DOCSLIB.ORG

User Survey and Impact Assessment of the Norwegian Social Science Institutes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
User Survey and Impact Assessment of the Norwegian Social Science Institutes Final report, 2016-07-01 User survey and impact assessment of the Norwegian social science institutes Tobias Fridholm, Tomas Åström, Emma Ärenman and Lena Johansson de Château www.technopolis-group.com User survey and impact assessment of the Norwegian social science institutes technopolis |group| 1 July 2016 Tobias Fridholm, Tomas Åström, Emma Ärenman and Lena Johansson de Château Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Evaluation of the Norwegian social science research institutes ................................................................... 5 1.2 Supporting documentation for the evaluation............................................................................................... 7 1.3 The user survey and impact assessment ........................................................................................................ 7 1.4 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Method and empirical data............................................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Report structure ............................................................................................................................................ 15 2 User survey ........................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Motives for collaboration .............................................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Competence ................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Management.................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.4 Competitiveness ........................................................................................................................................... 30 3 Impact assessment ............................................................................................................................... 35 3.1 Overview of impact cases .............................................................................................................................. 35 3.2 Impact cases ................................................................................................................................................. 40 3.3 Impact from the users’ point of view ........................................................................................................... 48 3.4 Impact typology ............................................................................................................................................ 53 4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 56 4.1 Users’ assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 56 4.2 Impact assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 58 4.3 Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A Impact case studies .................................................................................................................60 Appendix B Classification of impact cases ................................................................................................. 83 Appendix C Interview guide ........................................................................................................................ 86 Appendix D Survey questionnaires ............................................................................................................. 93 i Summary The assignment reported herein was tasked with investigating the views of the users of the Norwegian social science institutes, and with providing an assessment of the societal impact of the institutes’ R&D. For the purposes of the assignment, users include both clients buying commercial services from the institutes and partners collaborating with the institutes in publically co-funded R&D projects. The survey is part of the background material for an evaluation of the social science institutes that is conducted by a Scandinavian panel of experts appointed by the Research Council of Norway (RCN). The assignment was carried out by Technopolis Group between January and July 2016. The social science institutes The social science institute sector, which comprises 22 institutes, is quite diverse. The institutes encompasses topics such as labour and social policy, health, welfare, education, industry, development, regional development, foreign policy, international conflicts, and global development. Some institutes have a profile towards basic research while others mainly conduct applied research, and the types of problems and methodological approaches varies significantly between institutes. However, they all have in common that organisations in the public sector are the most important sources of funding – either through funding of R&D projects from RCN or the European Commission, or as direct clients. To rationally deal with an immense amount of empirical data, we have grouped the institutes into three groups based on an overall assessment of their main characteristics: Four internationally oriented institutes Nine regionally anchored institutes Nine institutes in welfare and society Method and empirical data User survey The user survey was conducted through a web survey and through interviews. The web survey generated 620 responses, corresponding to a response rate of 25 percent. Almost four in five survey respondents are partners, and two out of three are based in Norway. More than half of respondents represent higher education institutions (HEIs) and research institutes (other than the social science institutes), and slightly more than a quarter represent the national, regional or local public sector. The survey response rates differ quite a bit between institutes, from 59 percent down to a mere 9 percent. We have conducted 78 telephone interviews, but since some interviews – mainly with key users in the national public sector – concerned more than one institute, the interviews encompass a total of 96 user–institute relationships. Slightly more than half of the interviewees represent the national, regional or local public sector, and a mere 6 percent are foreign, plainly due to very few institutes having very many foreign users that are not academic research partners (with presumed limited insight into the Norwegian institutes as such). Impact assessment The impact assessment was predominantly based on 71 impact cases submitted by the institutes at RCN’s request. RCN asked for societal impact, defined as any impact except impact on other R&D and impact on the institute’s own organisation. The impact assessment was inspired by the British Research Excellence Framework from 2014 (REF2014). For 15 impact cases, we engaged in additional data collection through document studies and interviews to be able to complement and elaborate the cases further, as well as to verify the information provided by the institutes. As a complement to the impact cases, we also used the web survey to collect data on user impact from working with the institutes. User survey and impact assessment of the Norwegian social science institutes 1 User survey The users of the institutes agree that accessing expertise is the most important motive for collaboration. This concerns subject-specific as well as methodological expertise, and in the case of regionally anchored institutes, region-specific knowledge. A clear majority of users are highly satisfied with the scientific and methodological competence of the institutes. This is true for all institute groups and all individual institutes, with the highest ratings going to the internationally oriented institutes, while the regionally anchored institutes lag behind in this respect. Users generally give lower scores for relevance of services than for scientific expertise. One reason for this may be that most users are in a better position to assess relevance and usefulness than scientific expertise, and therefore have higher demands. However, some users expect R&D services with less academic emphasis than they presently receive, meaning more adapted to their specific needs. Users see several reasons why the R&D results from the institutes are not as useful as they could be. Some reason that the institutes to a certain extent lack staff with experience from working in for example public agencies or companies. Others users argue that (small) institutes should cooperate more with other actors to make up for their size- and capacity-related weaknesses. Overall, clients give lower ratings to the institutes’
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norwegian Journal of Epidemiology Årgang 27, Supplement 1, Oktober 2017 Utgitt Av Norsk Forening for Epidemiologi
    1 Norsk Epidemiologi Norwegian Journal of Epidemiology Årgang 27, supplement 1, oktober 2017 Utgitt av Norsk forening for epidemiologi Redaktør: Trond Peder Flaten EN NORSKE Institutt for kjemi, D 24. Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, 7491 Trondheim EPIDEMIOLOGIKONFERANSEN e-post: [email protected] For å bli medlem av Norsk forening for TROMSØ, epidemiologi (NOFE) eller abonnere, send e-post til NOFE: [email protected]. 7.-8. NOVEMBER 2017 Internettadresse for NOFE: http://www.nofe.no e-post: [email protected] WELCOME TO TROMSØ 2 ISSN 0803-4206 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 3 Opplag: 185 PROGRAM FOR PARALLEL SESSIONS 5 Trykk: NTNU Grafisk senter Layout og typografi: Redaktøren ABSTRACTS 9 Tidsskriftet er åpent tilgjengelig online: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 86 www.www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/norepid Også via Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) Utgis vanligvis med to regulære temanummer pr. år. I tillegg kommer supplement med sammendrag fra Norsk forening for epidemiologis årlige konferanse. 2 Norsk Epidemiologi 2017; 27 (Supplement 1) The 24th Norwegian Conference on Epidemiology Tromsø, November 7-8, 2017 We would like to welcome you to Tromsø and the 24th conference of the Norwegian Epidemiological Association (NOFE). The NOFE conference is an important meeting point for epidemiologists to exchange high quality research methods and findings, and together advance the broad research field of epidemiology. As in previous years, there are a diversity of topics; epidemiological methods, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, nutrition, female health, musculo-skeletal diseases, infection and behavioral epidemiology, all within the framework of this years’ conference theme; New frontiers in epidemiology. The conference theme reflects the mandate to pursue methodological and scientific progress and to be in the forefront of the epidemiological research field.
    [Show full text]
  • Innkalling Og Forslag Til Saksliste HO21-Rådsmøte 28.02
    Til HelseOmsorg21-rådet Vår saksbehandler/tlf. Vår ref. Oslo, Hilde D.G. Nielsen, +4740922260/[email protected] 19/375 18.2.2019 Innkalling til HelseOmsorg21-rådsmøte 28.2.2019 (01/19) Vedlagt følger forslag til saksliste og sakspapirer til møte i HelseOmsorg21-rådet torsdag 28.2.2019 (01/19). Tid: kl 10.00 – 15.30. Sted: Forskningsrådet, Drammensveien 288, Lysaker. Vel møtt! Med vennlig hilsen Norges forskningsråd HelseOmsorg21-sekretariatet Hilde D. G. Nielsen, sekretariatsleder/spesialrådgiver Møte i HelseOmsorg21-rådet (01/19) Dato: Torsdag 28. februar 2019, kl 10.00 – 15.30 Sted: Forskningsrådet, Lysaker, møterom Abel 1 og 2 Saksliste Kl 10.00 – 10.15 Sak 01/19 Godkjenning av saksliste Sak 02/19 Godkjent referat Sak 03/19 Orienteringer Kl 10.15 – 11.00 Sak 04/19 Kunnskapssamarbeid med Kina Kl 11.00 – 12.00 Sak 05/19 Presentasjon og behandling av rapporten Research and Innovation for Better Health Lunsj kl 12.00-12.30 Kl 12.30 – 13.30 Sak 06/19 Presentasjon og behandling av sluttrapporten fra KSF Kort pause kl 13.30 – 13.45 Kl 13.45 - 14.45 Sak 07/19 HO21-rådets egenvurdering Kort pause kl 14.45 – 15.00 Kl 15.00 – 15.30 Sak 08/19 Orientering om status for arbeidet med stortingsmelding om innovasjon i offentlig sektor Kl 15.30 Sak 09/19 Eventuelt Saksfremlegg sak 02/19 – møte 01/19 Sak 02/19 Godkjent referat Type sak: Orienteringssak Til: HO21-rådet Fra: HO21-sekretariatsleder Hilde D.G. Nielsen Vedlegg: Godkjent referat fra møte 29.11.2018 (05/18) Referent: Sekretariatsleder Hilde D.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Gynaecology Healthcare Atlas 2015–2017 Helseatlas Hospital Referral Areas and Adjustment SKDE
    Gynaecology Healthcare Atlas 2015–2017 Helseatlas Hospital referral areas and adjustment SKDE The following fact sheets use the terms ‘hospital referral area’ and ‘adjusted for age’. These terms are explai- ned below. Aver. Hospital referral areas Inhabitants age Akershus 67% 201,911 47.2 The regional health authorities have a responsibility to provide satis- Vestre Viken 64% 196,644 48.6 Bergen 67% 178,531 46.7 factory specialist health services to the population in their catchment Innlandet 59% 166,569 50.3 area. In practice, it is the individual health trusts and private provi- Stavanger 70% 140,197 45.6 St. Olavs 66% 127,895 46.9 ders under a contract with a regional health authority that provide and Sørlandet 64% 120,307 47.8 Østfold 62% 119,927 49.2 perform the health services. Each health trust has a hospital referral OUS 72% 109,435 45.0 area that includes specific municipalities and city districts. Different Møre og Romsdal 61% 104,957 49.0 Vestfold 61% 95,564 49.3 disciplines can have different hospital referral areas, and for some ser- UNN 63% 77,413 48.2 Telemark 60% 71,665 49.8 vices, functions are divided between different health trusts and/or pri- Fonna 63% 70,749 48.2 vate providers. The Gynaecology Healthcare Atlas uses the hospital Hospital referral area Lovisenberg 84% 62,639 38.6 Diakonhjemmet 67% 59,811 46.3 referral areas for specialist health services for medical emergency ca- Nordland 61% 56,144 49.0 Nord-Trøndelag 61% 55,459 49.3 re.
    [Show full text]
  • Daming Jin Master Thesis
    Corporate Governance of Norwegian Health Trusts with Sector Political Goals Daming Jin Master thesis Department of Health Management and Health Economics UNIVERSITY OF OSLO May 15, 2011 SUMMARY Since 2002, the ownership of Norwegian hospitals has been centralized to the state. The four regional health authorities are responsible for the management of the hospitals, and the actual performance is done by the subsidiary health trusts (or HFs). As state-owned enterprises with certain sector political goals, the corporate governance of the health trusts is not exactly the same as private enterprises which mainly pursue pure business goals. The survey which the thesis uses investigates the HF board members’ opinions on some issues of sector political goals and corporate governance. The main purpose of this thesis is to find the differences of the opinions among different groups of HF board members, and to study whether the differences are consistent with relevant theories such as motivation and management theories. The data of the thesis is based on a questionnaire of the survey program Management of State-owned enterprises with sector political goals. The respondents of the survey cover all HF board members who are the target population of my research. Several quantitative methods, such as descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests, are chosen to detect the HF board members’ opinions and the differences of their opinions on the issues of sector political goals and corporate governance. The analyses mainly show that, the appointed board members with macro and broad perspective pay more attention to sector political goals than the employee representatives with micro and specific perspective do.
    [Show full text]
  • National Brain Health Strategy (2018-2024)
    National Brain Health Strategy (2018-2024) Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 A changing and developing society 11 3 Objective 1: Good lifelong brain health, prevention and quality of life 15 4 Objective 2: A more user-centred healthcare service and better care of relatives 20 5 Objective 3: Good care from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis and treatment, to habilitation and rehabilitation 26 6 Objective 4: Adequate knowledge and quality through research and innovation 34 7 Overview of closely-related work 41 References 42 The smart device It is with you everywhere you go. It’s with in the morning when you’re trying to get out the door with the kids, in the afternoon when you cut your finger chopping onions in the kitchen, and in the evening when you stumble towards the bedroom a little too late. It keep tracks of work and leisure‚ reminds you of meetings to be held and reports to be written. It remembers the little one’s training times and the housing cooperative’s notice about voluntary work. It helps you to do your job. It helps you to keep track of your body. It helps you live. It remembers the ones most dearest to you. What you love the most. I am not referring to a smartphone. I am talking about something far more complex and far more advanced. I am referring to your brain. The device that is smarter than the most intelligent smartphone. When the brain is affected by disease or injury, a lot is affected. Getting the kids off to school in the morning and cooking dinner in the afternoon goes from normal to an oddity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bomb Attack in Oslo and the Shootings at Utøya, 2011
    The bomb attack in Oslo and the shootings at Utøya, 2011 KAMEDO report 97 Kamedo – the Swedish Disaster Medicine Study Organisation – has existed since 1964 and was previously known as the Swedish Disaster Medicine Organisation Committee. The committee started its activities under the auspices of the Swedish Research Delegation for Defence Medicine. In 1974 Kamedo was transferred to FOA (the Swedish Defence Research Establishment), now called FOI (the Swedish Defence Research Agency). Kamedo has been affiliated with the National Board of Health and Welfare since 1988. The main task of Kamedo is to send expert observers to places in the world affected by large-scale accidents or disasters. The observers are sent to disaster areas at short notice and collect relevant information by contacting key individuals, principally on a colleague-to-colleague basis. The information they obtain may only be used for documentation purposes. There are four main areas which are studied first and foremost: the medical, psychological, organisational and social aspects of disasters. Results from the studies are published in Kamedo reports that are listed on the National Board of Health and Welfare’s website. As of report number 74 the full reports may be downloaded, but for the earlier reports only the summary is available on the website. From report number 34 and onward they have a summary in English and as of report number 55 these are downloadable from the website. From number 89 and onward the whole reports have been translated into English. The authors are responsible for the contents and conclusions, the National Board of Health and Welfare draws no conclusions in the document.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nonprofit Theory Revisited the Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector Second Edition
    REPORT The Nonprofit Theory Revisited The Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector Second Edition MENON PUBLICATION NO. 44/2012 By Rasmus Bøgh Holmen Examples of Norwegian Third Sector Actors Examples of International Third Sector Actors Menon Business Economics II REPORT The Nonprofit Theory Revisited The Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector Rasmus Bøgh Holmen Second Edition First Edition Research Report Master Thesis Menon Report No. Master Degree in 44/2012 Economic Theory and Econometrics December 12 February 12 Ownership and Capital Team at Menon Business Department of Economics Economics at the University of Oslo Menon Business Economics III REPORT The Nonprofit Theory Revisited – The Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector Second Edition December 12 Online: http://www.menon.no Press: Please send mail to [email protected] for printed version First edition February 12 Online: http://www.duo.uio.no Press: University Print Centre at the University of Oslo © Rasmus Bøgh Holmen Menon Business Economics IV REPORT Illustrating Quotes ‘My view is that nonprofits organizations are largely a way of solving informational problems. Managers of nonprofit organizations lack the incentive of profit that might otherwise tempt them to misrepresent their products or services’ (Weisbrod 1988, page vii). Burton A. Weisbrod Henry B. Hansmann Northwestern University Yale University ‘In spite of the limitation imposed upon them, nonprofits may succeed in distributing some of their net earnings through inflated salaries, various perquisites granted to employees and other forms of excess payments’ (Hansmann 1980, page 844). Menon Business Economics V REPORT Abstract In this report, I draw attention to nonprofits with core focus on the ones that are operating in the business sector.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western Norway Regional Health Authority
    The Western Norway Regional Health Authority The Western Norway Regional Health Authority (WNRHA, "Helse Vest") has overall responsibility for providing specialist healthcare services in the counties of Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane. Its role is to ensure that people in the region have access to the services that they are legally entitled to. Helse Vest owns the six health trusts in the region and provides them with group management services. It also owns the ICT provider Helse Vest IKT AS. The health trusts employ around 27,500 health service staff. The authority’s total budget is approximately NOK 25 billion. Around 50 people are employed directly by the authority, which is based at Forus in Stavanger. Helse Vest is one of four regional health authorities in Norway and reports to the Ministry of Health and Care Services. The six health trusts within Helse Vest in addition to Helse Vest IKT AS are: Bergen Hospital Trust Fonna Hospital Trust Førde Hospital Trust Stavanger Hospital Trust Trust Sjukehusapoteka Vest (Hospital Pharmacies) Trust Helse Vest Procurement (est. April 2015) The health trusts in the region own and operate around 50 public hospitals and other health institutions, and they provide health care to a population of approximately 1.1 million. Overall objectives and priorities Patient treatment Health personnel training Research Training of patients and next of kin Mission and vision Mission: Helse Vest should provide effective and future-orientated high-quality health services. The services should contribute to good health and quality of life, and they should promote self-rehabilitation. Vision: Helse Vest delivers the very best in service, quality and research and is your preferred health services provider.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Kathrine Larssen Bygg Og Eiendoms Betydning for Effektiv Sykehusdrift Buildings' Impact on Hospital Effectiveness
    Doktoravhandlinger ved NTNU, Anne Kathrine Larssen Anne Kathrine Larssen Bygg og eiendoms betydning for effektiv sykehusdrift Buildings' Impact on Hospital Effectiveness ISBN 978-82-471-2886-2 (trykt utg.) ISBN 978-82-471-2888-6 (elektr. utg.) ISSN 1503-8181 Doktoravhandlinger ved NTNU, ved Doktoravhandlinger NTNU universitet philosophiae doctor philosophiae Avhandling for graden for Avhandling Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Norges Institutt for bygg, anlegg og transport bygg, anlegg for Institutt Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi ingeniørvitenskap for Fakultet Anne Kathrine Larssen Bygg og eiendoms betydning for effektiv sykehusdrift Buildings' Impact on Hospital Effectiveness Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor Trondheim, juni 2011 Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi Institutt for bygg, anlegg og transport NTNU Cdg\ZhiZ`c^h`"cVijgk^iZch`VeZa^\Zjc^kZgh^iZi 6k]VcYa^c\[dg\gVYZce]^adhde]^VZYdXidg ;V`jaiZi[dg^c\Zc^©gk^iZch`Ved\iZ`cdad\^>KI >chi^ijii[dgWn\\!VcaZ\\d\igVchedgi 6ccZ@Vi]g^cZAVghhZc >H7C.,-"-'"),&"'--+"'ign`iji\# >H7C.,-"-'"),&"'---"+ZaZ`igji\# >HHC&*%("-&-& 9d`idgVk]VcYa^c\ZgkZYCICJ!'%&&/&,% Ign`iVkIVe^gJiign`` Bygg og eiendoms betydning for effektiv sykehusdrift PhD avhandling Anne Kathrine Larssen Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi, institutt for bygg, anlegg og transport NTNU 2011 Larssen, A. K. – Bygg og eiendoms betydning for effektiv sykehusdrift Forord Dette PhD – arbeidet har ført meg ut på en lang reise, både i tid og i faglig utvikling, fra oppstarten for nærmere 10 år siden til i dag. Underveis har jeg fått muligheten til å fordype meg i interessante tema og fått mange nye bekjentskaper jeg setter stor pris på. Reisen har tatt så lang tid av flere årsaker, blant annet familieforøkelser, bortfall av opprinnelig finansiering, tidkrevende prosesser med å få etablert FOU-prosjekter med de rette aktører og finansiering, og en ikke alltid like lett kombinasjon med jobb.
    [Show full text]
  • National Health and Hospital Plan 2020–2023 Summary the Way Forward Is Clear
    National Health and Hospital Plan 2020–2023 Summary The way forward is clear “User participation is vital. Being lis- tened to confirms that you are worth something. That has both an intrin- sic value and a therapeutic value. If patients are allowed to influence their own treatment, it confirms that they are people with knowledge, under- standing and a voice.” These are the words of Dorte Gytri, after her experiences as a patient receiving mental health care. This is what we are aiming for. We have a shared vision in the health service. We want to cre- ate a patient-centred health service. Achieving this will require a great deal of effort. It is a responsibility that is shared by many. In this second National Health and Hospital Plan, we show how we will develop a patient-centred health service over the next four years. And what we need to do to achieve it. One of the main features is the establish- ment of 19 healthcare communities (helse fellesskap) in which hospitals and municipalities will improve the way they work together in caring for our most vulnerable patients. A variety of parties have been involved in developing the plan – patients, relatives, healthcare personnel, hospitals, municipalities and national health authorities. I am looking forward to implementing the plan together. Together, we will take the next steps towards the target Bent Høie, Minister of Health and Care of a patient-centred health service. The Services way forward has never been clearer.” National Health and Hospital Plan 2020–2023 The National Health and Hospital Plan 2020–2023 sets the direction for the develop- ment of the specialist health service and the interaction with the municipal health and care services during the period covered by the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd-Brandrud-2019.Pdf
    ,(#(!)/..")(#.#)(- ),#'*,)0'(.( 2&&(., ,)'"#!"*, ),'#(!&#(#&(.1),%- /&.3) ##( DBCK ,(#(!)/..")(#.#)(- ),#'*,)0'(.( 2&&(., ,)'"#!"*, ),'#(!&#(#&(.1),%- 0%+$+9/8$82$8;$ *%9+9(38:*%$%)8%%3(*+03936*+%3#:38R*S ::*%2+=%89+:@3(903 a_`g J.'#-#(-% %/&.. >&##-%,,(,/DBCK "0&"1,#!&11"022&,+113*&22"!2,2%" 3)27,#"!& &+";+&4"01&27,#1), 008+)*:8%9%8=%$K368:3(:*+96;"0+#:+321@"% 8%683$;#%$38:8291+::%$H+22@(38138"@2@1%29H>+:*3;:6%81+99+32K 3=%8J;$ .%8;0$9%2;))%a_`bH $%02$)099=%8/J8:3(%138+0:5@=+#:+19 %683$;#%$>+:*6%81+99+32 8+2:683$;#:+32J There is a crack in everything. That’s where the light gets in. (:%8`d=%8@+2:%8%9:+2)@%8992;89%2%9:*%:+9:H 9:8:%$1@7;0+:@+1683=%1%2:.3;82%@+2 `hh_K*%.3;82%@"%)2>+:*931%9;868+9+2)3;:#31%93(9;8=%@ #32$;#:%$3;:3(#;8+39+:@K : >97;0+::+=%9:;$@3(:*%%?6%8+%2#%93(#;:%9;8)%8@6:+%2:9K3)%:*%8>+:*+00$% 8&=%H2 %?6%8+%2#%$ 8%9%8#*%8 2$ 69@#*303)+9: #32$;#:%$ 9%=%80 (3#;9 )83;6 1%%:+2)9 >+:* (381%8 6:+%2:9H660@+2):*%#8+:+#0+2#+$%2::%#*2+7;%K63>%8(;08%9%8#*1%:*3$ *=%#32:+2;%$:3;9% %=%89+2#%K *%6:+%2:98%638:%$:*::*%+8.3;82%@:*83;)**%0:*#8%>9(8)1%2:%$2$;268%$+#:"0%K39: 3(:*%+2(381:+32:*%@2%%$%$:3;2$%89:2$"3;::*%+83>29+:;:+32H>9"9%2:38#32(0+#:+2)K *%@3(:%2(%0:*%060%99"%#;9%+1638:2:7;%9:+3292$1%99)%99%%1%$:3"%+)238%$H38$+$23: 88+=%:3:*%8+)*:6%89329+2:+1%K 2$$+:+32H:*%6:+%2:9>%8%63380@68%68%$:3;2$%89:2$*3> :312)%:*%+8*%0:*9+:;:+322$2%%$9(:%8$+9#*8)%K 23>+2):*+9H *$:3$3931%:*+2):3 930=%:*%683"0%1K;2$%$"@:*%38>%)+2+2+9:8@3( %0:*2$8%9%8=+#%9H2$9;6%8=+9%$"@ 83(%9938K8K3(%$+#+2%%::%82$8%9:%%2H
    [Show full text]
  • The Nonprofit Theory Revisited
    The Nonprofit Theory Revisited The Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector Rasmus Bøgh Holmen Master Thesis for the Economic Theory and Econometrics Degree February 12 Department of Economics University of Oslo © Rasmus Bøgh Holmen February 12 The Nonprofit Theory Revisited – The Advantages and Challenges for the Third Sector http://www.duo.uio.no Press: University Print Centre at the University of Oslo II Illustrating Quotes My view is that nonprofits organizations are largely a way of solving informational problems. Managers of nonprofit organizations lack the incentive of profit that might otherwise tempt them to misrepresent their products or services (Weisbrod 1988, page vii). In spite of the limitation imposed upon them, nonprofits may succeed in distributing some of their net earnings through inflated salaries, various perquisites granted to employees and other forms of excess payments (Hansmann 1980, page 844). III Abstract In my master thesis in economics, I draw attention to nonprofits with core focus on the ones that are operating in the business sector. I aim to investigate how nonprofits functions, and how they differ from other organizations. The main question I ask is: ‘What are the pros and cons of nonprofits, and in what ways do they differ from other organizations?’ Furthermore, I raise three probed further: ‘What are the roles of the nonprofit sector, and why does it play these roles?’ ‘What do nonprofits do when they are not maximizing profit, and which other aims are relevant?’ ‘How does the interior incentive structure function when the organization has other aims than profits, and there are no owners to discipline the management?’ After pointing out my questions, I sketch the organizational map for forprofit, public and nonprofit organizations, before I give a brief introduction to the nonprofit landscape.
    [Show full text]