Королевский статут Ф. Мартинеса де ла Росы и становление нового порядка в Испании в первой половине XIX века
The formation of the New – liberal-bourgeois – order in Spain lasted for almost one and a half century and experienced many «ups and downs». A milestone in this process is the Royal Statute written by an outstanding liberal conservative on the first half of the 19th century F. Martinez de la Rosa. In an effort to harmonize liberal Liberty and traditionalist Order, Martinez takes a position between left-wing liberals (progressists) and traditionalists. However, under the conditions of the liberal-bourgeois revolution and the first Carlist war, a stable political-ideological consensus between revolutionaries and conservative reactionaries was impossible. Trying to ensure the survival of the declared constitutional monarchy, Martinez was forced to make a tactical alliance with moderate traditionalists, which caused a flurry of criticism from the left. The imbalance of the political system led to the abolition of the Royal Statute and a new revolutionary cycle, in which Martinez occupies a definitely conservative position.
In the second of ten Lectures on Political Right, delivered in Madrid’s Ateneo in November 29, 1836, Juan Donoso Cortés considers the notion of “popular sovereignty.” Distinguishing mind and will as two parts of human essence, Donoso deduces from the former the “law of the association” that unites all human beings, and from the latter, the “law of the individual,” that separates them. Hence, the main problem for Donoso as a liberal conservative is how to combine these two laws. Donoso states that while traditionalists propose to focus on the “law of the association” and ends with tyranny that destroys free will, revolutionaries, by contrast, focus on the “law of the individual,” which leads to anarchy as a variant of the same tyranny. In making a historical digression to the periods of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, Donoso shows how the revolutionary idea of “popular sovereignty”, linked directly to the “law of the individual”, gradually overcomes the idea of “divine right of kings”, based on the “law of the association.” Donoso criticizes the English and French philosophers of the 17–18th centuries (Hobbes and Rousseau, above all) the most, as these philosophers laid the foundation for historical drama of the Great French Revolution. Offering his own liberal-conservative alternative for the two named extremes (traditionalism and revolution), Donoso calls to abandon the “atheist”, “immoral”, “absurd”, and “impossible” “popular sovereignty”, and combine the “law of the individual” and the “law of the association” on entirely different basis of the “sovereignty of reason, sovereignty of justice”.
The chapter examines the activities of the outstanding Spanish engineer and scientist Agustín de Betancourt, his Spanish and Russian projects, as well as the reasons for his departure from Spain and his appearance in Russia.
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.
Sovereignty is one of the most important problems in political philosophy because it makes us search for the answer to the most important questions of politics, ‘Who has the highest level of state authority?’. Do the people, representatives, monarch or God have sovereignty? Development of this topic is one of the most popular and fruitful directions in the political philosophy of the XIXth century. Studying sovereignty, Francois Guizot tried to fi nd answers to particular questions such as about the reasons of the decaying of revolution and death of the Napoleon empire, the fate and fortunes of the House of Bourbon and the vitality of the Charter of 1814. The analysis of the development of ideas and term has allowed to reconstruct Guizot’s concept of sovereignty and shows its relation to the intellectual and political environment of the Conservation epoch (1814–1830). By addressing to this topic, the author of the article has managed to restore a very important part of the political theory proposed by Guizot and to cast light on the philosophical sources of the French liberalism as well as to demonstrate the relation between this ideology and democracy. This has also allowed to understand the status of the problem of sovereignty in political practice.
The article reconstructs the concept of sovereignty by François Guizot in its connection with intellectual and political context of the Restauration Period (1814-1830). This allows me to illustrate philosopical sources of French liberalism, highlight the connection between liberal ideology and democratic tradition, as well as to clarify how the concept of sovereignty was reflected in politics.