Suchergebnisse

The decision-making has been constituted during the last 40 years, in a discipline field of the greater relevance for different political-administrative spheres. The different academic, politics and organizationals circles have provided him a place of supremacy to the process of decision making. From the recognition of the importance of the study of the decisional phenomenon, we initially try, to explore the identification aspects between the decision- making and Public Policies by means of a general conceptualization. Next, and considering the Co-existence of these two spheres of the knowledge, an explanation will be constructed that tell of the process of decision making in public policies, which differs given to its nature and specificities, of the organizational and personal making decision process. This article contain as epistemologic bet the construction of a generic model of decision making in public policies, which can to explain the decisional phenomenon in the different governmental courses of action. ; La toma de decisiones se ha constituido durante los últimos 40 años, en un campo disciplinar de la mayor relevancia para las diferentes esferas político administrativas. Los diferentes círculos académicos, políticos y organizacionales le han proporcionado un lugar de supremacía al proceso de toma de decisiones. A partir del reconocimiento de la importancia del estudio del fenómeno decisional, pretendemos inicialmente, explorar los aspectos identitarios entre la toma de decisiones y las Políticas Públicas por medio de una conceptualización general. Seguidamente, y considerando la co-existencia de estas dos esferas del conocimiento, se construirá una explicación que dé cuenta del proceso de toma de decisiones en Políticas Públicas, el cual difiere dada su naturaleza y especificidades, de los procesos de toma de decisiones organizacionales y personales. Este artículo contiene como apuesta epistemológica la construcción de un modelo genérico de Toma de Decisiones en Políticas Públicas, el cual pueda llegar a explicar el fenómeno decisional en los distintos cursos de acción gubernamental.

The European Union (UE) has combined decision making processes based on unanimity and on majority voting, mainly owing to the recognition that, depending on the context, they present valuable advantages as well as shortcomings. Thus, the EU has so far followed a rather pragmatic course. The future seems to lie along this same path, not favouring one decision- making process per se over the other, but combining unanimity and majority voting according to the needs and possibilities of the specific issue at hand. ; El derecho de la Unió Europea (UE) consagra procesos de toma de decisiones tanto por unanimidad como por mayoría. La Unión ha reconocido que ambas formas de adopción de decisiones tienen ventajas e inconvenientes, por lo cual ha adoptado uno u otro pragmáticamente, según el contexto. Es de esperar que en el futuro siga combinando ambas variantes de acuerdo con las necesidades y las posibilidades concretas de cada caso.

El artículo propone un análisis de la significación participativa y la comunicación deliberativa presentes en los procesos de participación ciudadana vinculados a las decisiones públicas. El principal objetivo radica en analizar en qué condiciones se produce la deliberación y qué efectos cognitivos y valorativos produce en los participantes, con el fin de articular decisiones colectivas y acción institucional. Como soporte pragmático y empírico de las ideas trabajadas, se utiliza la figura del presupuesto participativo, que constituye un espacio de participación orientado a la propuesta, deliberación y toma de decisiones relacionadas con la política pública. El texto concluye señalando la importancia de aspectos como la valoración de la solidaridad y la democracia interna en las asambleas ciudadanas, la valoración del tiempo y la información disponibles para el debate o la percepción del grado de compromiso institucional como factores que influyen en la calidad deliberativa de procesos participativos ligados a las decisiones públicas. ; This article analyzes the participatory significance and deliberative communication that must be present in citizen participation processes concerning public decisions. The main purpose is to examine the conditions in which deliberation is produced and the cognitive and appreciatory effects of deliberation on the participants in order to articulate collective decisions and institutional action. Participatory budgeting is used as a pragmatic and empirical framework for the ideas under consideration. This experience constitutes a sphere for participation oriented toward proposals, deliberation and decision making on public policy. The paper concludes that aspects such as the assessment of solidarity and internal democracy within citizen assemblies, time and information for the debate or the degree of institutional commitment are important factors that influence the deliberative quality of participative processes concerning public decisions.

gráficas ; El presente trabajo recoge distintas teorías e identifica los elementos de la toma de decisiones estratégica. El objeto de estudio son los procesos de toma de decisiones estratégicas en las Pymes del sector comercio, subsector insumos de construcción, en Villavicencio, para ello se realizó un muestreo no probabilístico que involucro a 66 directivos y se determinaron características en cuanto al proceso de decisión que realizan. Se pudo conocer que los principales obstáculos están relacionados con el personal, el factor económico y falta de reacción a las tendencias del entorno. Generalmente esto se da a causa de baja participación de los mandos medios en las decisiones y una alta centralización de las mismas, alta incertidumbre debido a que no se realiza una juiciosa recopilación de información y, por último, informalización en la delegación de actividades que conllevan a que los gerentes se enfoquen en actividades operativas ajenas al liderazgo y conocimiento pleno que les permita tener control sobre las compañías. Al finalizar el diagnostico, se propuso unas herramientas de tipo racional y unas herramientas de tipo intuitivo, estas se ponen a consideración de los gerentes de acuerdo con las habilidades que ellos consideren mejorar, por lo tanto, se acude a la importancia del autodiagnóstico y la retroalimentación al momento de aplicarlas. (Texto tomado de la fuente) ; This work collects different theories and identifies the elements of strategic decision making. The object of study is the strategic decision-making processes in SMEs in the commerce sector, construction inputs subsector, in Villavicencio, for this a non-probabilistic sampling was carried out that involved 66 managers and characteristics regarding the decision process were determined. that are making. It was learned that the main obstacles are related to personnel, the economic factor and lack of reaction to environmental trends. Generally, this occurs due to the low participation of middle managers in decisions and their high centralization, high uncertainty due to the fact that a judicious collection of information is not carried out and, finally, informal activities delegation that involves managers to focus in operational activities outside the leadership and full knowledge that allows them to have control over the companies. At the end of the diagnosis, rational-type tools and intuitive-type tools were proposed, these are put to the consideration of managers according to the skills they consider to improve, therefore, the importance of self-diagnosis and feedback when applying them. ; Maestría ; Magíster en Administración ; Metodología mixta, muestra no probabilística, por conveniencia. ; Estrategia y Organizaciones

Este trabajo, buscando entender cómo la sociedad influye en el desarrollo tecnológico en la vida cotidiana, desarrolló un modelo teórico, traducido en escala de Likert para aplicación con estudiantes universitarios brasileños del Estado de São Paulo. Los indicadores sociales presentes en esta escala fueron generados a partir de análisis de contenido, para su posterior aplicación e evaluación cuantitativa por Modelaje de Ecuaciones Estructurales (SEM). Así, es posible apuntar que la muestra de los estudiantes encuestados apuntaran el gobierno, las instituciones educativas y investigativas, las empresas y los ciudadanos, como siendo los principales actores sociales responsables por el desarrollo tecnológico. Resultados que permiten reflexiones sobre la influencia social en las elecciones tecnológicas en el cotidiano, expandido a una breve introducción a los debates que apuntan la importancia de cambios en las políticas públicas para la educación tecnológica.

Este artículo presenta una visión general del gobierno finlandés y la previsión parlamentaria: su origen y motivación, así como la organización, agencia, proceso y prácticas. El ecosistema nacional de previsión proporciona el marco para el trabajo de previsión gubernamental y pública, es decir, para la previsión de políticas y la toma de decisiones relacionadas. Se presentan dos mecanismos con visión de futuro que se introdujeron especialmente para apoyar la toma de decisiones públicas: 1) la Oficina del Primer Ministro y los informes del Gobierno sobre el futuro, y 2) el Comité para el Futuro en el Parlamento. Necesitamos una gobernanza anticipatoria. A todos los gobiernos, a toda la gobernanza en ciudades, naciones, organizaciones, se deben introducir enfoques y métodos sistemáticos para el futuro. Cada país también podría prosperar100 mediante el establecimiento de una Sociedad de Estudios de Futuros, como lo hizo Finlandia en 1980, compuesta por miembros de orígenes muy diferentes, en un diálogo inclusivo sobre futuros a través de seminarios, publicaciones, etc. Actualmente, estamos viviendo la era de la profunda incertidumbre cuando la preparación proactiva para varios futuros inesperados es crucial. Además, la resiliencia futura es la capacidad necesaria para anticipar tales crisis, hacerles frente, aprender de ellas y reorganizarse. Tenemos que tomar las decisiones de hoy teniendo en cuenta la gobernanza para el futuro. En consecuencia, el desafío más reciente es incluir a las generaciones futuras en este mecanismo de previsión. Para la previsión pública, los hechos como evidencia son los más importantes. Sin embargo, para escanear adecuadamente los desarrollos futuros alternativos y tener conversaciones sobre qué políticas se necesitan para abordarlos, también se necesita imaginación. Además, los propios responsables de la formulación de políticas podrían beneficiarse de los conocimientos y las aplicaciones de los métodos de previsión, no sólo del uso de estudios de previsión.
Artikulu honek Finlandiako gobernuaren eta aurreikuspen parlamentarioaren ikuspegi orokorra ematen du: haren jatorria eta motibazioa, bai eta antolaketa, agentzia, prozesua eta praktikak ere. Aurreikuspen-ekosistema nazionalak gobernu-aurreikuspenerako eta aurreikuspen publikorako esparrua eskaintzen du, hau da, politikak aurreikusteko eta aurreikuspenokin lotutako erabakiak hartzeko esparrua. Etorkizunera begirako ikuspegia duten bi mekanismo aurkezten dira artikuluan, bereziki erabaki publikoak hartzen laguntzeko sortu zirenak: 1) Lehen Ministroaren Bulegoa eta etorkizunari buruz Gobernuak egindako txostenak, eta 2) Etorkizunerako Legebiltzarreko Batzordea. Gobernantza aurre-hartzailea behar dugu. Gobernu guztietan, hirietako, nazioetako eta erakundeetako gobernantza osoan, etorkizunera begirako ikuspegi eta metodo sistematikoak sartu behar dira. Finlandiak 1980an egin bezala, herrialde guztiek dute Etorkizunaren Ikaskuntzarako Elkarte bat ezarriz aurrera egiteko aukera; bertan, jatorri oso desberdineko kideek hartzen dute parte, etorkizunari buruzko elkarrizketa inklusibo batean, mintegien, argitalpenen eta abarren bidez. Gaur egun, ziurgabetasun sakoneko aro bat bizitzen ari gara, noiz eta etorkizunak ekarriko dizkigun ustekabeetara begira proaktiboki prestatzea funtsezkoa denean. Gainera, etorkizuneko erresilientzia da ate-joka ditugun krisiei aurrea hartzeko eta aurre egiteko beharrezkoa dugun gaitasuna, krisi horietatik ikasteko eta berrantolatzeko beharrezkoa dugun gaitasuna. Gaurko erabakiak etorkizuneko gobernantza kontuan hartuta hartu behar ditugu. Horrenbestez, egun, erronkarik behinena etorkizuneko belaunaldiak aurreikuspen-mekanismo horretan sartzea da. Aurreikuspen publikorako, ebidentzia diren egitateak dira garrantzitsuenak. Hala ere, irudimena ere behar da, etorkizuneko garapen alternatiboak behar bezala eskaneatzeko, eta horiei heltzeko zer politika behar diren eztabaidatzeko. Gainera, politikak formulatzeko ardura dutenek aurreikuspen-metodoen ezagutzez eta aplikazioez balia daitezke, ez bakarrik aurreikuspen-azterlanak erabiltzeaz.
This article presents an overview of the Finnish government and parliamentary foresight: its origin and motivation, as well as organization, agency, process and practices. The national foresight ecosystem provides the framework for government and public foresight work i.e. for policy foresight and related decision-making. Two forward-looking mechanisms which were specially introduced to support public decision-making are presented: 1) the Prime Minister's Office and Government Reports on the Future, and 2) the Committee for the Future in Parliament. We need anticipatory governance. To all governments, to all governance in cities, nations, organisations ¿ systematic futures approaches and methods should be introduced. Each country could also thrive100 from establishing a Society for Futures Studies as Finland did in 1980, comprising members from very different backgrounds into an inclusive futures dialogue via seminars, publications etc. Currently, we are living the age of deep uncertainty when proactive preparation for various unexpected futures is crucial. Moreover, futures resilience is the capacity needed for anticipating such crises, coping with them, learning from them, and for re-organisation. We need to make today¿s decisions as bearing in mind the governance for the futures. Accordingly, the most recent challenge is to include future generations into this foresight mechanism. For public foresight, facts as evidence matter most. However, in order to adequately scan alternative future developments and to have conversations on what policies are needed to tackle those, also imagination is needed. Furthermore, policy-makers themselves could benefit from the knowledge and applications of foresight methods, not just from using foresight studies.

Este artículo presenta algunos de los rasgos característicos que, en el marco de una política deliberativa, pueden ser resaltados a propósito de la función incluyente del diálogo desde las sugerencias de autores como Jürgen Habermas y Richard Rorty. Dejando de lado la revisión de sus ideas, se intenta mostrar que la labor incluyente no puede ser cumplida únicamente por el diálogo, sino que es necesaria una decisión que nos lleve a ampliar nuestros límites morales y conversacionales para generar inclusión. Ese tipo de decisión está ejemplificado por una característica particular de los diálogos de paz que se están adelantando con la guerrilla de las FARC en la Habana, Cuba. ; This article presents some of the characteristic features which, in the context of deliberative politics, can be highlighted within the inclusive function of dialogue as suggested by authors such as Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty. In addition to reviewing the ideas of these authors, it will demonstrate that the process of inclusion cannot be achieved simply through dialogue, but that a conscious decision must be made that leads to a broadening of moral and conversational limitations in order to make inclusion possible. This type of decision is exemplified by the peace talks between the Colombian government and the guerrillas of the FARC in Havana, Cuba.

Este artículo presenta algunos de los rasgos característicos que, en el marco de una política deliberativa, pueden ser resaltados a propósito de la función incluyente del diálogo desde las sugerencias de autores como Jürgen Habermas y Richard Rorty. Dejando de lado la revisión de sus ideas, se intenta mostrar que la labor incluyente no puede ser cumplida únicamente por el diálogo, sino que es necesaria una decisión que nos lleve a ampliar nuestros límites morales y conversacionales para generar inclusión. Ese tipo de decisión está ejemplificado por una característica particular de los diálogos de paz que se están adelantando con la guerrilla de las FARC en la Habana, Cuba. ; This article presents some of the characteristic features which, in the context of deliberative politics, can be highlighted within the inclusive function of dialogue as suggested by authors such as Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty. In addition to reviewing the ideas of these authors, it will demonstrate that the process of inclusion cannot be achieved simply through dialogue, but that a conscious decision must be made that leads to a broadening of moral and conversational limitations in order to make inclusion possible. This type of decision is exemplified by the peace talks between the Colombian government and the guerrillas of the FARC in Havana, Cuba.

This paper aims to outline a certain number of concrete proposals in view of providing detailed, operational content to the project to strengthen legitimacy and democratic control of European decisions as part of the work towards reforming the Economic and Monetary Union.The legal feasibility of each of the proposals set out here is analyzed by identifying the type of reform it involves: innovation using the treaty as it stands; limited changes to the Treaty under the simplified revision procedure, more important changes to the Treaty under the ordinary revision procedure. ; Este texto pretende articular propuestas concretas con el objetivo de aportar un contenido preciso y operativo al proyecto de unión política dirigido a reforzar la legitimidad y el control democráticos de las decisiones europeas en el marco de los trabajos sobre la reforma de la Unión económica y monetaria. La viabilidad jurídica de cada una de las propuestas contempladas se analiza identificando el tipo de reforma que suponen: innovaciones sin cambios en el tratado, modificaciones limitadas del Tratado a título del procedimiento de reforma simplificado ; modificaciones más amplias del Tratado a título del procedimiento de reforma ordinario.This paper aims to outline a certain number of concrete proposals in view of providing detailed, operational content to the project to strengthen legitimacy and democratic control of European decisions as part of the work towards reforming the Economic and Monetary Union.The legal feasibility of each of the proposals set out here is analyzed by identifying the type of reform it involves: innovation using the treaty as it stands; limited changes to the Treaty under the simplified revision procedure, more important changes to the Treaty under the ordinary revision procedure.

"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" James Madison, Federalist No. 51At the end of its annual term, the Supreme Court has proven itself once again as a "temperate and respectable body" of justices by delivering, among others, two landmark decisions. The first one demolishes the infamous Bush legacy of sacrificing the Constitution's article I section 9 Suspension clauses in its bogus "war against terror". The second one represents a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment as the unambiguous individual right to bear arms. The first decision has already inflamed political discussions and will no doubt be at the center of the presidential debates leading to the national election in November. Surprisingly, the second one has proved much less controversial, a sign of changing times in the American discourse.On June 12, 2008, in its ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, the court recognizedhabeas corpus rights for the Guantánamo prisoners. Less than a week later, in another landmark ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, it overturned the Washington DC ban on handguns by rejecting the view that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" applied only to the collective service in a "well regulated militia". Instead, it recognized it as an individual right.Since most likely it will fall to the next president to replace some of the Supreme Court judges, Americans should put aside for a moment the media- induced frenzy about the candidates' increasingly fierce competition to get the last sound bite in, the minute-to-minute coverage of exchange of insults and name-calling, and reflect upon the far-reaching ideological consequences that electing one or the other candidate will have on the composition of the Supreme Court.Both Supreme Court rulings were passed by a 5 to 4 vote, showing a deeply divided court over matters that affect the essence of American constitutional system of government and will have long-term consequences for life in America. As it stands now, the court is evenly divided between a conservative and a liberal bloc of four justices each, with Anthony Kennedy delivering the decisive swing vote. Since the future of the court will be decided by the next election, this consideration should be given at least as much weigh as any other in the voters' choice for president.In Boumediene v. Bush, the court delivered a critical decision in the protection of the basic right of any prisoner, including the ones in Guantánamo, to challenge their confinement before a federal judge. This constituted the court's third rejection of the Bush administration's policy on those it detains in its fight against terrorism. The Guantánamo base in Cuba, which has been controlled by the Unites States since the Spanish-American War (1898) under a long-term lease, was considered by this administration to hold a unique legal status that had allowed the Pentagon to avoid review of its activities by federal courts. By declaring unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commission Act of 2006 which denied jurisdiction to the federal courts on habeas corpus petitions by those detainees to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, the Court repudiated the fundamentals of the practice of using Guantánamo as a jail where federal jurisdiction could not reach.The majority decision was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, who often plays the deciding role of "balancer", sometimes siding with the conservative bloc, sometimes with the progressive one. He was joined by the more liberal judges, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, also a Reagan appointee and the most reactionary of the group, who stated, in apocalyptic terms, that the "nation will live to regret" this decision and that more Americans were going to be killed as a result of it. He was joined by George W. Bush's appointees, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.In the second decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, after seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a collective right (only as part of a "well-regulated militia"), the court now ruled that to keep arms at home for self protection is an individual right. This decision was criticized by authorities of the major U.S cities as a setback in their fight against crime and gun violence. However, both presidential candidates Obama and McCain praised the decision as an endorsement of individual rights. Obama emphasized the court's description of the right as "not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe." Although most liberals do not share this view, the Democratic Party's platform in 2004 had already endorsed the Second Amendment as an individual right, as part of the strategy of appealing to the center of the political spectrum in general, and to independent voters in particular, on matters of security. In Senator Obama's case, even if it does not directly contradict any earlier statements, the endorsement surprised some groups, since it does not fit his ideological profile. The media pundits interpreted it as his present strategy to capture the center of the political spectrum, which is probably correct. But it may also be a sign of how accurately Barack takes the pulse of the country. After episodes such as the Virginia Tech massacre that shook the country last year, many law-abiding citizens both young and old, both Republican and Democrat, have increasingly been vocal about the need to own a gun for self-protection.It was now the turn of Antonin Scalia to write the majority decision. A Reagan appointee and, together with Clarence Thomas, the most ideologically conservative of the nine justices, Scalia argued that this is a fundamental constitutional right that takes certain policy choices off the table. While recognizing the problem of handgun violence in the country, Scalia maintained that the "intactness of the Constitution" takes precedence over any other concerns. Ironically, his dissenting opinion on Boumediene v. Bush shows no concern for the wholeness of the Constitution's Suspension clause on habeas corpus, a sign of how human contradiction is not the preserve of presidential candidates only.The dissenting opinion to District of Columbia v. Heller by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford but most of the time votes with the liberal bloc, stated that the majority's decision was based on a "strained and unpersuasive reading of the Constitution", which omits any mention of other purpose (other than a "militia") related to the right to bear arms, such as hunting or personal self-defense. Justices Breyer, Souter and Baden-Ginsburg joined him in the dissenting opinion. Justice Kennedy sided with the conservative majority in this case.The majority's decision has enormous symbolic significance. It overturned a 70-year old decision that had rejected the individual-right interpretation, but one that, in the popular debate was extremely controversial and divided people along ideological and regional lines. But in reality, the narrow way in which the Scalia decision was written gives enough reassurance that other gun-control laws and regulations will not be affected. For example, the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons is upheld, as are the federal ban on possession of machine guns and longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. It has defused rather than inflamed the political debate, and both candidates have endorsed it. It is thus fair to say this was not a major setback for liberal-minded Americans.On the other hand, the Boumediene v. Bush decision is a blow to all those who have made the "war on terror" a centerpiece of their new value system after 9-11. Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) called it "irresponsible and outrageous" and said he would do anything in his power to have it overturned, even if that may take a Constitutional amendment.The decision ignited a serious debate between the two presidential candidates.While Obama praised the Boumediene decision, McCain was outraged by the court's decision to give rights to "unlawful combatants." He sent former Republican candidate and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to represent him on CNN's American morning. Giuliani accused Obama of having a "pre-September 11th mentality". Obama later defended his position saying he clearly understands the threats America faces but emphasized the fact that it is the failed policies of George Bush that cause the US so many problems around the world. He added that McCain clearly would represent a continuation of those policies based on fear and his unwillingness to look toward the future.This year the Supreme Court has delivered an equal amount of victories to each bloc. This balance may shift if some of the judges were to die or retire on the next eight years. Given that the conservatives are the youngest members of the Court (Roberts and Alito, the George W. appointees, are in their 50s, Thomas Clarence is 60 and Scalia is 72), a McCain presidency may have to replace some of the most reliable liberal judges (John Paul Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75) and thus shift the balance in the conservatives' direction. Of course, appointing Supreme Court judges is not an accurate science since, as seen by the decisions above, it is hard to predict, when nominating them, what thinking processes will determine their opinions. The greatest examples of this are Justice Kennedy, who was a Reagan appointee, but often leads the more liberal bloc, as well now retired Sandra Day O'Connor, another Reagan appointee that brought non-ideological balance to the Rehnquist court. At any given time, two opposing forces shape the judges' opinions: the pull of precedent that gives a binding continuity to court decisions, and the push of social change that propels some of the thinking forward, in accordance to the prevailing cultural mood. The final decision is then further shaped by the judges' erudition, idiosyncrasy and ideology. Given the fragile balance present in the Roberts court, and with so many important cases decided by such a narrow margin, the power of the next President to set the future direction of the high court is a vital element that should enter into the voters' considerations next November 4th.Briefly put, the future of the Supreme Court and its ability to make the best decisions so that "reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind", is in the hands of American voters. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Hybridization is a fundamental process in biology and can lead to new evolutionary lineages. However, if the parental taxa involved are rare, difficult decisi- ons may have to be made regarding the conservation of the biological process versus the conservation of the parental taxa. The genus Orchis in Europe is a good example of a group of species in which these types of questions arise as several of the species hybridize where they co-occur. The example used here relates to O. militaris, O. purpurea and O. simia in the anthropomorphic group (so called because the labellum has lobes thought to resemble arms and legs). All three species are widespread in Europe, al- though they are rare in large parts of their ranges, and they have substantial areas of overlap in distribution. All three are rare in Britain, occurring predominantly in south east England. Orchis militaris and O. simia and are only known from two and three natural sites in England, respectively. Orchis purpurea is less rare, but is still geographically localized. ; Hybridization is a fundamental process in biology and can lead to new evolutionary lineages. However, if the parental taxa involved are rare, difficult decisi- ons may have to be made regarding the conservation of the biological process versus the conservation of the parental taxa. The genus Orchis in Europe is a good example of a group of species in which these types of questions arise as several of the species hybridize where they co-occur. The example used here relates to O. militaris, O. purpurea and O. simia in the anthropomorphic group (so called because the labellum has lobes thought to resemble arms and legs). All three species are widespread in Europe, al- though they are rare in large parts of their ranges, and they have substantial areas of overlap in distribution. All three are rare in Britain, occurring predominantly in south east England. Orchis militaris and O. simia and are only known from two and three natural sites in England, respectively. Orchis purpurea is less rare, but is still geographically localized.

La investigación pretende un acercamiento a las formas de decisión del ciudadano bogotano en una contienda electoral local y un agrupamiento en función de aspectos como motivos de voto, atributos del candidato e insumos de la decisión. Se postula que la motivación de los bogotanos está más determinada por influencias ambientales y de mercadeo que por motivos internos, y que los atributos del candidato pesan más en la decisión que las propias plataformas de gobierno. Debido a que la información sobre las distintas alternativas es desigual, el elector decide por el candidato cuya campaña sea más fuerte. ; This research studies citizen decisions in a local election, grouping voters according to vote motivations, candidate attributes and decision inputs. We suggest that voter motivation may be more determined by external and marketing influences than internal motivations. In addition, we believe that voters consider candidate attributes more than his or her political proposal. Since the voters' decision is based on very little information about all possible alternatives, it is biased in favor of the strongest campaign.

The normative focus of the study of political behavior assumes that voters are rational & that all apply the same method of reasoning when they have to choose. Given the limitations of the normative view of voting theory, some authors have chosen to explain the voter's decision from a descriptive perspective. In this paper, we develop an adaptive model to describe the different decision-making processes that voters apply. Our ultimate goal is to identify rules that characterize the political behavior of individuals. To achieve this, we use a classification technique from the field of automatic learning: decision trees. At the empirical level, we have discovered that Spanish voters apply different decision processes chat are guided by the heuristic criterion of cost saving of information about the incumbent, the government's actions & the future of the country's economy. The decision trees obtained enable us to classify voters into four categories: ritualists, voters influenced by affective factors, those influenced by government performance & forward-looking voters. Adapted from the source document.

Know the motivations and mechanisms that lead to the electoral decisions, is one OF the central concerns of political comunication; political actors and parties in conflict. This work aims to elucidate some of the factors that should be considered when performing an analysis of the social, political and cultural processes that affect Mexican citizens voting guidelines. Recently, the first of July of the current year, Mexico lived a federal electoral process highly competitive and with historic levels of citizen participation that serve as the basis for the thoughts that are presented below. ; Conocer las motivaciones y mecanismos que conducen a las decisiones políticoelectorales de los ciudadanos, es una de las preocupaciones centrales de la comunicación política; de los actores políticos y de los partidos en contienda. En este trabajo, se pretende dilucidar algunos de los factores que se deben considerar a la hora de realizar un análisis de los procesos sociales, políticos y culturales que inciden en las orientaciones del voto de los ciudadanos mexicanos. Recientemente, el primero de julio del año en curso, México vivió un proceso electoral federal altamente competitivo y con niveles históricos de participación ciudadana que sirven de base para las reflexiones que a continuación se presentan.

: Saudi Arabia is one of the most important countries in the Middle East and its actions have a decisive influence on regional dynamics. According to the structure of an authoritarian monarchy, House of Saud has developed a State and social organization that respond exclusively to its political objectives. This paper carries out a case study, analyzing the strength correlations within the kingdom, the most relevant actors and institutions in the distribution of power and spaces of conflict between the different groups from kingdom's constitution in 1932 to the current days. The research seeks to answer what are the internal factors that stimulate the royal dynasty's dominance and what are the most notorious regimen's weaknesses. The purpose is to facilitate a better understanding of the functioning of the Government and State Administration. ; Arabia Saudí es uno de los países más relevantes de Oriente Medio y sus acciones tienen un alcance determinante en las dinámicas regionales. Bajo la estructura de una monarquía autoritaria, la Casa Saud ha desarrollado un Estado y organización social que responden exclusivamente a sus objetivos políticos. Este trabajo realiza un estudio de caso, analizando las correlaciones de fuerza dentro del reino, los actores e instituciones más relevantes en la distribución del poder y los espacios de conflicto entre las diversas facciones desde la constitución del reino en 1932 hasta la actualidad. La investigación busca responder cuáles son los factores internos que propician el dominio de la dinastía real y cuáles son sus debilidades. El propósito final es facilitar una mejor comprensión sobre el funcionamiento del Gobierno y Administración estatal.