente et, dans l'affirmative, pourquoi ? L'étude est divisée en quatre parties. Nous chercherons d'abord à définir un cadre institutionnel pour l'analyse des politiques en matière de vieillissement actif. Ensuite, nous esquisserons brièvement les défis démographiques et sociaux auxquels font face la Norvège et le Royaume-Uni. La troisième partie décrira de façon empirique les idées et politiques en matière de vieillissement actif qui ont cours dans les deux pays. Enfin, nous analyserons les résultats de l'étude afin d'en tirer des conclusions. S'appuyant sur des publications secondaires et sur des rapports commandés dans les deux pays, sur des données statistiques, sur des entretiens avec d'importants acteurs politiques norvégiens et sur les travaux d'un groupe d'experts norvégiens, le présent article prouve que la Norvège et le Royaume-Uni appartiennent à des types différents d'État-providence et d'économie politique et adoptent et favorisent en conséquence des conceptions et des politiques différentes en matière de vieillissement actif. Néanmoins, l'analyse révèle également des positions politiques parallèles, telles que l'importance croissante accordée au marché du travail et aux mesures d'activation et, sur le plan réglementaire, le renforcement des liens entre les contributions et les prestations. Ces évolutions politiques indiquent qu'il faut également tenir compte de la diffusion des idées, des idéologies et des solutions politiques par-delà les frontières nationales. De surcroît, les paysages institutionnels peuvent changer.

This article raises two questions: first, which active ageing ideas and policies/programmes can be identified in Norway and the UK? Second, do the two countries act differently, and if so why? The analysis is divided into four parts. First, we formulate an institutional framework for analysing active ageing policies. We then briefly map the demographic and social challenges in both Norway and the UK. The third part presents an empirical description of active ageing ideas and policies in the two countries. Finally, the findings are discussed and conclusions drawn. Based on secondary literature and commissioned reports in both countries, country‐specific statistics, interviews with Norwegian key policy actors, and a Norwegian expert panel debate, the article demonstrates that Norway and the UK belong to different types of welfare states and political economies and consequently adhere to and promote different conceptualisations and policies of active ageing. However, the analysis also finds parallel policy positions in terms of an increasing focus on the labour market and activation measures and a stronger normative linkage between contributions and benefits. These policy developments indicate that we also have to take into consideration the diffusion of ideas, ideologies, and policy solutions across national boundaries. In addition, institutional landscapes may change.

This article raises two questions: first, which active ageing ideas and policies/programmes can be identified in Norway and the UK? Second, do the two countries act differently, and if so why? The analysis is divided into four parts. First, we formulate an institutional framework for analysing active ageing policies. We then briefly map the demographic and social challenges in both Norway and the UK. The third part presents an empirical description of active ageing ideas and policies in the two countries. Finally, the findings are discussed and conclusions drawn. Based on secondary literature and commissioned reports in both countries, country-specific statistics, interviews with Norwegian key policy actors, and a Norwegian expert panel debate, the article demonstrates that Norway and the UK belong to different types of welfare states and political economies and consequently adhere to and promote different conceptualisations and policies of active ageing. However, the analysis also finds parallel policy positions in terms of an increasing focus on the labour market and activation measures and a stronger normative linkage between contributions and benefits. These policy developments indicate that we also have to take into consideration the diffusion of ideas, ideologies, and policy solutions across national boundaries. In addition, institutional landscapes may change. Adapted from the source document.