Some features of this site may not work without it Levere masteroppgave til DUO i Studentweb. Logg på med brukernavn og passord for å levere. Detaljert veiledning for levering Det lastes opp både word-fil og pdf-fil av masteroppgaven. Logg deg inn med ditt brukernavn Gjer deg viss på kva brukarnamn og passord du har ved UiO. Tittelen du skriv inn kjem på karakterutskrift, vitnemål og i DUO vitenarkiv Da vil DUO vitenarkiv få oversikt over studenter som leverer oppgave sammen slik at de kan lenke mellom identiske oppgaver
However, there may be grounds to differentiate between an active industrial and active financial ownership. By industrial ownership, we refer to the fact that the owners have opinions about the operation of the company, such as markets, technology, vertical integration, and so on. By active financial ownership, we refer to the owners stipulating requirements for profitability, returns, capital structure, and transparency.Yr molde
Institutional owners are usually relegated to an active financial ownership; the same usually applies to companies with diversified ownership. Large parts of the corporate governance literature deal with this type of active ownership. In companies with concentrated ownership, one usually sees a combination of industrial and financial ownership. The state is dominant in the companies we are discussing here, so it is a concentrated ownership; nevertheless, the state acts as an institutional owner.
It is a firmly established principle that the state shall not interfere with the operation of the companies, but limit itself to an active financial ownership. Another important trend from the 1990s and beyond was that several players in business and industry came forward to praise and support extensive state ownership, as long as it was conducted in a professional manner.
Many have stressed the value of the state as a long-term owner at a time when managers and investors were mostly concerned with the next quarterly figures. Finally, in 2001, the non-socialist parties formed a government with support from the Progress Party, a party that had been a consistent opponent of state ownership since it was established in the 1970s.
The party wanted to keep a large enough share in most companies to protect against a takeover, but believed that ownership could be significantly reduced in several companies, and expected support from the Progress Party.
However, the Progress Party changed its platform in 2002 on the grounds that the Norwegian state had a wealth of money in its Petroleum Fund. With this, the Progress Party became the final party in the Norwegian political landscape to embrace state ownership and the Hydro model.
Equally importantly in our context, these two arguments have been central to the justification for the extensive state ownership in Norway. To cover the last point first, in other countries a common argument for privatizing state industry was that the state needed money; this is not the case in Norway. This is an expression of the fact that Norway is a country of modest economic differences.
A good picture of this was provided in the book Staten som kapitalist The state as capitalist from 2014.
One of the arguments for reducing the wealth tax in Norway is in fact to create Norwegian ownership centers Fasting, 2013; Vinje, 2014. One can only speculate whether this type of argument would be better received if state ownership in Norway was perceived as more problematic.
It is also essential as perhaps the most decisive reason for considerable state ownership in Norway today. In the same way as Grønlie claimed with the public corporations, the model is acceptable to both supporters and opponents of a strong state.
Herein lies the background for much of the broad political support of state ownership and the Hydro model. Those who are skeptical to a strong state perceive the model and partial privatization of Telenor and Statoil as the state becoming smaller. Supporters of state involvement see this as a way to ensure that the state plays an important role and retains control. Although we could indicate this as a partial conclusion—that state ownership is supported for different reasons—we still know too little about how the attitudes regarding state ownership vary over time among interest groups and parties.
It is difficult to know what the Labour Party believed and believes about questions of principle relating to how the market economy and capitalism work. One reason is that the party has embraced so many different groupings that there have been different perceptions. Moreover, the party has rarely seen any benefit to making clarifications of its principles. This certainly applied in the 1980s and 1990s, where the party became more positive toward the market, and correspondingly more skeptical toward active state business policy.
The Conservative Party, on the other hand, preferred to explain how and why private owners were valuable, and how and why state involvement could be problematic. However, the party is not as clear on why they support state ownership or, put differently, why the party believes that national ownership in certain companies is important.
This is even more reason for further research regarding which political motives and incentives lie behind the support of state ownership. Einar Lies is right that the state enjoys a high level of trust in Norway. At the same time, the very support for the Hydro model is an expression of a lack of trust that the state could run companies efficiently without contributions and corrections from private players and the market.
So, it is equally a question of confidence that the state will actually be able to comply with the principles of the Hydro model—or the principles of good corporate governance—in modern terms.
An important feature of Norwegian politics today is that the politicians place limitations on their freedom to take action, for example through the fiscal policy rule and corporate governance principles; the fact that the state ties itself to the mast. A more positive angle on this is that the politicians are able to stick to guidelines over time, and that they can be trusted. Therefore, further research should take a closer look at the causes of this. This is, for example, important for the question of whether this model is suitable in other countries.
The Labour Party was always a proponent of state companies having a greater degree of freedom, both to avoid parliamentary responsibility, but also to ensure the companies had commercial freedom.
It should also be mentioned that the state had considerable influence over the largest companies in the post-war era anyway, through negotiations and agreements on leasing power, licenses, tax conditions, and so on.
This secured the state an influence that made it unnecessary to activate the ownership in the companies.
This changed from the 1980s. Firstly, the requirement for transparency and equal treatment became more important, which meant that the state could not use leasing power, licenses and regulation to the same extent as policy instruments to influence the companies. Furthermore, the state had relatively less influence in companies such as Hydro, Yara and Telenor, where increasingly large parts of the operations took place abroad.
Several people have questioned whether it is right for the state to own companies with such extensive foreign operations. An important question in this context will then be what value these companies have for Norwegian business, industry, and society in general. This would be a natural area for further research. Finally, state ownership should be placed in the international research as regards it being a de facto expression of a concentrated ownership in the companies, while the exercise of governance is characterized by being a small institutional owner.
One thing is that this could yield weak governance of the companies—that the state is not watchful enough. Another is that the state becomes reluctant to have an opinion as owner out of fear of violating the principles of sound corporate governance.
If state ownership is linked with state weakness, it could lose its support over time. There should, therefore, be more research on the different preconditions for both the state ownership and for governance. References Aftenposten 1987, 3 November. Aftenposten 1991, 12 November. Aftenposten 1993, 28 October.
Splittelse i Stortinget om aksjesalg, p.
Aftenposten 2002a, 19 August. Staten forsikring mot norsk Enron, p. Aftenposten, 2002b, 8 June, FrP blokkerer statlig nedsalg, p. Aftenposten, 2014, 8 November. Det statlige eierskapet i Norge er oppsiktsvekkende vellykket, p.https://lndc.us/smerter-i-vre-del-av-magen-og-ryggen.php
Fra vesen til virksomhet: Et tilbakeblikk på erfaringene med fristilte statlige virksomheter. Høgres syn på statleg eigarskap i norsk oljeverksemd 1970—1984. Master thesis in history, University of Oslo, 2014. Palgrave Macmillan. The Politics of Growth. Economic Regulation in Sweden 1930—1994 Thesis. University College of Eskilstuna. Bergens Tidende 1995, 1 June. Frykter maktkonsentrasjonen, p. Bergens Tidende 1996, 2 November.
Fire år har gått siden Eriksen skrev masteroppgaven «Rekonstruksjon og autentisitet: Et studium av autentisitetsaspektet i arkeologiske rekonstruksjoner, med Borg i Lofoten som eksempel». I ettertid har oppgaven blitt lastet ned 441 ganger. I oppgaven drøfter Eriksen autentisitetsbegrepet, som betyr «opprinnelig» eller «ekthet». Masteravhandlingen diskuterer også på hvilken måte arkeologiske rekonstruksjoner kan være autentiske, og hvordan forholdet mellom rekonstruksjon og autentisitet kan påvirkes av faktorer som økonomi og turisme.
Vet ikke hvorfor Tross masteroppgavens popularitet, har Eriksen fått få tilbakemeldinger på oppgaven.
Hun er usikker på hvorfor akkurat hennes oppgave har vakt så stor oppsikt etter den fikk leve fritt på DUO. Bruk komma som skiljeteikn, til dømes "inflasjon, økonomisk krise,". Stikkorda vert søkbare i DUO vitenarkiv og på nett, og skal gjere det lettare for alle interesserte å finne oppgåva di. Klikk på den grøne "Vidare"-knappen Last opp fil er Klikk på knappen "vel fil" Legg til riktig versjon av masteroppgåva di. Du må laste opp oppgåvefila i PDF-format.
Du kan berre laste opp ei oppgåvefil. Du kan òg laste opp vedlegg som høyrer til oppgåva, og eventuelt originalfiler Word, LaTex, Open Office Lasta du opp feil fil, kan du slette ho ved å klikke på knappen 'Slett fil'. Klikk på den grøne "Vidare"-knappen når du er ferdig. Bestem tilgjengelegheit Viss du gjer oppgåva tilgjengeleg i DUO vitenarkiv vil oppgåva vere søkbar og tilgjengeleg på internett. Dersom du vel å ikkje gjere oppgåva ope tilgjengeleg, er det berre forfattar, oppgåvetittel og eventuelt samandrag som vert søkbart, men ikkje sjølve masteroppgåva.
Kva vil det seie å tilgjengeleggjere oppgåva i DUO? Vel om oppgåva di og eventuelle vedlegg skal vere tilgjengelege i DUO vitenarkiv. Hak av dersom oppgåva skal vere klausulert grunna teieplikt.
Dette er eksempler hvor kandidaten med ferdig bachelor innen finans okonomi eller markedsforing kan utforme cv en. En cv forteller arbeidsgiveren hvem du er hva du har gjort og hvilke kvalifikasjoner du har pa en enkel og grei mate. Lag et profesjonelt folgebrev raskt og enkelt.
Masteroppgaven er en eksamensbesvarelse, og da vil studie- og eksamensregelverket avgjøre når sensuren er endelig.
Studenten leverer oppgaven til sensur. Studenten skal få sensurresultatet etter inntil 8 uker. Studenten har rett til å be om begrunnelse. Fristen er en uke etter kunngjøring av sensurresultatet. UiO har to ukers frist til å gi begrunnelse. Studenten har rett til å klage på resultatet. Fristen er tre uker etter at eventuell begrunnelse er mottatt.
Dette blir til sammen 14 uker 98 dager, og bestått oppgave kan bli gjort tilgjengelig i de tilfellene vi vet at studenten ikke har benyttet klageretten.
Ha dette klart før du startar leveringa Nyttar du nettlesaren Internet explorer? Den kan fungere dårleg når du skal levere - bruk ein annan nettlesar. Gjer deg viss på kva brukarnamn og passord du har ved UiO. Veit du det ikkje, sjå korleis du hentar brukarnamn og set nytt passord. Kontakt Student-IT på fakultetet. Tittelen du skriv inn kjem på karakterutskrift, vitnemål og i DUO vitenarkiv. Samandrag, dersom du vil gjere det tilgjengeleg for alle i DUO vitenarkiv.