Search results

The purpose of the chapter is to consider the methodology of studying socio-economic systems through the prism of the theory of cycles and to analyze applicability of this methodology to studying economic.

Based on the dynamic model of development of socio-economic system through the prism of the theory of cycles, the authors analyze dynamics of development of Russia’s socio-economic system through the prism of the theory of cycles in 2000–2022.

Drawbacks of the existing theory of cycles are determined. First, the models of economic cycles are too idealized and are alien to the current economic reality. These models do not correctly describe cyclic fluctuations of modern socio-economic systems – which is shown by the example of Russia. Second, application of the methodology of the theory of cycles in practice (by the example of Russia) leads to contradictory results. Each indicator of economic growth, including investments into economy, inflation, unemployment level, and balance of federal budget, has its own cyclic fluctuations, which could differ from fluctuations of GDP in constant prices. Third, the system of factors of cyclic fluctuations of socio-economic systems includes primarily economic (not social) factors. Due to this, the theory of cycles takes into account only objective reasons of crises of socio-economic systems.

It is determined that domination of subjective reasons in emergence of economic conflicts makes application of the theory of cycles not applicable to full-scale study of economic conflicts – application of this concept is expedient only as to economic crises that are one of a lot of manifestations of economic conflicts. It is probably that neglecting subjective (social) factors leads to the above contradictions of the theory of cycles and difference between its theoretical models and empirical data. Based on this conclusion, it is substantiated that methodology of studying socio-economic system through the prism of the theory of cycles is not applicable to economic conflicts; it is determined that development of the concept of economic conflicts can specify and improve the methodology of the theory of cycles.

This chapter provides a presentation about Chapter 1 of The Balance of the National Economy, 1923–24, edited by Pavel Illich Popov. The Balance was issued in June 1926 by the Central Statistical Administration (CSU or TsSU) of the USSR, which Popov had headed from July 1918 to January 1926. In the first part of our chapter, we show how Popov’s work on the balance of the national economy was rooted in the specific scientific and political culture of zemstvo statisticians inherited from the Tsar. Statistical inquiry was considered an objective scientific process based on international standards. Furthermore, like zemstvo statisticians, CSU statisticians developed great autonomous political power. The balance of the national economy was built according to these principles, which met harsh criticism from revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. In the second part, we analyze the contents of Popov’s Chapter 1, especially the theoretical foundations of the balance and its connection with Soviet planning. In the third part, we discuss the balance’s significance in the years 1926–1929, years which ended the NEP and launched the first Five-Year Plan, so as to understand how CSU’s balance didn’t become a standard Soviet statistical instrument and was discarded as a “bourgeois” device.

When Beyond Positivism was published 35 years ago, it presented a compelling case for methodological change in the economics profession. That case remains equally compelling in the present day as, tragically, economics remains largely without the methodological pluralism at the heart of Beyond Positivism’s message. Among the costs of an environment of methodological myopia are widespread misinterpretations and the diversion of scholars from efforts at economic understanding to methodological wrangling, which we illustrate using the experience of Austrian economics in the 20th century. Beyond Positivism, we suggest, continues to provide the intellectual case for a pluralist discipline of economics, but one that requires complementary institutional reforms to come to fruition.

During the last decade or so, philosophers of science have shown increasing interest in scientific models and modeling. The primary impetus seems to have come from the philosophy of biology, but increasingly the philosophy of economics has been drawn into the discussion. This paper will focus on the particular subset of this literature that emphasizes the difference between a scientific model being explanatory and one that provides explanations of specific events. The main differences are in the structure of the models and the characteristics of the explanatory target. Traditionally, scientific explanations have been framed in terms of explaining particular events, but many scientific models have targets that are hypothetical patterns: “patterns of macroscopic behavior across systems that are heterogeneous at smaller scales” (Batterman & Rice, 2014, p. 349). The models with this characteristic are often highly idealized, and have complex and heterogeneous targets; such models are “central to a kind of modeling that is widely used in biology and economics” (Rohwer & Rice, 2013, p. 335). This paper has three main goals: (i) to discuss the literature on such models in the philosophy of biology, (ii) to show that certain economic phenomena possess the same degree of heterogeneity and complexity often encountered in biology (and thus, that hypothetical pattern explanations may be appropriate in certain areas of economics), and (iii) to demonstrate that Hayek’s arguments about “pattern predictions” and “explanations of the principle” are essentially arguments for the importance of this type of modeling in economics.

The purpose of the chapter is to study dynamics of development of economic conflicts and to develop a conceptual model of conflict of socio-economic system as an analog to the model of economic cycle.

The author compiles and analyzes the existing conceptual static model of conflict of a socio-economic system. The theoretical basis of the research includes the works of modern authors that reflect provisions of the theory of cycles and devoted to cyclic fluctuations of socio-economic systems. The methodology of the chapter includes the method of dynamic modeling of the process of development of socio-economic systems and the method of formalization (graphic presentation of the obtained results and conclusions). Also, the author uses the complex of general scientific methods within the systemic approach – induction, deduction, analysis, and synthesis.

It is substantiated that the existing conceptual static model of economic conflict, which treats it as a non-recurrent phenomenon in socio-economic system, contradicts its dynamic nature. Instead of this, similarly to the model of economic cycle, a conceptual dynamic model of conflict of socio-economic system is developed, which treats economic conflict as a process that develops according to a certain algorithm and is constantly repeated.

The offered conceptual model of conflict of a socio-economic system as an analogue of the model of economic cycle allows specifying the methodology of studying economic crises, which are manifestations/examples of economic conflicts. This model emphasizes the dichotomic nature of economic conflict (its probable negative or positive consequences), which allows for more precise treatment of economic crisis – which is usually considered to be a negative phenomenon. According to the offered model, crisis is not a phase of economic cycle but socio-economic process that is characterized by cyclic fluctuations. As is expected, the developed model will allow describing the practice of development of modern socio-economic systems with higher precision.

All of the above proposals are realities in Western Europe, and it is suggested that the adoption of such “reforms” would substantially reduce the transaction costs of providing compensation to deserving plaintiffs, improve the efficiency of the tort system, and provide manufacturers and service providers with greater predictability and “fairness” in potential tort damages in the United States.

There are the interesting words of Myrdal in respect of the universality and commonness of what a scientific problem means:From then on more definitely I came to see that in reality there are no economic, sociological, psychological problems, but just problems and they are all mixed and composite. In research the only permissible demarcation is between relevant and irrelevant conditions. The problems are regularly also political and have moreover to be seen in historical perspective. (Myrdal, 1979, p. 106)

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.