Norwegian Politics of Abortion: Perspectives, Arguments, and Values

IF 3.9 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2002-11-01 DOI:10.1080/13876980208412684
Dag Stenvoll
{"title":"Norwegian Politics of Abortion: Perspectives, Arguments, and Values","authors":"Dag Stenvoll","doi":"10.1080/13876980208412684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Grid-group cultural theory is applied to an empirical analysis of five debates on abortion in the Norwegian Parliament between 1992 and 1996. Policy arguments concerning selective abortion and abortion in general are compared. In the cultural–theoretical literature, restrictive policy arguments towards abortion have been connected to the hierarchical cultural bias, whereas permissive policy arguments have been associated with egalitarian and individualistic worldviews. The empirical analysis, however, shows that there are various different connections between abortion policy arguments and cultural biases. The possibly contradictory situation that arises when parties switch between cultural biases is discussed, and the article concludes that grid-group cultural theory proves useful in relating the various abortion policy arguments to broader worldviews that transcend this particular policy issue.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":"4 1","pages":"287-304"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980208412684","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980208412684","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Grid-group cultural theory is applied to an empirical analysis of five debates on abortion in the Norwegian Parliament between 1992 and 1996. Policy arguments concerning selective abortion and abortion in general are compared. In the cultural–theoretical literature, restrictive policy arguments towards abortion have been connected to the hierarchical cultural bias, whereas permissive policy arguments have been associated with egalitarian and individualistic worldviews. The empirical analysis, however, shows that there are various different connections between abortion policy arguments and cultural biases. The possibly contradictory situation that arises when parties switch between cultural biases is discussed, and the article concludes that grid-group cultural theory proves useful in relating the various abortion policy arguments to broader worldviews that transcend this particular policy issue.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
挪威的堕胎政治:观点、争论和价值
网格群体文化理论应用于对1992年至1996年期间挪威议会关于堕胎的五次辩论的实证分析。关于选择性堕胎和一般堕胎的政策争论进行了比较。在文化理论文献中,对堕胎的限制性政策论点与等级文化偏见有关,而宽松政策论点与平等主义和个人主义世界观有关。然而,实证分析表明,堕胎政策争论与文化偏见之间存在各种不同的联系。本文讨论了各方在文化偏见之间切换时可能出现的矛盾情况,并得出结论,网格-群体文化理论在将各种堕胎政策论点与超越这一特定政策问题的更广泛的世界观联系起来方面证明是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Peace and Conflict: Alternative Strategies of Governance and Conflict Resolution Judicial Review and the Allocation of Health Care Resources in Canada and the United Kingdom The Governance of Fiscal Policy in the United Kingdom and Canada Governance and Popular Involvement in Local Antipoverty Strategies in the U.K. and the Netherlands Analyzing Global Governance Failure: A Philosophical Framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1