Search results

The purpose of the chapter is to classify socio-economic systems from the positions of manifestation of conflicts in them and to substantiate the scientific and theoretical concept “conflict-free” as a characteristic of the process of development of socio-economic systems.

Methodology of the research includes dynamic modeling of the process of development of socio-economic systems. The author uses the conceptual model of conflict of socio-economic system as an analog of the model of economic cycle. Also, a complex of general scientific methods is used – induction, deduction, synthesis, and formalization.

Examples of “conflict-free” socio-economic systems of Turkey and Japan are analyzed through the prism of dynamics of their GDP in constant prices in 2006–2022, and features of their “conflict-free” nature are determined at different phases of the conflict.

It is substantiated that “conflict-free” nature is a capability of socio-economic systems to avoid conflicts (caused by internal causes) and, in the case of their emergence, to use conflicts in their own interests – for optimization of the model of development and intensification of economic growth in future. A socio-economic system is considered “conflict-free” only if it possesses all the corresponding characteristics at each phase of its conflict (through the prism of the economic cycle). An opposition to “conflict-free” socio-economic systems is “conflict” systems, which do not have the above characteristics and this cannot prevent conflicts, caused by internal reasons, and remain destabilized in case of a conflict (show stagnation and are subject to the second wave of the crisis).

The purpose of the chapter is to develop methodological recommendations and to determine criteria of measuring “conflict character” of socio-economic system.

Due to large diversity of conflicts of socio-economic systems, the authors compile common methodological recommendations for all economic conflicts, but criteria of measuring “conflict character” of socio-economic system by the example of crisis as a manifestation/example of conflict for which statistical and information bases are available and its precise, objective, and authentic evaluation is possible are offered. The methodological tools of this work are based on the method of systematization, the method of classification, the method of comparative analysis, and the method of formalization of authors’ conclusions and recommendations.

Methodological recommendations and criteria for measuring the “conflict character” of socio-economic system are offered – they allow classifying “conflict” systems. As to the value of the index of conflict character, socio-economic systems with reduced conflict level, moderate conflict level, high conflict level, and very high conflict level are distinguished. They differ as to the capability to oppose internal crises, reaction to external crises, and the model of development of economic conflicts. According to the developed methodological recommendations and offered criteria, “conflict” level of socio-economic systems of developed countries – the USA and Germany, and developing countries – China and Russia is measured in the period of the 2008 global economic crisis.

Based on the offered classification, it is possible to forecast development and management of conflicts of various “conflict” socio-economic systems.

The purpose of the work is to study the process of development of “conflict-free” socio-economic system from the positions of the theory of conflicts and the theory of systems.

The object of the research is development of systems according to the optimistic scenario from the positions of the theory of systems and development of “conflict-free” socio-economic system from the positions of the theory of conflicts. The methods include comparative analysis, dynamic modeling of systems, and formalization. The authors compare treatment of phenomena and processes that emerge during development of system from the positions of the theory of systems and the theory of conflicts and compare the model of development of “conflict-free” socio-economic system from the positions of the theory of conflicts and the theory of systems.

As a result of the research, due to founding on the theory of systems, the theory of economic conflicts receives meta-scientific conceptual and methodological substantiation, which ensures its advantages as compared to the existing theory of economic cycles and the existing theory of economic crises: complex consideration of economic and social effects of conflict, correct description of phases of conflict, and more precise classification of causes of conflicts.

Due to these advantages, the theory of economic conflicts may help to describe, model, and forecast the processes of development of modern socio-economic systems, as well as to classify them via differentiating “conflict” and “non-conflict” systems.

The New Economic Society was formed in 1973 to promote the aims of the School of Economic Synthesis. Economic synthesis, since its early formation in the 1930s, has sought to integrate historical economics with social and neo‐classical economics. As the academic movement toward economic synthesis broadened, a more formal organisation became necessary. The New Economic Society (International School of Economic Synthesis) is an interdisciplinary association open to economists and others who are interested in developing a more social and humanistic economics, and a more realistic and scientific understanding of modern developed and less developed societies. The membership includes persons from numerous academic disciplines in many countries; formal chapters of the Society exist in the United Kingdom, Germany, India and Israel. At present, the membership is developing on an informal basis and no dues are requested. Membership information may be obtained from the following persons.

The purpose of the chapter is to specify effects of crises and to evaluate their influence on growth and development of socio-economic systems.

The authors use the method of regression analysis, with the help of which dependence on growth of the global GDP of various indicators that reflect crisis effects is determined. The information and analytical basis of the research is statistical materials of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Timeframe of the research covers 2007–2016. The research is performed at the level of global economy on the whole for provision of representativeness of data and authenticity of results.

It is determined that influence of crisis on socio-economic system is expressed in short-term, mid-term, and long-term periods, including the next phase of economic cycle (phase of rise). Growth and development of economy after crisis are predetermined by its influence – crisis creates in a socio-economic system the environment that makes economic subject and state regulators cooperate and stimulate more active state support for society and business. Comprehensive study of the wave of economic cycle allows determining crisis as an impulse for development of economy, which expands its traditional negative treatment as a source of recession. It is also shown that crisis leads not only to financial (reduction of total savings in economy) but also social (growth of unemployment rate) and other – e.g., ecological (post-crisis increase of the share of renewable energy in the structure of production of electric energy) – effects in the economic system.

It is substantiated that influence of crises on growth and development of socio-economic systems is contradictory. On the one hand, crisis leads to temporary decline of GDP and slows down the development of socio-economic systems. On the other hand, crisis opens new possibilities for further growth and development of these systems, preventing their stagnation.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

Two important methodologies having some common grounds, but based on differing contexts and paradigms are Physical System Theory (PST) and System Dynamics (SD). The developments in both the fields have taken place almost independently, and attempts have been made to integrate the two to complement their strengths and limitations. This paper provides an overview of PST in terms of its foundations, philosophy, fundamental postulates, recent developments on its simplification and enlargement, and applications to socio‐economic and managerial systems. A comparison of PST is made with SD on different fronts so as to understand their similarities and differences for carving out their place in modelling of managerial and socio‐economic systems and integrating the two more meaningfully and flexibly. The paper is concluded emphasizing the need for a ‘Flexible System Theory’ which can relate many such systems based approaches and techniques on the whole continuum from hard to soft systems thinking to cater the whole spectrum of problem situations effectively.

In this contribution to the growing discussion of the meaning, method‐dology and rationale of the socio‐economic approach we shall not reiterate the historical development of Social Economics but will concentrate on trying to stimulate discussion of the following questions:

In this contribution to the increasing literature on the international division of labour and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) we wish to concentrate on some of the labour aspects of socio‐economic growth. This will be approached in the first section by considering socio‐economic growth as one aspect of the socio‐economic system outlined previously but here slightly expanded conceptually: in section two we briefly examine the ideas of the NIEO; and in the final section we consider some of the labour aspects of the NIEO.

The purpose of the work is to determine the signs of conflicts in social effects of crises of economic systems and to determine perspectives of studying crises on the basis of the concept of economic conflicts.

For determining the signs of conflicts in social effects of crises of economic systems, this work uses the method of qualitative break-even analysis, the methods of systemic, problem, and structural and functional analysis, and the method of formalization (table presentation of authors’ conclusions).

It is substantiated that social causes and social manifestations and consequences of crises of economic systems have signs of conflicts – violation of balance of socio-economic phenomena and processes and the following negative reaction of economic subjects. Causal connections of distribution of conflicts within social effects of crises of economic systems are determined and a preferable method of their regulation is offered.

A new method of state regulation of socio-economic system for overcoming its crisis and crisis management is offered. An advantage and essential difference of this method from the traditional one is influence on social cause of crisis (not on its economic and social consequences), due to which it is possible to quickly overcome the crisis and reduce the risk of its renewal.