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}}
Leder
(side 320-322)
av Cathrine Holst
(side 323-335)
av Einar Lie
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

I 1967 ble folketrygdfondet opprettet,; vel tjue år senere ble Oljefondet, i dag kalt Statens pensjonsfond utland, etablert. Fondene har til felles at de skulle sikre nasjonens velstand og sparing på lang sikt. Men ellers er det lite som likner. Artikkelen går inn i forarbeidene til de to fondene i politikk og administrasjon. Den viser hvordan flere av de reglene som oljefondet er omgitt av, ble laget for å unngå å gjenta de nedslående erfaringene som ble gjort med folketrygdfondet.

National savings and government funds

This article presents the background of the establishment of the Norwegian national insurance fund (Folketrygdfondet) in 1967 and the Petroleum Fund of Norway more than twenty years later. The two funds had similar objectives; to provide savings and resources available for future spending. Still, their structure and functioning differ radically. The former fund is mark by the context of the 1960s, with regulated credit and capital markets and a distinct post-war thinking around savings and investments. The latter is produced within the framework of liberalized markets for savings and capital. But the large differences between the funds are also a product of the ways the national insurance fund was managed and mismanaged. When constructing the petroleum fund, Government advisors did all they could to make this fund as different as possible from the previous one.

(side 337-348)
av Halvard Leira og Ulf Sverdrup
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

Den norske utenrikspolitiske debatten foregår med skylapper, den ene kalt «interesser», den andre kalt «idealer». Og til tross for begrepsmessig oppdatering de siste årene, er skylappene relativt gamle. Så lenge det ikke tukles for mye med bistanden eller de atlantiske båndene, eller legges for liten vekt på fred og menneskerettigheter, kan alle slutte opp om «stø kurs» og utenrikspolitisk konsensus. Debatten fanger imidlertid i svært liten grad opp at Norge nå er et land med store og stadig økende internasjonale engasjementer. Med nordmenn og norske investeringer spredd over hele kloden endres også Norges utenrikspolitikk. Norge er ikke lenger en tilskuer, men en deltaker i internasjonal politikk. Nye muligheter skapes, men også nye risikoer, og dette bør gjenspeiles i det norske ordskiftet.

Norwegian foreign policy interests - New practice but old debate

The Norwegian discussion on foreign policy seems to be stuck in an old pattern. In spite of some recent attempts at modernizing the debate, the traditional separation between, 'interests' and 'ideals' remains strong. There is still a broad consensus on the key aspects of Norwegian foreign policy, apart from the occasional stir related to development aid, transatlantic relations and peace and reconciliation. However, we argue that the foreign policy debate has largely been ignoring the recent transformation of Norway, due to the increased scale and scope of the internationalization of Norwegian society, government and businesses. The Norwegian government is now an active player on the international scene, and the Norwegian Government Pension fund has become a world leading investor. And as tourists, Norwegians are now spread all over the globe. These changes are likely to have significant implications for Norwegian foreign policy. It creates new possibilities, but it also poses new challenges and risks. The public discourse on foreign policy should mirror this transformation.

(side 349-358)
av Benedicte Carlsen og Julie Riise
SammendragEngelsk sammendrag

Samfunnsplanleggeren vil typisk ønske å holde kostnadene i helsevesenet under kontroll slik at det også finnes penger til andre gode formål. Pasienten vil på den annen side ønske å få den best mulige behandlingen, uavhengig av hva den koster. Hva hver enkelt lege beslutter i møte med sine pasienter, er avgjørende for den faktiske prioriteringen i helsevesenet. Denne artikkelen handler om hvordan norske fastleger forholder seg til disse motsetningene i praksis.

Patient welfare or cost consideration: General practitioners' dilemma

Prioritisation and rationing in the health sector is of great current interest and an increasingly debated issue. Norwegian doctors advocates for taking their territory back, and for increased autonomy in clinical decision making. On this backdrop we ask; what would the consequence of such an initiative be for implicit prioritisation through clinical choices? Available literature provides little insight into medical doctors' clinical choices when they are required to make complex trade-offs between different concerns simultaneously. We investigate this through a discrete choice experiment conducted with 284 Norwegian general practitioners, capturing preferences for medications described along five dimensions important for both clinical decision-making and prioritisation in the health sector. Effectiveness is the most important determinant of choice in our study, but considerable weight is also put on patients' preferences and on avoiding high total costs. Although there is considerable heterogeneity in the results, it turns out that on average GPs are willing to make difficult trade-offs between concerns they are often assumed not to be willing to compromise on, like effectiveness, patient preferences, or cost measures - given that they have proper information about these attributes.

Fremragende?
(side 359-369)
av Dag Haug
Kommentar
(side 371-377)
av Øyvind Østerud
Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon