管理自然资源基金:阿拉斯加遗产信托基金、阿尔伯塔永久基金和挪威政府养老基金

T. Onifade
{"title":"管理自然资源基金:阿拉斯加遗产信托基金、阿尔伯塔永久基金和挪威政府养老基金","authors":"T. Onifade","doi":"10.1163/2211906X-00602002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper is a comparative regulatory analysis of the Alaska Heritage Trust Fund, the Alberta Permanent Fund, and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, as developed country natural resource fund (NRF) models. Its objective is to examine how NRFs are regulated. To achieve this objective, it explores and compares the socio-political contexts and regulatory features of the three NRFs, drawing lessons along the way. Given the dearth of publications on the domestic as opposed to the transnational regulation of NRFs, it carries out an original review of primary and secondary policy sources, both legal and non-legal documents, along with a synthesis of representative bodies of literature. It finds that NRFs are mainly regulated by laws and institutional support, which constitute four key regulatory features: legal frameworks and objectives, ownership regimes, structure and functionality, and governance and operation. The conclusion is that how NRFs are regulated, based on these features, determines their outcomes.","PeriodicalId":172026,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating Natural Resource Funds: Alaska Heritage Trust Fund, Alberta Permanent Fund, and Government Pension Fund of Norway\",\"authors\":\"T. Onifade\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906X-00602002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper is a comparative regulatory analysis of the Alaska Heritage Trust Fund, the Alberta Permanent Fund, and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, as developed country natural resource fund (NRF) models. Its objective is to examine how NRFs are regulated. To achieve this objective, it explores and compares the socio-political contexts and regulatory features of the three NRFs, drawing lessons along the way. Given the dearth of publications on the domestic as opposed to the transnational regulation of NRFs, it carries out an original review of primary and secondary policy sources, both legal and non-legal documents, along with a synthesis of representative bodies of literature. It finds that NRFs are mainly regulated by laws and institutional support, which constitute four key regulatory features: legal frameworks and objectives, ownership regimes, structure and functionality, and governance and operation. The conclusion is that how NRFs are regulated, based on these features, determines their outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":172026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906X-00602002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Comparative Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906X-00602002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文对阿拉斯加遗产信托基金、阿尔伯塔永久基金和挪威政府养老基金作为发达国家自然资源基金(NRF)模式进行了监管比较分析。其目的是研究NRFs是如何被监管的。为了实现这一目标,本文探讨并比较了三个自然保护区的社会政治背景和监管特征,并从中吸取经验教训。鉴于缺乏关于国内而非跨国管制自然保护区的出版物,本报告对主要和次要政策来源,包括法律和非法律文件进行了原创性审查,并综合了具有代表性的文献机构。研究发现,自然保护区主要受到法律和机构支持的监管,这四个关键监管特征包括:法律框架和目标、所有权制度、结构和功能以及治理和运营。结论是,基于这些特征,NRFs的监管方式决定了它们的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulating Natural Resource Funds: Alaska Heritage Trust Fund, Alberta Permanent Fund, and Government Pension Fund of Norway
The paper is a comparative regulatory analysis of the Alaska Heritage Trust Fund, the Alberta Permanent Fund, and the Government Pension Fund of Norway, as developed country natural resource fund (NRF) models. Its objective is to examine how NRFs are regulated. To achieve this objective, it explores and compares the socio-political contexts and regulatory features of the three NRFs, drawing lessons along the way. Given the dearth of publications on the domestic as opposed to the transnational regulation of NRFs, it carries out an original review of primary and secondary policy sources, both legal and non-legal documents, along with a synthesis of representative bodies of literature. It finds that NRFs are mainly regulated by laws and institutional support, which constitute four key regulatory features: legal frameworks and objectives, ownership regimes, structure and functionality, and governance and operation. The conclusion is that how NRFs are regulated, based on these features, determines their outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信