Search results

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 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.

A discipline is bound by some combination of a shared subject matter, shared theory, and shared technique. Yet modern economics is seemingly without limit to its domain. As a discipline without a shared subject matter, what is the binding force of economics today? The authors combine topic modeling and text analysis to analyze different approaches to inquiry within the discipline of economics. The authors find that the importance of theory has declined as economics has increasingly become defined by its empirical techniques. The authors question whether this trajectory is stable in the long run as the binding force of the discipline.

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

This chapter investigates the nature of the transformation of macroeconomics by focusing on the impact of the Great Depression on economic doctrines. There is no doubt that the Great Depression exerted an enormous influence on economic thought, but the exact nature of its impact should be examined more carefully. In this chapter, I examine the transformation from a perspective which emphasizes the interaction between economic ideas and economic events, and the interaction between theory and policy rather than the development of economic theory. More specifically, I examine the evolution of what became known as macroeconomics after the Depression in terms of an ongoing debate among the “stabilizers” and their critics. I further suggest using four perspectives, or schools of thought, as measures to locate the evolution and transformation; the gold standard mentality, liquidationism, the Treasury view, and the real-bills doctrine. By highlighting these four economic ideas, I argue that what happened during the Great Depression was the retreat of the gold standard mentality, the complete demise of liquidationism and the Treasury view, and the strange survival of the real-bills doctrine. Each of those transformations happened not in response to internal debates in the discipline, but in response to government policies and real-world events.

The article engages with Amartya Sen’s interpretation of Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (PCMC). Sen has the distinction of highlighting the philosophical and methodological aspects of Sraffa’s work. In this regard, Sen has highlighted the role of counterfactuals in economic theory and the role of value theory in political economy as a matter of “social communication.” On these two issues, there is considerable discussion in recent Sraffian scholarship that is concerned with the significance of Sraffa’s critique of marginalist theory and the rehabilitation of classical economics. The article scrutinizes Sen’s interpretation of PCMC and highlights several noteworthy contributions and insights. While being sympathetic to the substantive points of criticism entailed by PCMC, Sen misunderstands Sraffa’s “critique of economic theory” and the reasoning involved in such a critique. A critical reading reveals that Sen’s interpretation of Sraffa is more reflective of his own work on the “choice basis of description” than an appreciation of Sraffa’s theoretical project. Despite the misunderstandings, the article highlights the similarities in vision between Sen’s interpretation of Sraffa and Sraffa’s revival of classical economics. By undertaking such a critical reading, the article raises important issues about method and the scope of economic enquiries.

Despite profound differences, both the German Historical School and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School have in common a theoretical and cultural heritage in Central European traditions of social thought and philosophy. Although both schools often are perceived as quintessentially German traditions of economic and social research, their methodological presuppositions and critical intent diverge strongly. Since the objective of the Frankfurt School was to carry the theoretical critique initiated by Marx into the twentieth century, and since its members did so on a highly abstract level of theoretical criticism, the suggestion may be surprising that in terms of their respective research agendas, there was a common denominator between the German Historical School and the Frankfurt School critical theory. To be sure, as will become apparent, the common ground was rather tenuous and indirect. We must ask, then: in what respects did their theoretical and analytical foundations and orientations overlap? How did the German Historical School, as a nineteenth-century tradition of economic thinking, influence the development of the Frankfurt School?

Neoclassic economics is a thing of considerable beauty. It yet finds an increasing tendency on the part of those trained in its discipline to rebel from its neatly fitted abstractions and intriguing diagrams. The rebellion stems from two sources. Veblen's sweeping attacks upon its postulates¹⁶ shock its theoretical foundations. The rapid changes in the industrial and business world discredited it on another front by bringing into increasingly sharp relief the divergence between the institutional assumptions of the orthodox theory and the conditions actually obtaining. The giant corporation, overhead costs, and the necessity for maintenance of volume, industrial concentration, the trade association, a widening spread among income classes, advertising, the growing inability of the consumer to gauge quality, the resort to reorganization instead of the “going out of business” of the long-run analyses – what place could the orthodox theory give to these important characteristics of the existing business economy?