Образ "медведя": феноменологический аспект политической легитимизации.
The theoretical basis of work is the notion of legitimation as a complex mechanism of social approval of a new phenomenon taking place with the active participation of different social groups and structures, able to influence its final form. In the focus of the empirical analysis the representations of social entrepreneurship that main actors of its legitimacy in Russia have. Among them are: the state, foundations, NPOs and business. We assess the (in)consistency between their representations as well as the reflection of these representations in the characteristics of existing organizations of social entrepreneurship (social enterprises).
Business, government and NPOs are understood as external actors of social enterprise legitimation, as without their recognition the legitimation will not take place. In turn, social enterprises, regardless of whether they come from for-profit or non-profit sector, are seen as objects of legitimation, or as a new actor, not identical to any of the above. It is shown that the contradictions in the positions of key actors can lead to mutually exclusive projects of legitimation of a new phenomenon, so that they will undermine the cognitive and moral legitimacy of each other. The empirical data include the results of the authors survey of 202 social enterprises.
The dominant political discourse in contemporary Russia is a reflection of both crucially important policy choices of the ruling regime as well as deep changes in attitudes, perceptions and self-perceptions among the ruling elites and other segments of the population. It appears that Russia’s unsuccessful, quartercentury long search for a post-Soviet national ethos and identity has reached an important milestone – a near consensus based on a particular worldview version of self-styled identity and a set of approved values.
In this article the author attempts to explain the events occurring in the country taking into account the specificity of the Ukrainian political culture. From the point of view of the author, a key player in the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 was the Ukrainian society itself, and any attempt to comment the situation of modern Ukraine, first of all, should take into account civil conditions of the society itself. Qualitative state of civil society in Ukraine outrun the quality of the ruling elite, which inevitably provokes new confrontations and conflicts.
In this article author talks about the difficulties on the way meets the politics of memory in contemporary Russia. The lack of consensus in society about the important historical events is a big problem, a negative impact on attempts to form a national identity. It recognizes and power itself, is not ready to formulate a more or less logical and compelling narrative at this point in time. This is fully confirmed by the example of "Yeltsin Center" in Ekaterinburg. Ambiguous attitude to the reign of Boris Yeltsin, however, does not stop the Russian government, is carrying out the practice of political legitimation, using the symbolic legacy of the 1990s.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.