Search results

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The construction of a modern economic system is a symbolic and strategic choice for large developing economies on the path toward high-quality economic development. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The overall framework aims to adhere to “One Policy and One Mainline” to build an innovation-driven, synergistic industrial system and a “with three-qualities” economic system (with efficient market mechanisms, energetic micro-agents and appropriate macroeconomic regulation).

The strengthening of the real economy and construction of a modern industrial system constitute the material basis for supporting this system and framework. As major decision making and theoretical innovation in empirical practice, building a modern economic system can also contribute substantially toward developing the applied economic theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Building a modern economic system in China necessitates, without exception, the construction of various subsystems encompassing industrial, market, distribution, regional development, green development, open and economic institutional aspects.

This chapter is about the modern, Western education system as an economic system of production on behalf of the capitalist mode of production (CMP) and globalization towards a single, global social space around market capitalism, liberal democracy and individualism.

The schooling process is above all an economic process, within which educational labour is performed, and through which the education system operates in an integrated fashion with the (external) economic system.

It is mainly through children’s compulsory educational labour that modern schooling plays a part in the production of labour power, supplies productive (paid) employment within the CMP, meets ‘corporate economic imperatives’, supports ‘the expansion of global corporate power’ and facilitates globalization.

What children receive in exchange for their appropriated and consumed labour power within the education system are not payments of the kind enjoyed by adults in the external economy, but instead merely a promise – the promise enshrined in the Western education industry paradigm.

In modern societies, young people, like chattel slaves, are compulsorily prevented from freely exchanging their labour power on the labour market while being compulsorily required to perform educational labour through a process in which their labour power is consumed and reproduced, and only at the end of which as adults they can freely (like freed slaves) enter the labour market to exchange their labour power.

This compulsory dispossession, exploitation and consumption of labour power reflects and reinforces the power distribution between children and adults in modern societies, doing so in a way resembling that between chattel slaves and their owners.

The purpose of the research is to develop the algorithm of transition of modern socio-economic systems to “conflict-free” path of development, which would be universal and would take into account specifics of each separate system.

The methodology of the chapter includes a complex of general scientific methods – analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and formalization; and the method of structural programming, which is used for determining a preferable structure and sequence of stages of the process of transition of modern socio-economic systems to “conflict-free” path of development, with compilation of its block scheme.

The algorithm (in the form of block scheme) of transition of modern socio-economic systems to “conflict-free” path of development is offered. The first stage of this algorithm is adaptation of the principles of “conflict-free” development of socio-economic system to peculiarities of its development and adoption of these principles. At the second stage, monitoring and control over quality of institute of economic activities in socio-economic system are conducted (determination of problems). The third stage is improvement of institutes of economic activities in socio-economic system (solving the determined problems). The fourth stage is search and establishment of balance in socio-economic system. The fifth stage is determining the signs of “conflict-free” character and forecasting of scenarios of development of socio-economic system and evaluation of effectiveness of development of “conflict-free” socio-economic system.

The developed algorithm allows overcoming drawbacks of the existing algorithm of crisis management of economic systems and has such advantages as the possibility of application by systems of any level, application at all phases of economic cycle, consideration of specifics of socio-economic systems, and cyclic character.

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

A long Introduction provides a composite methodological standard of 25 elements (concepts, theorems and basic relationships) which actually represent in analysis a system of general stable equilibrium in economics and other social sciences. In practice, the same composite standard refers to a possible regime of a free, just and stable economy and society. This double composite scientific objective standard was used to examine the content of the Memorial Lectures presented by nine Laureates who received the Nobel Prize in Economics from 1969 to 1974. Specifically, the purpose was to see how much these lectures have contributed to the clarification and the solution of the major problems of our time.

The purpose of the work is to determine the basic principles of “conflict-free” development of socio-economic systems.

The theoretical and methodological platform for the research includes the principles of crisis management of economic systems, proclaimed within the theory of economic cycles and the theory of economic growth – the principle of risk insurance, the principles of closed economy, the principles of post-crisis innovational development, and the principle of foundation on the real sector of economy. The author substantiates non-applicability of these principles to “conflict-free” socio-economic systems and determines the basic principles of “conflict-free” development of socio-economic systems, which differ from the existing principles of crisis management of economic systems. For this, the method of modeling of socio-economic processes and systems and the method of formalization are used.

As a result of the research, the basic principles of “conflict-free” development of socio-economic systems are offered – the principle of self-regulation of socio-economic system, the principle of sustainability, the principle of stability, the principle of balance, the principle of systemic management of conflicts, and the principle of moderate openness. Due to these principles, contrary to crisis management, “conflict-free” development remains accessible for any modern socio-economic systems.

The offered principles allowed determining the landmarks of development of modern socio-economic systems that strive for “conflict-free” character. Based on these principles, it is possible to develop a fundamental platform for studying “conflict-free” socio-economic systems.

The purpose of this chapter is to develop a framework strategy for implementing the optimization model of information economy in modern Russia, aimed at its adaptation to the peculiarities of the Russian economic practice.

The methods of induction, deduction, synthesis, and systemic analysis are used, as along with goal-oriented approaches, such as the method of modeling of socio-economic systems, and the method of formalization.

The authors develop the framework strategy of implementing the optimization model of information economy in modern Russia that takes into account specifics of socio-economic development and informatization of the Russian economic system at the modern stage. This strategy differs from the strategy of formation of an information economy implemented in modern Russia. The most important difference is a wide and comprehensive balance, while the Russian economy is tolerant toward imbalance. The offered strategy allows refusing from copying economic practice implemented by other countries and determining own path of formation and development of information economy. This envisages the Russian treatment of the principles of implementing the innovational model of a well-balanced information economy. This treatment is based on the current possibilities of the Russian economy and on the set goal within the formation of an information economy. Due to this, the possibilities and needs of strategic development of information economy in modern Russia are balanced.

The developed framework strategy of implementing the optimization model of information economy in modern Russia is recommended for usage in the domestic economic practice.