Celestine V,Boniface VIII and the authority of parliament

During the troubled pontificates of Celestine V and Boniface VIII, publicists argued that because general councils of the Church represented the whole congregation of the faithful, they had the power to remove a pope found guilty of crimes ranging from obdurate heresy to personal insufficiency. In 1327, Isabella and Mortimer based much of the justification for their deposition of Edward II on these newly popularized ideas. Nevertheless, since these theories were for them very much rationalizations of the moment, they were quickly abandoned, with the result that Edward III's parliaments look little different from Edward I's, though in more mature form. In 1399, however, Henry IV was forced to rely on the precedent of 1327 when supplanting Richard II. Because the then-prevalent conciliar theories generated by the great schism gave even greater immediacy to the ones which had explained that first deposition, and because Henry's approach was many times to be imitated in the depositions of the fifteenth century, parliament began to take on the character of a corpus mysticum, one which could speak with the authority not just of the king, but of God and the realm. This background may shed light on some of the reasons for Henry VIII's success in using parliamentary statute to break with Rome, and it may even have contributed to some of the parliamentary positions expressed during the seventeenth-century struggles with the crown.     

Testing Transferability: Quantitative Evaluation of Labor Market Area Definition Methods in Three Contrasting Countries

Sub-national economic policies increasingly use labor market areas (LMAs) rather than administrative areas for analysis and implementation. How a set of LMAs was defined influences the results of such analyses, and so accurate policy delivery needs appropriately defined LMAs. Multinational bodies need comparable LMA definitions in many countries, calling for a definition method that is transferable across national boundaries. This article applies quantitative metrics to evaluate LMAs defined in three contrasting countries by three methods that represent the main methodological approaches. The deductive approach—based on a center and hinterland—is too inflexible to deal with differing geographical circumstances and cannot cope with statistical zones that are very small, or do not respect settlement structure. The alternative inductive methods tested define appropriate LMAs in each country, with the newer method performing slightly better in statistical terms. The article also exemplifies the usefulness of the metrics for comparisons of alternative regionalizations.