جایگاه نهادها در توسعه یافتگی نروژ

یکی از مهم ترین مباحثی که در خصوص توسعه موردتوجه است، توجه به شکل گیری و کارکردهای نهادی است. نهادهای اقتصادی و سیاسی، به‌واسطه نقش تعیین‌کننده بر روی نظام ها و خرده نظام های اقتصادی، می توانند ترتیبات توسعه ای به وجود آورند. درعین‌حال، فقدان نهادها، می توانند زمینه های عدم پویایی و پایایی سیستم را به وجود آورند. نظام های اقتصادی با منابع بسیار زیاد، درصورتی‌که از پتانسیل های نهادی استفاده نکنند، درگیر بحران در سیستم های تولید، توزیع و مصرف خواهند شد. مطالعات نهادی جایگاه ویژه ای در چند دهه تحقیقات محققان اقتصاد سیاسی داشته است. نهادها سبب شکل گیری اقتصادهای متمایز می شوند به گونه ای که تفاوت بین نتایج در اقتصاد سیاسی را در تفاوت نهادها قلمداد کرده اند. نمونه نروژ، نمونه ای موفق در اقتصاد سیاسی محسوب می شود که بر اساس شاخص های توسعه سیاسی و اقتصادی می توان برآیند زمینه های نهادی آن را مشاهده کرد. نروژ از سطح بالای غنای منابع ازجمله نفت، انرژی آبی، ماهی، مواد معدنی و جنگل ها برخوردار است. بااین‌حال درنتیجه تفاوت های عمده ای در شاخص های توسعه‌یافتگی با کشورهای دیگری را که از منابع سرشار برخوردار هستند، تجربه می کند. نروژ به عنوان یکی از دولت های اصلی اسکاندیناوی، مدل توسعه ای بر اساس آموزه های دولت رفاه را دنبال کرده است. سوالی که به وجود می آید این است که معمای توسعه یافتگی نروژ علی رغم وجود منابع سرشار شبیه به نفت چیست؟ در پاسخ به این سوال، با استنباط از رویکرد نهادگرایی در اقتصاد سیاسی، به تاثیر نهادها (خرده نهادها)ی سیاسی به عنوان بخش مهمی از توسعه یافتگی در نروژ توجه خواهد شد. این فرضیه از این حیث اهمیت دارد که راهکارهای برون رفت از اقتصاد رانتیر و نفتی در ایران در آن نهفته است؛ چراکه تجربه زیست توسعه یافتگی نروژ در نهادسازی نفتی، نهادهای سیاسی، دموکراسی، رفاه اجتماعی و ... می تواند در نهادسازی در ایران موردتحقیق قرار گیرد.

the position of institutions in the development of norway

1- introductiontraditionally, oil has been mentioned as a commodity that has a distant relationship with development. consedring the oil producing countries, especially the countries that converge with the middle east region in terms of geographical, political and bio-economic conditions, shows that the relationship between oil on the one hand and the capabilities of the government on the other hand, there are in this area.it seems that a common denominator is that the government has been powerful in terms of control but weak in terms of political, economic and cultural capabilities. regarding the reasons for underdevelopment in countries that have abundant resources, many perspectives and levels of analysis have been discussed; economic, political, social and even cultural reasons. therefore, the view from the angle of political economy can be explanatory to a great extent.however, in some countries, oil is not only considered the main variable of underdevelopment, but also has become a part of the development process. norway is one of the countries where oil has not been the only cause of backwardness, but in a systematic process, it has acted as an important part of the realities of the system based on public welfare and social services.the question that arises here is what caused norway not to be captured by the mystery of resource curse and dutch disease ? in response to this question, the hypothesis of the research is that the institutional capabilities in norway have led to the formation of a powerful government along with other institutional resources and these economic and political institutions are capable both in oil production and the allocation of oil revenues in the national budget and in the system. their distribution shows a developed performance. 2- theoretical frameworkthe important issue is the effects of the type of political systems and political institutions similar to the government on the levels and quality of the economy. in addition, according to daron acemoglu and james robinson, subsequently, the effects of political institutions or political alignments on economic relations cannot be hidden (acemoglu robinson, 2012).therefore, economics as the science of understanding the optimal and productive human behavior is affected by politics and political processes, and politics as authoritative allocation of values for a society (easton, 1957: 383-400), or struggle over authority (lindblom, 1997) is affected by economic institutions. therefore, the institution’s role in both economy and politics is considered a central role. institutions are defined from different perspectives and levels. of course, the definition of institutions also suffers from the same plague that other concepts in human sciences suffer from; it means lack of consensus in the definition. 1. institutions among political economy thinkers, there is less consensus definition of institution, even among institutionalists, there is no single definition of institution, each thinker has chosen an independent definition of this concept based on his research flow or intellectual project. some of them have defined institution as follows: a set of behavioral rules created by humans in order to manage and shape human interactions, which helps them to some extent, expectations from have the actions of others (north, 1990).one of the most utilitarian definitions of institution was provided by hamilton, an institutional economist (hamilton, 1932: 84). he considered the institution as an intellectual or practical path regarding the prevalence and permanence of a certain group that is engraved in the group habits or customs of a people .