Search

COMMON ENDS OR COMMON MEANS? The Cold War is over and Sweden and Finland are starting to deal with the new security enviroment that has emerged. Grand Strategy in both countries is changing to meet the new Europe and surroundings. Both Sweden and Finland consider the risk of a direct attack in the near future to be highly unlikely and this has effects on the respective countries grand strategy. A broadened approach to security is applied and the military instrument is no longer the primary concern in the strategy. Both Sweden and Finland become members of the European Union in 1995 but neither is a member of NATO, the countries both consider themselves as military non-aligned, the only two countries with a coastline to the Baltic Sea with that stance. This makes for a logic choice to cooperate for the common security and a cooperation is formed to cover security policies to be relevant in peace, crisis and war. Even though the countries are existing in and interpret the new security enviroment in similar ways they approach the challanges in differing ways. This creates the differences that we identify and describe in this thesis. The purpose of this thesis is to identify and describe the differences between Sweden's and Finland's grand strategy, how this difference has changed from 1996 to 2018 and if these differences can have consequences for the cooperation between the two countries, mainly military and at the highest strategic level. The thesis is focused on the elements of the grand strategy that involves the armed forces of the respective countries. This comparative text analysis compares political policy documents within the grand strategy field from both Sweden and Finland. We will compare the period from 1996-2018. The comparison will be made by examining three occasions in the period, year 1996, Year 2004 and year 2018. The documents used have relevance against these years and are analyzed by applying Jacob Westberg's model; ends, means, ways and environme

The aim of this thesis is to examine the theoretical developments on social entrepreneurship. Our purpose is to create a better understanding of the phenomenon leading to new insights. We have categorized the knowledge of the concept into social economy, social ownership, social innovation and social missions. Drawing from our theoretical review we have chosen four empirical illustrations, Grameen Bank, Wikipedia, Basta Arbetskooperativ, Jörn Hälsogemenskap, and we have shown how these fit into the general description of the social entrepreneur. With help of our illustrations we show that it is complicated to pin point the core of social entrepreneurship as they each have separate structures, innovations, social missions and operate close to different sectors. We have found that social entrepreneurs take any measures they can to reach their social goals, making formal distinctions and clear boundaries of social enterprises and entrepreneurs problematic. We conclude therefore that social entrepreneurship is a broad concept and creating social enterprises may not be the only activity they perform. We have found that the taxonomy and theoretical contribution on social enterprises is more developed into formal categories and distinctions than is the broader term social entrepreneurship. By looking at the impact of social transformation in reality, we suggest that the true degree of social entrepreneurship can be established.

Vi har gjort en kvalitativ tvärsnittsstudie av belöningssystem i bilbranschen då vi funnit det intressant att studera de olika belöningssystemens utformining och de faktorer som ligger bakom utformandet av dessa. Våra primära källor har utgjorts av interjuer som tagit plats med en person med styrande roll på sex olika bilförsäljningsanläggningar, fem av dessa lokaliserade i Malmö-Lund området och en av dem i Stockholm. De sekundära källor vi har använt är främst teorier om motivation och agent-principal förhållanden. Vi har även studerat litteratur om belöningssystem och texter tryckta i branschtidningar om belöningssystems utforming i bilbranschen. Vi har kommit fram till att det finns många fler bakomliggande faktorer som påverkar belöningssystemet än bara strategiskt tänkande och agentproblematik. Dessa faktorer är bland annat företagets storlek och påverkan från generalagenten. Även försäkringsbolag och finansieringsbolag påverkar belöningssystemen. Många företag använder sig enligt vår uppfattning också av belöningssystem därför det är en kutym i branschen att göra detta.