Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Klikk her for for å skjule denne meldingen
Ikke pålogget
{{session.user.firstName}} {{session.user.lastName}}
Du har tilgang til Idunn gjennom , & {{sessionPartyGroup.name}}
Forord
(side 257)
Artikkel
Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 259-279)
av Nora Rodin
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

Artikkelen tar for seg skippere fra Nedenes og deres deltagelse i den norske sjøfartshandelen i årene 1782–1786. Med utgangspunkt i de norske tollprotokollene i perioden, vil artikkelen vise at det eksisterte en klar arbeidsdeling blant skipperne i distriktet. Stort sett har hver skipper holdt seg til å enten seile mellom norske havner med jernmalm, mellom Norge og Danmark med trelast og jern den ene veien, og korn og diverse mat- og forbruksvarer den andre veien, eller med trelast og fransk vin og brennevin til utlandet. Kun få skippere har seilt i flere typer sjøfart i løpet av perioden.

The article examines the skippers from Nedenes and their participation in the Norwegian maritime trade in the years 1782-1786. Based on the Norwegian customs protocols of the period, the article shows that there was a clear division in labour between the district’s skippers. Most skippers sailed either between Norwegian ports with iron ore, between Norway and Denmark with timber and iron one way, and grains and various food and consumer goods in the other direction, or to Europe with timber and French wines and spirits. Only a few skippers participated in more than one maritime branch during the period.

Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 280-307)
av Espen Olavsson Hårseth
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

Denne artikkelen tar for seg avisen Folk og Land, utgivelsen som påberopte seg å være de landssvikdømtes organ i etterkrigstiden. Undersøkelsen dekker perioden hvor avisen ble drevet som en profesjonell utgivelse, årene 1952–1975. Tidligere publiserte arbeider har poengtert at dette miljøet favnet høyst ulike og til dels motstridende interesser. Det dreier seg da i hovedsak om et skille mellom interessene som ønsket å avgrense arbeidet til fremme for juridisk og historisk revisjon av rettsoppgjøret, og aktører som i tillegg ønsket å legge grunnlaget for et nyfascistisk framstøt. Artikkelen presenterer hvem som kom til å representere de ulike interessene i avisen og forsøker å forklare hvorfor styrkeforholdet mellom de ulike interessene endret seg med årene, og hvordan dette farget avisens redaksjonelle profil.1

The first organised fascist group in Norway after the war, National Youth League (Nasjonal Ungdomsfylking), eventually became a dominant player within the editorial office. This acquisition led to a conflict between those who originally had simply wished for a revision of the post-war reckoning, and those who sought to further the ideological struggle of National Unity. The revisionists reorganised themselves into the Institute for Norwegian Occupation History (Institutt for Norsk Okkupasjonshistorie), and the neo-fascist wing was soon outmanoeuvred within the group of veterans. Nevertheless, the guidance of the veterans of National Unity had still helped shape the first post-war generation of Norwegian fascists. After the breakup of the old guard, immediate measures were taken to form the first fascist party in Norway after the war.

Tema: Norges Bank
Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 309-335)
av Ola Mestad
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

I historia til Noregs Bank har organiseringa vore viktig for å oppnå sentrale mål som monetær stabilitet og samstundes iallfall ein viss grad av politisk kontroll. Dette blei søkt nådd ved å la banken frå 1816 vere eit privat aksjeselskap med spesielle styringsordningar. Men stillinga til private aksjeeigarar var verna av grunnlova på ein måte som la skrankar for seinare politiske initiativ. Då staten overtok alle aksjane i 1949, blei det i staden spørsmål om ein særleg grunnlovsregel gav regjeringa krav på å kunne kontrollere og instruere banken. I den seinaste tida står dette opp mot den nyare internasjonale tendensen til at sentralbankar er meir uavhengige.

The main feature of the article is an analysis of the different legal structures used through the two-hundred year history of the Norwegian Central Bank (Norges Bank) and the legal constraints that those structures establish when seen in the context of constitutional law. In the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, no provision on a central bank was adopted, even if it had been proposed by several drafters. However, in the autumn of the same year, in preparation for the forced union with Sweden, a provision was put into the Constitution to preserve Norway’s monetary and banking autonomy against the possible amalgamation of institutions by Sweden. In 1816 Norges Bank was then founded based on international models as a private limited liability company with a monopoly to issue bank notes. The choice of organization was based on the goal of monetary stability. Since the establishment had to follow a forced model to establish the joint stock in the form of a silver fund, special rules on the organization were adopted, giving Parliament (the Storting) the right to appoint all members of the governing bodies of the bank. The shareholders, however, were the sole recipients of dividend at the outset. The article studies the different limitations that the constitutional protection of shareholders put on monetary policy. In 1949, an expropriation statute was adopted that, against compensation, transferred all shares to the state. This again raised questions of the constitutional prerogative of the government to control and instruct the management of state property. The prerogative question has two sides: one with respect to the role of the Storting, and another with respect to the independence of the bank itself. Recently the latter question has again come to the forefront, partly due to newer international policy trends of independent central banks.

Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 336-347)
av Tore Grønlie
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

Artikkelen diskuterer et hovedtema i Norges Banks historie – spenningen og balansen mellom politisk styring og institusjonell autonomi. Det er en utbredt oppfatning i offentligheten at Norges Bank har vært unik i sin posisjonering i dette grenselandet. Men i de senere år har vi fått en flora av statlige institusjoner, etater og bedrifter med i prinsippet den samme doble forutsetning: politisk styring og betydelig selvstendig beslutningsmakt. Så hvor særegen er og har Norges Bank vært? Forfatteren argumenterer for at Norges Bank i stor grad følger hovedlinjene i den allmenne styrings- og forvaltningspolitikken: mer styring fra krigens dager og frem mot 1980- og 90-årene, en mer differensiert utvikling derpå.

The author discusses a main theme in the History of the Bank of Norway: the balance and the tensions between political steering and institutional autonomy. In public life there has been, and still is, a widespread perception that the Bank of Norway holds a unique position at the threshold between politics and the freedom of independent decision making. In recent years, however, Norway has seen the creation of a host of state institutions, agencies and businesses that enjoy, in principle, the same double prerequisite: political direction and considerable autonomy. So, considering the period 1945-2016, how special has the Bank of Norway been? To answer the question, the author compares the development of the relationship between the Bank of Norway and political authorities with three groups of institutions over these years: first, directorates (government agencies of a general nature); secondly, government agencies with varying degrees of judicially specified decision-making autonomy, and thirdly, state businesses (limited liability companies and businesses organised under laws created more specifically to suit state purposes – «foretak»). He argues that, on a general level, both the provisions of political steering and the problems encountered and handled are, to a surprising degree, the same: they concern the drawing of boundaries between areas that should be an object of political decision and those that should be the exclusive domain of the institution, and the content and form of political direction. Furthermore, the Bank of Norway is not unique when it comes to the judicially specified limitations on the government’s right to political instruction. It shares with many other institutions the provision that political direction is appropriate only by the collective action of the cabinet (»regjeringen» – «Kongen i statsråd»). As a matter of fact, «on paper», it is granted less autonomy than many others in that political instruction is possible not only on general issues, but also in individual cases. The relationship between the bank and political authorities over the years is to a considerable degree consistent with the general lines of development of the national politics on constitutional and administrative affairs: steadily increasing political direction from 1945 to the 1980s and 90s, with a more differentiated approach more recently.

(side 348-352)
av Einar Lie, Jan Thomas Kobberrød og Eivind Thomassen
Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon