
Ivar Jonsson
Related Authors
Han van Kammen
Aalborg University
Adam Grydehoj
South China University of Technology
Rasmus Bertelsen
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Magdalena Tomala
Kielce University of Technology
Erik S . Reinert
Tallinn University of Technology
Timo Koivurova
Arctic Centre
欣宇 王
LUISS Guido Carli
Rauna Kuokkanen
University of Lapland
Whitney Lackenbauer
Trent University
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Ivar Jonsson
process in which colonialised people struggle for sovereignty and independence.
Home rule is a form of the state according to which some functions of the state of a
sovereign independent nation, the colonial power, have been taken over and
institutionalised locally by the colonised nation, but which at the same time is
intended to secure the ideological hegemony and territorial and military rule of the
colonial power. The colonial power is secured in the last instance the monopoly of
violence (M. Weber) and the trajectory of development, usually in an Eurocentric
form of modernisation. In that sense the home rule orders, as political systems,
resemble colonial relations. In economic terms, home rule orders go beyond colonial
relations as the colonised people are granted economic freedom to trade freely on the
world market and to tax local enterprises. In reality there is a strong tendency towards
the reproduction of colonial economic relations, due to uneven development and
'organisational dependency' (I. Jonsson 1996),. We will discuss this tendency in the
following section, but first we will discuss the concept of statehood and then compare
state functions of sovereign independent states with the present home rule regime in
Greenland.
In this paper, we will discuss nationalism in relation to nation building in the era of globalism, which is characterised by changing role of the state and changing patterns of hegemony in international relations. We will focus on the West-Nordic countries, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland in order to concretise our theoretical discussion and to take into account the particular characteristics of microsocieties that are or have been in the process of becoming microstates.
process in which colonialised people struggle for sovereignty and independence.
Home rule is a form of the state according to which some functions of the state of a
sovereign independent nation, the colonial power, have been taken over and
institutionalised locally by the colonised nation, but which at the same time is
intended to secure the ideological hegemony and territorial and military rule of the
colonial power. The colonial power is secured in the last instance the monopoly of
violence (M. Weber) and the trajectory of development, usually in an Eurocentric
form of modernisation. In that sense the home rule orders, as political systems,
resemble colonial relations. In economic terms, home rule orders go beyond colonial
relations as the colonised people are granted economic freedom to trade freely on the
world market and to tax local enterprises. In reality there is a strong tendency towards
the reproduction of colonial economic relations, due to uneven development and
'organisational dependency' (I. Jonsson 1996),. We will discuss this tendency in the
following section, but first we will discuss the concept of statehood and then compare
state functions of sovereign independent states with the present home rule regime in
Greenland.
In this paper, we will discuss nationalism in relation to nation building in the era of globalism, which is characterised by changing role of the state and changing patterns of hegemony in international relations. We will focus on the West-Nordic countries, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland in order to concretise our theoretical discussion and to take into account the particular characteristics of microsocieties that are or have been in the process of becoming microstates.
In this dissertation, we analyse the contemporary theoretical debate on ‘neo-corporatism’. This object of study requires interdisciplinary approach as it is to be explained by economic, political, ideological and cultural factors. Our aim is threefold: 1) to give a relatively detailed description of the different theories and definitions of neo-corporatism or ‘liberal corporatism’ as it also often called; 2) to give our own definition of the concept of paradigm and discuss different theories of paradigms and; 3) to sketch alternative outlines of a paradigm for analysis of neo-corporatism.
As we are dealing with an interdisciplinary object and different theories of it, our main research theme is ‘thematic paradigm discussion’ and reflection on the different paradigms of the contemporary debate on neo-corporatism. We approach our problem in three main parts. The first part deals with the immediate forms of appearance of neo-corporatism and the different theoretical definitions of it. In the second part, we analyse the different explanatory models of neo-corporatism and discuss our model of paradigms. The third concluding part deals with our own alternative theoretical point of departure for analysis of neo-corporatism.
Report´s concluding remarks:
This report focused on the social economy in Iceland in 2005 and compared it with the social economy of other countries. This sector of the economy has been called many different names, such as the non-profit sector, non-governmental organizations, the third sector and the social economy. These different concepts have in common that they refer to an activity that does neither belong to the public sector nor the private sector that consists of private limited companies, limited liability companies or partnerships. Research and discussion on this sector has for a long time been over-shadowed by emphasis on the public welfare systems and the ideology of the superiority of market capitalism. In recent years, however, research has increased on this sector in Western countries and they suggest that the social economy and non-profit making activity is significant and growing.
The size and scope of the social economy in Iceland has received little attention and research in this field lays far behind that of the neighbouring countries. Public sector data collection is also unsatisfactory. Registration of this sector is not sufficiently consistent and companies are not classified by International standards such as, for example, the ICNPO standard of the United Nations.
A systematic study of the scope and scale of the social economy in Iceland has not been executed so far, neither in terms of neither turnover nor concerning the number of person-years in the sector. However, research has been carried out on particular sub-sectors of the social economy, such as, cooperatives, but an overall view is lacking.
A more complete picture of the social economy would undoubtedly undermine the simplistic picture of the economy that propagators of the market economy draw up and their skewed ideas of economies´ development opportunities.
This report has attempted to classify the social economy according to the ICNPO standard, but it is clear that more accurate sorting needs to be done in order to create a more realistic picture of its scope and scale. Furthermore, it needs to be investigated which companies in the Icelandic social economy are actually active and which companies are inactive. Finally, a systematic assessment of the turnover and the number of person-years of the active companies in this sectors needs to be performed. Such observations are central for assessing the importance of the social economy in the economy, so that in the future, governments can make effective policies concerning this sector. This is also important so that companies and organizations have better grounds for assessing their opportunities for growth and development.
The report shows that there are over 18,000 societies and organisations in the non-profit sector of Iceland. This great number suggests that regional grass-root activity is high in Iceland, as the total number of active members of non-profit organisations and societies is large and they cover very different areas of activity.
There are indications that the turnover of companies in various areas of the social economy is substantial. The turnover of housing societies may account to 5 billion kronas (ISK) per year. Assistance organizations and rescue forces have a turnover of 1.5 billion ISK per year. Employees' and employers' interest groups turnover around 750 million ISK annually.
The annual turnover of cooperatives is around 27 billion ISK and self-owning organizations is around 6 billion ISK. Furthermore, if the turnover of pension funds and savings banks is included in the figures, the turnover of the social economy in Iceland was around 515 billion kronas in 2005, or 51.7% compared to Iceland´s GDP.
It is estimated that in the European Union, around 8% of full-time employees work in the non-profit sector. It is not known what this ratio is in Iceland. More is known about the scale of Icelanders involvement in voluntary work compared to other countries. It appears in the report that Icelanders do not do as much voluntary work as one does in neighbouring countries. However, Icelanders, are above average compared to other countries in areas such as charity and charity organizations, trade unions, political organizations and sports and recreational activities.
Looking at participation in voluntary work in terms of the ratio of the population that is enrolled in voluntary organisations, it appears that this ratio is rather high. The membership ratio is greater in Iceland than in the average of sample countries in areas such as charities, parishes and service clubs. The same goes for membership in religious organizations, trade unions, political organizations, professional and/or specialist societies, sports clubs and leisure activities.
The report finally addresses questions concerning people's motivation for participation in the non-profit sector. Research in this area has not been conducted in Iceland and therefore we do not know whether motivations are different in Iceland compared to other countries.
The works of Karl Marx are among the most influential works in the history of social sciences. Despite the fact that they were written in the 19th century and ailing communist regimes in the 20th century claimed that there political systems and ideology were based on his theories, Marx’s works are still today widely read and quoted by social scientists and philosophers. Following the increased polarisation of Western
societies since the 1980s, particularly in the last decade, interest in Marx is rising and the number of university courses that deal with his thought is increasing.
The works of Marx are wide ranging in scope. He wrote
poems, studied mathematics, published philosophical and
political articles and books that dealt with political economy. In this book, we will concentrate on those aspects of Marx's texts that relate to what we prefer to call theories of science or ‘metascience’, i.e. the epistemics (ontology and epistemology) of the texts in question and the historiography of science which we will find in the texts.
Concerning epistemics we will highlight problems such
as:
a) the dialectical world view of Marx and his inversion of Hegel's philosophy (the relationship between humanity and nature, human essence, determinism and process-ontology);
b) Marx's 'project' or disciplinary aims, referring to the motives of his theoretical practice and its relation to political activity;
c) Marx's critique of the dominant philosophy (i.e. in Germany Hegelianism) and political economy;
d) Marx's view of the existing sciences, referring to their philosophical premises as well as the relationship between science and society;
e) Marx's criteria of science and his view of 'ideal' science.
We will approach these five main topics by looking at some of his main works as they appear chronologically and we will do it in two main steps. In the following second chapter we will highlight Marx's early writings and at the end of it we will concentrate on his and F. Engels's work German Ideology. The works that we concentrate on in that chapter are to be characterized as a metacritique of the political philosophy of Hegel, the Young Hegelians and political economy.
The third chapter covers, with reference to German Ideology, the Works which Marx wrote in 1857/58 and after.
Interpretation of Marx's writings is a hermeneutical and practical problem. Objectivist (R.J. Bernstein 1983, pp. 8-16) interpretations tend to claim to understand what Marx "really meant". Two approaches of this kind are quite usual. On the one side, we have internalist approaches which either attempt to find the origin of Marx's theories within the sphere of theoretical practice (i.e. his work is seen as a transformation or synthesis of some other theoretical systems, c.f. the philosophy of Aristotle, Hegel, Young Hegelians and political economy) - or we have
internalist approaches in the form of teleological interpretations that see Marx's academic career and works inevitably ending and aiming at particular works (c.f. Althusser's and Balibar’s (1998) 'reading' of Marx's works through Capital). On the other side, we have externalist interpretations that reduce his work to external factors such as political practice or the 'world view' of certain social group or classes (c.f. G. Lukács) that Marx came into contact with or worked with.
We do not adhere to these methodological canons. Our point of departure is that Marx's work must be seen as a result of his practical context in which his political 'project' (in the wider existential sense) is most interesting. His political 'project' (i.e. his act of relating himself to interests of social groups and contexts etc.), must however be understood as nothing more than our abstraction and does not imply any theory of its inner structure of necessity. Marx's 'project' and theoretical
problematique at particular time in his development is an 'open' project and an open problematique that has the potential of being formed differently according to his active interiorization of his practical situation and shifting contexts. The practical situation consists both of theoretical and philosophical traditions that he in an active way bases his thought on - and social interests and forces which he attempts to join. Accordingly, we would like to approach the development of his thought as a process of ‘structuration’ in which he actively structures his thought (see A. Giddens (1993) for a discussion of the concept of structuration and J. Coopley et.al. (2001) and R. Bhaskar (1978 and 1979) for arguments for critical realist methodology).
Furthermore, as Marx's work is a result of an open project our own understanding is only a 'fusion' of our horizons and interests on the one side and Marx's horizons on the other side, as they appear to us. This does not mean that we claim to impute meaning in Marx's work. We are only sticking to Our hermenutical position which is dialogical (see H.-G. Gadamer 1977). Knowledge and understanding is a matter of praxis.