.
Увійти 
|
HOME |
№ 2/2011
OSETSKYI Valerii 1, TATOMYR Iryna L.2
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
2Drohobych State Pedagogical University after Ivan Franko
The Nexus of the System of Work Motivation: from Materialization to Post-Materialistic Values
Ekon. teor. 2011; 2:0-0 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article focuses on the problems of evolution of the development of the society from the Industrial to Post-Industrial (Information) one. This evolution has transformed traditional view on the essence and nature of labour, on the role of human factor in manufacturing process. The need to further develop the forms and methods of work motivation with an emphasis on post-materialistic values is set out in the article.
Keywords:
Article in Russian (pp. 47 - 57) | Download | Downloads :242 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 47 - 57) | Download | Downloads :235 |
REFERENCES ▼
№ 2/2018
OSETSKYI Valerii 1, TATOMYR Iryna L.2
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
2Drohobych State Pedagogical University after Ivan Franko
Business models of the monetization of massive open online courses providers
Ekon. teor. 2018; 2:59-76 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2018.02.059 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article examines the international experience of massive open online courses (MOOCs) providers regarding the development and implementation of various monetization models, which are the main source of their financial support. The authors systematize and conduct comparative analysis of the traditional and hybrid business models of the largest educational online providers: Coursera, Edx and Udacity. It is determined that for all online providers it is characteristic to charge a subscription for courses or their separate specialization. It has been established that the list of the most common traditional ways of receiving revenue by the providers includes: the opportunity to get funds from the implementation and increase of the number of specialist programs, the use of various models of "freemium" and syndication, the provision of certificates, and cooperation with employers who are willing to pay for access to information about the students’ academic performance.
It has been shown that the greatest successes in this financial segment have been achieved by Coursera and Udacity, with an annual demand of 1,000 students. In order to facilitate the placement of graduates who successfully passed the examinations, Udacity's leadership has launched the Job Placement Program, which has made profiles of the best students available to interested employers, including Bank of America, Facebook, Google, Twitter, TrialPay, Bu.mp and Greylock Venture Partners. The most profitable are the ones related to the development of courses for the corporate sector and the sale of certified master's programs.
It has been found that additional sources of revenue include funds from advertising, collaboration with Amazon and creation of own online stores, as in the case of Coursera. Particular attention is paid to hybrid models of monetization, which are designed to solve business problems and bring benefits on the market for providers of MOOCs and their university partners. It has been substantiated that in order to encourage a greater number of students the most prominent providers resort to financial discounts for early completion of the course and for students from low-income families. The article shows that it is possible for individuals who act as teachers to monetize their own experience, which can earn tens of thousands of dollars.
Keywords: massive open online courses (MOOCs), educational start-up, honor code certificate, freemium model, screening technologies, specialized programs
JEL: A 20, I 22, I 23
Article in Russian (pp. 59 - 76) | Download | Downloads :543 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 59 - 76) | Download | Downloads :386 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Bacsich, P., Consulting Ltd S. (2016). Business models for opening up education (Sustainability of MOOCs, OER and related online education approaches in higher education in Europe). D-TRANSFORM.
3. Bazhenov, S., Bazhenov, O. (2016). Global market of mass online education and its influence on the national education system. Contemporary Science. The Theory and the Practice. AMR Bedzin, 15-22.
4. Burd, E., Smith S., Reisman S. (2015). Exploring Business Models for MOOCs in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 40:1, 37-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0">doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0
5. Kalman, Y.A. (2014). Race to the Bottom: MOOCs and Higher Education Business Models. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. Published online, 5-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.922410">doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.922410">https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.922410
6. Nor Fadzleen sa Don, Rose Alinda Alias, Naoki Ohshima (2016). A Conceptual Business Model for MOOCs Sustainability in Higher Education. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit.
7. Porter, S. (2015). The economics of MOOCs: a sustainable future? The Bottom Line, 28, 52-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2014-0035">doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2014-0035">https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2014-0035
8. Rose M. Baker, David L. Passmore (2016). Value and Pricing of MOOCs. Education Sciences, 6, 2-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6020014">doi.org/10.3390/educsci6020014">https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6020014
№ 3/2019
OSETSKYI Valerii 1, KYRYCHENKO Yevheniia 2
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
2Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Human capital in the structure of national wealth
Ekon. teor. 2019; 3:29-44 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2019.03.029 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article examines theoretical and practical aspects of interconnection between national wealth and human capital. The nature of human capital and its economic content has been determined. A historical and economic analysis of human capital theory formation, as well as methods for assessing its value as a part of national wealth, was carried out. The authors’ category \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"human capital\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" was formed on the basis of generalization of theoretical approaches to human capital definition. Human capital is established to be the main value of modern society, the main component of national wealth, which means not only innate human abilities, knowledge, skills and experience, but also ability, as well as the opportunity provided by the state for lifelong learning and improvement in particular professional field. It has been proved that meritocratic values and principles of social justice play important role in human capital development, as well as the economic, political and social agents’ perception of the mechanisms that ensure sustainable economic development, production growth and reduction of economic inequality. It was found that different approaches to understanding the essence of human capital have direct influence on the methods for its estimation. Special attention is paid to new approaches of human capital assessment as a component of national wealth, in particular, the World Bank human capital and wealth accounting approaches. On the basis of economic and statistical analysis of the components, as well as growth dynamics of national wealth of different groups of countries, the authors concluded that the level of human capital investment depends on the type of economic development and country’s strategic economic priorities. The review of national wealth dynamics in selected Asian countries for 1995–2014 has shown that productive capital accumulation precedes increase in human capital, since high-tech industries contribute to qualitative development of work force.
Keywords: human capital, national wealth, human capital theory, national wealth structure, sustainable economic development, economic growth
JEL: D31, O40, E24
Article in Russian (pp. 29 - 44) | Download | Downloads :385 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 29 - 44) | Download | Downloads :343 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Marx, K., Engels, F. (1961). Compositions, 16, 23, 24, 46-2, 47 [in Russian].
3. Mill, J.S. (1980). Fundamentals of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
4. Nureyev, R.M. (2011). Human capital and the problems of its development in modern Russia. Retrieved from rustem-nureev.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/333.pdf [in Russian].
5. Petty, W. (1940). Economic and statistical work. Moscow: Sotskigz [in Russian].
6. Safonova, T.V. (2009). The theory of human capital as an integral concept of social and economic development. Retrieved from dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/39808/12-Safonova.pdf?sequence=1 [in Ukrainian].
7. Kazeem, Y. (2018, June 25). Nigeria has become the poverty capital of the world. QuartzAfrica. Retrieved from qz.com/africa/1313380/nigerias-has-the-highest-rate-of-extreme-poverty-globally/
8. Mireille, L., Marcel, M. (1999, Mar.). On the Concept and Dimensions of Human Capital in a Knowledge-Based Economy Contex. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 25: 1, 87-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3551403">doi.org/10.2307/3551403">https://doi.org/10.2307/3551403
№ 2/2021
OSETSKYI Valerii 1, KRAUS Nataliia 2, KRAUS Kateryna 3
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
2Economics Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University
3Economics Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University
Sharing economy: dialectic development of reciprocal exchange in the conditions of virtual reality and digital transformation
Ekon. teor. 2021; 2:5-27 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2021.02.005 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The authors consider various theoretical and practical aspects of the formation and development of common economy in the world and in Ukraine and substantiate the economic nature of sharing economy and deepen its socio-economic content through the prism of digital transformation that takes place in virtual reality.
The purpose of the article is to substantiate the peculiarities of sharing economy in the global communication space in virtual reality, due to the development of digital technology platforms, and to highlight and analyze the benefits and risks of building business models of shared economy in Ukraine and abroad.
The authors use a set of methods of empirical and theoretical research: methods of analysis, synthesis and generalization, which at the dialectical level of research allow to scientifically substantiate the most popular types of solutions of sharing economy. Based on the available data of companies that aggregate BigData, as well as consulting companies, the authors describe consumers’ behavior through sharing economy in the period of digital transformation. As a result of the research, the authors’ concept of sharing economy in the conditions of virtual reality is offered.
It is established that the most important factor in the transition to sharing economy is the transformation of customer service. It is proved that today digital economy is fundamentally changing the ways of building and managing sharing organizations, which the problems that arise can be associated primarily with changes in the object and subject of management and the development of organizations in digital environment. The authors indicate advantages of sharing models in terms of the use of innovative resources in terms of stages of business project implementation.
Keywords:sharing, sharing economy, digital transformation, virtual reality, sharing economy, sharing business models
JEL: O30, О31, O40
Article in Russian (pp. 5 - 27) | Download | Downloads :151 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 5 - 27) | Download | Downloads :137 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Avdokushin E.F., Belova L.G. (2018). Sharing Economy – An Emerging Segment of the New Economy. Voprosy novoj jekonomiki – New Economy Is-sues, 2 (46), 4-14 [in Russian].
3. Avdokushin, E. F., Kuznetsova E. G. (2019). Economics of Joint Con-sumption: Essence and some Development Trends. Ekonomichesky Zhurnal – Economic Journal, 2 (54), 6-19 [in Russian].
4. Isaacson, W. (2017). The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geni-uses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution. Kyiv: Nash format [in Ukraini-an].
5. Wallerstein, I. (2003). After liberalism. Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].
6. Hlushchenko, O. (2016). Reciprocal exchange: development dialec-tics and manifestations in conditions of the informational-and-network society. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 1, 53-66. doi.org/10.15407/etet2016.01.05 [in Ukrainian].
7. Holoborodko, O. P., Kraus, N. M., Kraus, K. M. (2018). Digital econo-my: trends and perspectives of the abangard change of development. Efektyvna ekonomika – Efficient economy, 1. Retrieved from www.economy.nayka.com.ua/pdf/1_2018/8.pdf [in Ukrainian].
8. Dolgova M. V., Dryazgina E. S. (2015). Sharing economy as a new business model. Finansy, dengi, investiciii – Finances, money, investments, 3, 13-18 [in Russian].
9. Kraus, N. M., Kraus, K. M. (2018). Digitization under institutional transformation of the economy: basic components and tools of digital technol-ogies. Intelekt XXI stolittia – Intelligence of the XXI century, 1, 211-214 [in Ukrainian].
10. Kraus, N. M. (2019). Innovative economy in the globalized world: in-stitutional basis of formation and trajectory of development: monograph. Kyiv: Ahrar Media Hrup [in Ukrainian].
11. Kraus, N. M., Kraus, K. M. (2018). What changes bears «Industry 4.0» for the economy and production? Formuvannia rynkovykh vidnosyn v Ukraini – Formation of market relations in Ukraine, 9 (208), 128-136 [in Ukrainian].
12. Kraus, N. M., Kraus, K. M. (2016). Implementation of innovative pro-ject by a business entity within the framework of “windmill of innovations”. Ekonomist – Economist, 2, 4-8 [in Ukrainian].
13. Kryvoruchko O. S., Kraus N. M., Kraus K. M. (2018). Virtual reality of national informative-innovative space. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo – Economy and society, 14. 22-35. Retrieved from economy and society.in.ua [in Ukraini-an].
14. Rozov A. (2019). Sharing is poverty. Communist collective farm bur-dened by bourgeois lease. LiveJournal. Retrieved from alex-rozoff.livejournal.com/198903.html [in Russian].
15. Tkachenko E. A., Rogova E. M. (2020). Sharing of innovative re-sources as a factor in the development of a shared economy in the industrial sector of the Northwestern Federal District: materials of the international scien-tific seminar INIR named after S.Yu. Witte, 4 (66), 23-33. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2020-4-66-23-33 [in Russian].
16. Fukuyama, F. (2008). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Kyiv: Dovira [in Ukrainian].
17. Schwab K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Moscow: Jeksmo [in Russian].
18. Shved V. V., Jablochnikov S. L. (2018). Features of the sharing economy in Ukraine. Vestnik. Volgogradskogo instituta biznesa – Bulletin of the Volgograd Institute of Business, 2 (43), 78. DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2018.43.201[in Russian].
19. Shchehliuk S. (2019). Morphology of digital economy: features of development and regulation of digital technological platforms. Scientific and analytical note. Retrieved from ird.gov.ua/irdp/e20190301.pdf [in Ukraini-an].
20. How the sharing economy is changing the world (2016). Retrieved from www.epravda.com.ua/publications/2016/09/5/603709/ [in Ukraini-an].
21. Andrusiak, N. O., Kraus, N. M., Kraus, K. M. (2020). Digital Cubic Space as a New Economic Augmented Reality. Sci. innov, 16: 3, 92-105. Retrieved from doi.org/10.15407/scinе16.03.092
22. Blanchard, O. (2015). Stop calling it the “sharing economy”. Retrieved from olivierblanchard.net/stop-calling-it-the-sharing-economy-that-isnt-what-it-is.
23. Botsman, R. (2017). Who Can You Trust York. Public Affairs.
24. Bouncken, R., Ratzmann, M., Barwinski, R., Kraus, S. (2020). Coworking spaces: Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing economy. Journal of Business Research, 14, 102-110. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.033
25. Cachin, C., Vukolic, M. (2017). Blockchain Consensus Protocols in the Wild. 31-й Международный симпозиум по распределенным вычислениям (DISC 2017), 1, 1:1-1:16.
26. Curtis, S.K., Mont, O. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sus-tainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2661. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519
27. Debelak, D. (2006). Business models made easy. Entrepreneur Press.
28. Felson, M., Spaeth, J. (1978). Community structure and collaborative con-sumption: a routine activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 614-624. doi.org/10.1177/000276427802100411
29. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047-2059. doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552
30. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
31. Laloux F., Wilber K. (2014). Reinventing organizations: a guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage in human consciousness. Nelson Par-ker.
32. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business model generation; a hand-book for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
33. Thaler, R., Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. TC Leonard. Constitutional Political Economy, 19 (4), 356–360. doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9056-2
34. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica. XVLII, 263-291. doi.org/10.2307/1914185
35. Yegina N.A., Zemskova E.S., Gorin V.A., Stepanova D.I. (2019). Applying consumer behavior theory in the context of the digital transformation of the economy. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8: 3, 341-347.
Сalendar of events
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 | 31 |