Suchergebnisse

Denne artikkelen retter oppmerksomheten mot utviklingstrekk i landbruks- og fiskeripolitikken i Norge og EU etter iverksettingen av EØS-avtalen i 1994. Det argumenteres for at politikken på begge områder har blitt likere, og dette forklares ut fra at både Norge og EU må forholde seg til de samme internasjonale avtalene, at begge deler mange av de samme ideene angående hva som god politikk og at Norge i økende grad importerer lover og regler fra EU. Avslutningsvis argumenteres det med at fortsatt EØS-tilknytning vil være langt mindre utfordrende for landbruks- og fiskerinæringene enn en ny frihandelsavtale eller et EU-medlemskap.
Abstract in English:Agriculture and Fisheries in Norway. Outside, but Increasingly Inside the EU?This article draws attention to developments in agricultural and fisheries policy in Norway and the EU after the implementation of the EEA Agreement in 1994. It is argued that the policy in both areas has become more similar, and this is explained by the fact that both Norway and the EU must follow the same international agreements, that both share many of the same ideas regarding what constitutes proper policies, and that Norway is increasingly importing laws and regulations from the EU. In conclusion, it is argued that continued EEA association will be far less challenging for the agricultural and fishing industries than a new free trade agreement or EU membership.

Food security has emerged as a relatively new policy issue in agricultural policy making in developed countries. This policy problem is addressed within an institutional landscape in which agricultural ideas and institutions are well‐established. In this article, food security policy making in Australia and Norway is compared. In Australia, agricultural normalism (agricultural markets and production are considered to be similar to those of other economic sectors) has been dominant since the mid‐1980s, while Norwegian agricultural policy making has been dominated by agricultural exceptionalism (agriculture is considered a unique economic sector with special market and production conditions). It is demonstrated in the article how these two opposing institutionalised ideational foundations have influenced the nature of the food security debate in the two countries. In Australia, the debate emphasises the positive role of the market and trade in providing global food security. In Norway, the debate highlights the need to regulate market forces and restrict trade in order to allow countries to develop their own agricultural sectors.

AbstractThis article contributes to the Historical Institutionalism literature on stability and change by unpacking how an institution has persisted for more than 70 years despite substantial contextual changes. The overall stability of the institution comes both through changes in policy instruments and their settings, and through the incorporation of differing, but aligned rationales. Ideational multidimensionality yields stability by providing leeway to recondition the institution in response to changing circumstances. This allows for different interests in the coalition to stimulate overall institutional stability by supporting incremental changes in policy instruments whilst avoiding institutional exhaustion and third order changes. This shows that policies initiated under a certain set of circumstances may be better equipped to persist when circumstances change if they are able to incorporate differing, but aligned, rationales and to respond to upcoming issues through policy instrument changes. The theoretical arguments are exemplified through a case study analysis of Norwegian agricultural policy.