Copenhagen Business School: CBS Open Journals
Not a member yet
5556 research outputs found
Sort by
Paul Colilli, Agamben and the Signature of Astrology. Spheres of Potentiality (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015), i-xx, 214 pp. hard cover, $85.00 (US) ISBN: 978-1-4985-0595-6
Get PDF
China's SOE Executives: Drivers of or Obstacles to Reform?
Get PDFDrawing on a database tracking the career of 1,250 top Chinese executives from 1,084 publicly-listed state-owned enterprises (SOEs), this article analyzes differences in career incentives for subsidiaries controlled by the central government compared to those controlled by local governments. It also considers the differences for executives in listed companies close to the parent group compared to those that are heads in distant subsidiaries. We find that in both SOEs and their publicly listed subsidiaries, administrative experience or political connections appear to increase the likelihood of promotion. However, in the case of central SOE subsidiaries, leaders are more likely to be promoted based on financial performance. For both central and local 'direct' SOE groups age is a significant negative factor for promotion, whereas tenure is a significant positive factor
Å beslutte med henblikk på risiko? – Når politikken dytter ansvaret over på barnevernets ansatte
Get PDFArtikkelens tema er hvordan barnevernet, gjennom sine kommunikative beslutninger, skaper praksis. Mer konkret har jeg undersøkt hvordan saksbehandlerne i barnevernetsundersøkelser kommer frem til beslutninger gjennom å forholde seg til ulike forventninger. Gjennom analysen synliggjøres det hvordan barnevernetsundersøkelser langt på veiblir styrt av forventninger den enkelte saksbehandler og forelder ønsker å innfri. Disse handler for eksempel om å ha minst en samtale med barnet, samt å følge en undersøkerplan. Dermed blir det å ikke følge undersøkerplanen eller det å ikke snakke med barnet sett som usikre handlingsvalg mot målet om å sikre ”den gode undersøkelse”. Barnevernets beslutninger vil dermed inngå i et i et rasjonaliseringsprogram hvor hensikten eller målet er å unngå risiko. På den måten synes barnevernetsundersøkelser å være styrt av en risikopolitikk som tjenerhensikten å være på den sikre siden og hvor fremtidens nødvendige uvisshetblirbarnevernets problem. Risikopolitikken bringer barnevernetinn i enpraksis det ikke selv har definert og setter dermed barnevernetinn i en tilstandav fare. Politikken påleggerbarnevernet å omsette alle svake punkter tilforebyggelsesprogrammer med den hensikten å sikre ”den gode praksis”. Detbetyr en praksis hvor standardisering og maler blir de mest opplagte svarene.På den måtenblir det barnevernet som organisasjon som bærer ansvaret foreventuelle feilvurderinger – ikke den politikken som ligger til grunn for handlingene.Ansvaret dyttes dermed over på barnevernets ansatte.
Søgeord: Niklas Luhmann, risikopolitikk, barnevern, beslutninger, sosialtarbeid
ENGELSK ABSTRACT:
Hilde AnetteAamodt: Making decisions due to “risk”
The purpose of this article is to analyze how child welfare services create
practice through communicative decisions. It analyzes how caseworkers in
child welfare investigations arrive at their decisions by dealing with different
expectations. The analysis showed that child welfare investigations are controlled
to a great extent by a predetermined template that defines what will
happen during these investigations. The caseworkers have clear expectations
as they attempt to follow fulfill the plan. These include having at least one
conversation with the child, as well as following the examination template.
Therefore not doing one or either of these is considered an unsafe action as
regards “doing a good examination.” Decisions about the child’s welfare will
therefore be part of a rational program, where the purpose or goal is to avoid
risk. In that way, child welfare investigations appear to be governed by a risk
policy that serves the purpose of being on the safe side, and where any uncertainties
in the future become the problem of the welfare agency. This risk policy
means that the child welfare service practice is not clearly defined, hence
endangering child welfare. The policy requires the child welfare service to
transform all weak points in the prevention programs to ensure “good practice”.
This means that standardization and templates are the most obvious
answers to good practice. In this way, the child welfare service is an organization
which bears responsibility itself for any errors of judgment – not the
policies themselves. Responsibility is hence transferred to the child welfare
service employees.
Keywords: NiklasLuhmann, risk politics, social work, child welfare, decision
