.
Увійти 
|
HOME |
№ 3/2014
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic world: ontology
Ekon. teor. 2014; 3:0-0 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The ontological dimensions of economic science are revealed through the prism of analysis of the economic world. Object based ontology of economic science is outlined with the use of the fundamental economic terms of "economic existence" and "the economic existing" In particular, the existing of the first order is realized in economic reality, the existing of the second order - in economic actuality, and the existing of third-order - in the art of the economics (economic policy). The author focuses on the two components of the economic foundation of the existing: resources and institutions.
Keywords:economic world, ontology, economic existence, the economic existing, economic reality, economic actuality, the art of economics
JEL: A10, B41
Article in Russian (pp. 38 - 47) | Download | Downloads :639 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 38 - 47) | Download | Downloads :617 |
REFERENCES ▼
Anan'in O.I. (red.) (2011) Ontologicheskie predposylki jekonomicheskih teorij: Sb. M.: IJe RAN.
Aristotel'. (1998) Jetika. Politika. Ritorika. Pojetika. Kategorii. Minsk: Literatura.
Aristotel'. (1976) Soch.: V 4-h t. T. 1. M.: Mysl'.
Bazilevich V., Il'in V. (2007) Metafizika jekonomiki. K.: Znannja; M. : Rybari.
Bashnjanyn G.I. ta in. (red.) (2013) Ekonomichni systemy: Monografija. T. 4. L'viv: Vydavnyctvo L'vivs'koi' komercijnoi' akademii'.
Boldyrev I. (2008) Ontologija ortodoksal'noj jekonomicheskoj nauki: problemy postroenija i interpretacii // Voprosy jekonomiki. № 7. S. 100–112.
Bruno Dzh. (1949) Dialogi. M.: Gospolitizdat.
Gricanov A.A. (sost.) (1998) Novejshij filosofskij slovar'. Minsk: V.M.Skakun.
Kachanov Ju.L. (1999) Nachalo sociologii. SPb.
Leont'ev V.V. (2006) Izbrannye proizvedenija: V 3-h t. T. 2. Special'nye issledovanija na osnove metodologii "zatraty-vypusk". M.: Jekonomika.
Luman N. (2011) Ponjattja cili i systemna racional'nist': shhodo funkcii' cilej u social'nyh systemah. K. : Duh y litera.
Mill' Dzh.St. (2007) Osnovy politicheskoj jekonomii s nekotorymi prilozhenijami k social'noj filosofii. M.: Jeksmo.
Nort D. (2010) Ponimanie processa jekonomicheskih izmenenij. M.: Izdatel'skij dom Gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki.
Ogurcov A.P., Rozin V.M. (red.) (2009) Nauka: ot metodologii k ontologii. M.:
IF RAN.
Robbins L. (2013) Istorija jekonomicheskoj mysli: lekcii v Londonskoj shkole jekonomiki. M.: Izdatel'stvo Instituta Gajdara.
Rozov N. (2012) Poliparadigmal'naja ontologija i ritual'no-institucional'naja koncepcija bytovanija i istoricheskogo razvitija artefaktov // Ontologii artefaktov: vzaimodejstvie "estestvennyh" i "iskusstvennyh" komponentov zhiznennogo mira. M.: Delo.
Smit V. (2008) Jeksperimental'naja jekonomika. M.: Mysl'.
Spinoza B. (2006) Sochinenija: V 2-h t. T. І. Izd. 2-e. SPb: Nauka.
Tararoev Ja.V., Ivanenko N.A. (2011) Ontologicheskie osnovanija fizicheskogo znanija i sovremennaja jekonomicheskaja teorija // Voprosy filosofii. № 12. S. 47–56.
Terehovich V.Je. (2007) Chto takoe ontologija, dlja chego ona nuzhna i chem otlichaetsja ot metafiziki? Vseobshhaja sistema ontologii i metafiziki // Paradigma. Vyp. 7. S. 15–26.
Fouli D. (2012) Matematicheskij formalizm i politjekonomicheskoe soderzhanie // Voprosy jekonomiki. № 7. S. 82–95.
Hajdegger M. (2007) Vremja i bytie. Stat'i i vystuplenija. SPb: Nauka.
Hajdegger M. (2006) Nicshe. T. І. SPb: Vladimir Dal'.
Arestis Ph. (2009) New Consensus Macroeconomics and Keynesian critique. In: Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations. Whither Mainstream Economics? Marburg.
Dupre J. (2001) Economics without mechanism // The Economic World view: Studies in the Ontology of Economics / Ed. by Uskali M?ki. Cambridge University Press.
Glimcher P.W. (Ed.) (2010) Foundations of neuroeconomic analysis. New York.
Guala F. (2005) The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Huei-chun-Su. (2012) Beyond the positive-normative dichotomy: some remarks on Colander"s Lost Art of Economics // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 19. Nr. 4. December. P. 375–390.
Marchionni C., Vromen J. (2010) Introduction "Neuroeconomics: hype or hope?" // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 17. Nr. 2. June. P. 103–106.
Sen A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York.
Sen A. (2009) The Idea of Justice. London.
Sen A. (2012) Values and Justice // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 19. No 2. June. P. 101–108.
(2012) WEA interview on ontology with Tony Lawson in Paris // World Economic Association Newsletter 2 (4). August.
№ 1/2016
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic world: epistemology
Ekon. teor. 2016; 1:17-25 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2016.01.017 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The author considers the epistemological structure of the economic world in philosophical and scientific dimen-sions and formulates the basic requirements for economic knowledge, such as: completeness, representative-ness and adequacy, determination, certainty, neutrality, impartiality, a priori predetermination for irresistibility (apodictity) and complete display of object, and consistence of initial principles. Economic knowledge evolves along the following epistemological ranks: the existing of the 1st order – economic reality (potential being), the existing of the 2nd order – economic reality (accident being), and the existing of the 3rd order – the art of eco-nomics (secondary essentialities). It is noted that scientific rationalism creates the necessary and reasonable preconditions for a homogeneous and integrated system of economic knowledge
Keywords: epistemology, theory, knowledge, ontology, causality, structure, existence, discourse
JEL: A10, B41
Article in Russian (pp. 17 - 25) | Download | Downloads :584 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 17 - 25) | Download | Downloads :571 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Aristotle (2006). Metaphysics. Moscow: Jeksmo [in Russian].
3. Blaug, M. (2004). The Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain. Moscow: Voprosy ekonomiki [in Russian].
4. Vernadskij, V.I. (1997). Scientific Knowledge. Scientific Creativity. Scientific Thought. In About Science, 1. Dubna: Feniks [in Russian].
5. Vernadskyi, V.I. (2005). Selected Works. Kyiv: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].
6. Vizgin, V.P. (1982). The genesis and structure of Aristotle's qualitativism. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
7. Knjazeva, E.N. (2012). [Evolutionary Epistemology: A Modern Look. In Epistemology: development prospects. Moscow [in Russian].
8. Krymskij, S. (2000). Philosophy as a Way of Humanity and Hope. Kiev: Kurs [in Russian].
9. Mahlup, F. (1966). Production and dissemination of knowledge in the United States. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
10. Okorokov, V. (2013). Logic, Mathematics or Metaphysics: Because There Is Enough Solidity in the Concept of Leibniz? Sententiae – Sententiae, 2 [in Russian].
11. Popper, K. (1983). Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
12. Popper, K. (2010). The Logic of Scientific Research. Moscow: ATS Astrel’ [in Russian].
13. Tarasevych, V.M. (2014). Ekonomiko-Theoretical Nature of Knowledge: Composition, Structure and Genesis in Philosophical-Natural Measures. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2 [in Ukrainian].
14. Ernst, G. (2014). Einfϋhrung in die Erkenntnistheorie. 5. Auflage. Darmstadt [in German].
15. Hϋbner, J. (2015, June). Einfϋhrung in die Theoretische Philosophie. Stuttgart-Weimar. The Journal of Economic Methodology, 22: 2.
16. Keizer, P. (2015). Multidisciplinary Economics. A Methodological Account. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001
17. Morgan, M.S. (2012). The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think. Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026185">doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026185">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026185
18. Pollok, J.L. (2006). Procedural Epistemology - At the Interface of Philosophy and AI. In Greco J. and Sosa E. (Eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology.
19. Scheall, S. (2015). Lesser degrees of explanation: further implications of F.A. Hayek’s methodology of sciences of complex phenomena. Philosophy and Economics, 8, Spring.
20. Schmitt, F. (2006). Social Epistemology. In Greco J. and Sosa E. (Eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Carlton.
21. Utting P. (Ed.) (2015). Social and Solidarity Economy. Beyond the Fringe. London.
22. Greco J. and Sosa E. (Eds.). (2004). The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Carlton.
23. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning. Second Edition. London.
№ 3/2017
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic world: methodology
Ekon. teor. 2017; 3:5-22 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2017.03.005 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article is dedicated to methodological problems of economic science. The aim is justification of the importance of methodology for all concepts and branches of economic science. The author considers the genesis of economic methodology, the main methodological lines, the philosophical component of economic methodology, key methodological views of economic theory, the mathematical paradigm in economic methodology, and the integrative function of methodology. The article reveals the bimodal character of economic methodology and its philosophical and mathematical principles.
Keywords: methodology, discourse, naturalism, constructivism, realism, post-modern
JEL: B41
Article in Russian (pp. 5 - 22) | Download | Downloads :655 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 5 - 22) | Download | Downloads :578 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Blaug, M. (2004). The methodology of economic science, or How economists explain. Moscow [in Russian].
3. Kirdina, S. (2013). Methodological individualism and methodological institutionalism. Voprosy jekonomiki – Issues of economics, 10 [in Russian].
4. Polan'i, K. (2002). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. St. Petersburg. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch4">doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch4">https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch4 [in Russian].
5. Smit, V. (2008). Experimental economics. Moscow [in Russian].
6. Philosophy of Science: Epistemology. Methodology. Culture (2006). Moscow [in Russian].
7. Frolov, D. (2008). Methodological institutionalism: a new perspective on the evolution of economic science. Voprosy jekonomiki – Issues of economics, 11 [in Russian].
8. Habermas, Ju. (1990). Cognition and interest. Filosofskie nauki – Philosophical sciences, 1, 91 [in Russian].
9. Hausman, D. (1994). Economic methodology in a nutshell. Mirovaja jekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija – World economy and international relations, 2 [in Russian].
10. Shhedrovickij, P.G. (2007). Changes in thinking at the turn of the XXI century: socio-cultural challenges. Voprosy filosofii – Problems of philosophy, 7, 39-40 [in Russian].
11. Backhouse, R.E. (2010, March). Methodology in: action. Journal of economic methodology, 17: 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780903528929">doi.org/10.1080/13501780903528929">https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780903528929
12. Baumans, M., Davis, J.B. (2010). Economic methodology. Understanding economic as a science. New York.
13. Camerer, C.F. (2008). Neuroeconomics: Using neuroscience to make economic predictions. In Hausman D. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics. An Anthology. Third edition. Cambridge University press.
14. Cohen, B. (2014). Advanced introduction to international political economy. Cheltenham.
15. Dhami, S. (2016). The Foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Oxford University Press.
16. Dopfer, K. (2011). Economics in cultural key: complexity and evolution revisited. In The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00022">doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00022">https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00022
17. Dippe, T. (2011, June). How economic methodology became a separate science. Journal of economic methodology, 18: 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2011.580196">doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2011.580196">https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2011.580196
18. Farmer, J. D. (2013). Hypotheses non fingo: problems with the scientific method in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20 (4), 377-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859408">doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859408">https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859408
19. Friedman, M. (2009). The methodology of positive economics. The Methodology of positive economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002">doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002
20. Fumagalli, R. (2016). Five Theses on Neuroeconomics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23 (1), 77-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1024883">doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1024883">https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1024883
21. Guala, F. (2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614651">doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614651">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614651
22. Hands, D. W. (2004). Deweyan pragmatic philosophy and contemporary economic methodology. In Khalil E.L. (Ed.). Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology. London and New York. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799901.pt4">doi.org/10.4324/9780203799901.pt4">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799901.pt4
23. Herfeld, K. (2016, September). The world in axioms: an interview with Patrick Suppes. Journal of economic methodology, 23: 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2016.1189126">doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2016.1189126">https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2016.1189126
24. Heukelom, F. (2011). Behavioral economics. In Davis, J.B., and Hands, D.W. (Eds). The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00007">doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00007">https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00007
25. Hűbner, J. (2015). Einfűhrung in die theoretische Philosophie. Stuttgart – Weimar. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05427-2">doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05427-2">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-05427-2 [in German].
26. Hutchison, T. W. (2009, September). A formative decade: methodological controversy in the 1930. Journal of economic methodology, 16: 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780903230963">doi.org/10.1080/13501780903230963">https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780903230963
27. Keizer, P. (2015). Multidisciplinary economics. A methodological account. Oxford University press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001
28. Krol, Z. (2015). Platonism and the development of mathematics. Infinity and geometry. Warszawa.
29. Moses, J.W., Knutsen, T.L. (2012). Ways of knowing: competing methodologies and methods in social and political research. 2-nd ed. London. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-00841-1">doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-00841-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-00841-1
30. Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations. Wheither Mainstream Economics? (2009). Marburg.
31. Mulberg, J. (1995). Social limits to economic theory. London and New York.
32. Perry, 6 and Bellamy, Ch. (2012). Principles of methodology. Research design in social science. Los Angeles.
33. Robbins, L. (2008). The nature and significance of economic science. In Hausman, D. (Ed.). The philosophy of economics. An Anthology. 3-d ed. Cambridge University press.
34. Santos, A. C. (2011). Experimental economics. In Davis, J.B., and Hands, D.W. The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00008">doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00008">https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857938077.00008
35. Hausman, D. M. (Ed.). (2008). The philosophy of economics. An Anthology. Third edition. Cambridge University press.
36. Williamson, O. (2009, June). Pragmatic methodology; a sketch with applications to transactions cost economics. Journal of economic methodology, 16: 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780902940729">doi.org/10.1080/13501780902940729">https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780902940729
№ 3/2018
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic world: philosophy
Ekon. teor. 2018; 3:29-44 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2018.03.029 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article deals with the philosophical principles, and philosophical reflection of economic science. The article argues that the philosophy of science is the methodological and theoretical basis of the philosophy of economics. Five dimensions of the philosophy of science reveal its main content and have a fundamental character both for their own philosophy, and for theoretical and empirical sciences, including the economics. Ontological cut determines the subject field, the deep meaning of the sciences of nature, society and man; the epistemological one reveals the genesis, structure, dynamics and functions of scientific knowledge; the axiological one focuses attention on value systems and landmarks; the logical one looks for the relationship between the logic of the universe and the logic of its scientific reflection; and the methodological one explores methods and ways of improving and obtaining new knowledge.
The proposed article, on the one hand, rests on the historical heritage of the philosophical foundations of economic existence, which gives it a philosophical dimension and creates an appropriate world outlook. Meaning a general philosophical, metaphysical vision of the economic world. On the other hand, there is a problem of the so-called philosophical calibration (testing) of economic science, economic theory in the context of modern philosophical standards through the means of theoretical and practical philosophy. Different views on the subject of the philosophy of economics are analyzed. The positivist interpretation of the philosophy of economics in the broad sense includes economic ontology, methodology and epistemology of economics, as well as rational choice, decision-making theory, game theory, and economic ethics and justice.
In the narrow pragmatic sense, the philosophy of economics is interpreted as interaction of people, institutions (firms, countries) in their historical development with the application of the theory of games, and linear and dynamic programming.
The article considers conceptual interpretations of the philosophy of economics, in particular, the philosophical (metaphysical) and historico-economic interpretations. The author provides a comparative description of the "new", "old" and "non-mainstream" (non-orthodox) philosophy of economics. Presented the interpretation of positive and normative economics by philosophers and economists.
Keywords: philosophy of science, philosophy of economics, ontology, epistemology, methodology, positive economics, normative economics
JEL: B 41
Article in Russian (pp. 29 - 44) | Download | Downloads :618 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 29 - 44) | Download | Downloads :823 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Aristotel. (1998). Ethics. Policy. Rhetoric. Poetics. Categories. Minsk [in Russian].
3. Aristotel. (2008). Policy. Metaphysics. Analytics. Moscow [in Russian].
4. Bazilevich, V., Ilin, V. (2010). Metaphysics of economics. 2nd ed., Corr. and add. Kyiv [in Russian].
5. Bulgakov, S.N. (2008). The philosophy of the economy. Moscow [in Russian].
6. Vernadskyi, V.I. (2005). Selected Works. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
7. Hokinh, S., Mlodinov, L. (2018). Great plan. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
8. Kant, I. (2007). The foundations of the metaphysics of morality. Criticism of practical reason. Metaphysics of manners. Ed. 3rd, stereotypical. St. Petersburg [in Russian].
9. Kant, I. (2004). Reflections to the critique of pure mind. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
10. Lakatos, I. (2008). Selected works on the philosophy and methodology of science. Moscow [in Russian].
11. Mill, J.S. (2007). Fundamentals of political economy with some applications to social philosophy. Moscow [in Russian].
12. The latest philosophical dictionary. (1998). Minsk: Izd. V.M. Skakun [in Russian].
13. Osipov, Yu.M. (2003). The philosophy of the economy. Moscow [in Russian].
14. Priyatelchuk, A.O. (2012). The structure of the philosophy of economics. Humanitarnyi visnyk ZDIA – Humanitarian Bulletin Zaporizhzhya State Engineering Academy, 48 [in Ukrainian].
15. Tutov, L.A. (2003). The philosophy of the economy. The experience of spiritual transformation. Moscow [in Russian].
16. Filipenko, A. (2014). Economic world: ontology. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 3 [in Ukrainian].
17. Filipenko, A. (2016). Economic world: epistemology. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 1 [in Ukrainian].
18. Filipenko, A. (2017). Economic world: methodology. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 3 [in Ukrainian].
19. Philosophy of Economics. Anthology (2012). Moscow [in Russian].
20. Shevchenko, T.G. (1982). Kobzar. Introductory article by O. Honchar. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
21. Shpet, G.G. (1917). Wisdom or Mind? Mysl i slovo –Thought and word. Moscow [in Russian].
22. Crespo, R.F. (2013). Philosophy of the Economy. An Aristotelian Approach. Heidelberg. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02648-0">doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02648-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02648-0
23. Friedman, M. (2009). The Methodology of Positive Economics in: The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections of the Milton Friedman Legacy. Ed. by U. Mäki. Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002">doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.002
24. Gorazda, M. (2014). Filozofia ekonomii. Copernicus Center Press, Krakow, 2014.
25. Gorham, G. (2009). Philosophy of Science. A Beginner’s Guide. One World, Oxford.
26. Hoffmann, T.S. (2009). Wirtschaftsphilosophie. Ansätze und Perspektiven von der Antike bis heute. Wiesbaden.
27. Keizer, P. (2015). Multidisciplinary Economics. A methodological Account. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686490.001.0001
28. Mäki, U. (2009). Realistic realism about unrealistic models in: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics / Ed. by H. Kincaid and D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
29. Marques, G. (2016). A philosophical framework for rethinking theoretical economics and philosophy of economics. London, 2016.
30. Mulberg, J. (1995). Social Limits to Economic Theory. London and New York.
31. Reason, Morality, and Beauty. Essays on the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. (2007). Ed. by B. Puri and H. Sievers. Oxford University Press.
32. Reiss, J. (2013). Philosophy of economics. A Contemporary introduction. New York. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559062">doi.org/10.4324/9780203559062">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559062
33. Ross, D. and Kincaid, H. (2009). Introduction: The New Philosophy of Economics in: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Ed. by H. Kincaid and D. Ross. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195189254.001.0001">doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195189254.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195189254.001.0001
34. Skidelcky, R. and Skidelsky, E. (2013). How much is enough? Money and the Good Life. London.
35. Skorupski, J. (2005). Later empiricism and Logical positivism in: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Ed. by St. Shapiro. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195148770.003.0003">doi.org/10.1093/0195148770.003.0003">https://doi.org/10.1093/0195148770.003.0003
36. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. (2009). Ed. By H. Kincaid and D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
37. The Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology. Third Edition. (2008). Ed. by D.M. Hausman. Cambridge University Press.
№ 2/2020
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Digital economy: theoretical and applied aspect
Ekon. teor. 2020; 2:54-66 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2020.02.054 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article considers current trends of digitalization of the economy, which cause significant theoretical and methodological changes and a new applied vision of economic processes. Theoretically, the digital economy (DE) is the core of the modern networked economic system, and in practice, it is a growing sector of national and global economies. In current conditions, properly economic laws of DE are determined by the prevailing concepts and doctrines (neoclassical and neo-institutional ones). We are talking about the widespread use of marginal indicators (marginal costs, marginal capital, marginal labor, etc.) and concepts such as institutions, trust, risk, security, and others. The essential features of IT as a new phenomenon in the socio-economic system are complemented on an interdisciplinary basis by the epistemology of informational and computer sciences, and electronic technologies and platforms. Combination of the categorical apparatus of economic mainstream and informational and computer sciences, and their synergistic synthesis give grounds to state the emergence of complexity economics, which is characterized by fundamentally new dimensions and parameters.
Keywords:digital economy, paradigm, blockchain, logic, mechanism, cost, platform, complexity.
JEL: A12
Article in Russian (pp. 54 - 66) | Download | Downloads :392 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 54 - 66) | Download | Downloads :412 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Zeng Ming. (2019). Smart Business: What Alibaba's Success Reveals about the Future of Strategy. Kiev: Alpina Publisher [in Russian].
3. Сastells M. et al. (2017). Another economy is possible. Malden.
4. Colander D. (2020, 16 March). Complexity, the evolution of macroeconomic thought, and micro foundations. Real-World Economics Review Blog, issue 91. Retrieved from www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue91/Colander91.pdf
5. Cronin M. J. (2000). Unchained value. The new logic of digital business. Boston.
6. Dhami S. (2016). The Foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1145/358974.363127
7. Digital Economy Report, 2019. Value creation and capture: implications for developing countries. Geneva.
8. Elsner W. (2017). What is complexity economics, why it is heterodox, and what are its policy implications? World Economics Association. Conferences, 2017. Economic Philosophy: Complexities in Economics. 2nd October to 7th December. Retrieved from www.worldeconomicassociation.org.terms.
9. Fiori S. (2009, September). Hayek’s theory on complexity and knowledge: dichotomies, levels of analysis, and bounded rationality. Journal of economic methodology, 16 (3). doi.org/10.1080/13501780903128548
10. Mahnkopf B. (2019). The 4th wave of industrial revolution – a promise blind to social consequences, power and ecological impact in the era of ‘digital capitalism’. Discussion Paper, 01.
11. Meier A., Portmann E., Teran L. (eds.) (2019). Applying fuzzy logic for the Digital economy and society. Friburg. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03368-2
12. Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from www.bitcoin.org/
13. Priest G. Logic. (2017). A very short introduction. Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198811701.001.0001
14. Schwab K. (2016). The Fourth industrial revolution. Geneva.
15. Skousen M. (2014). Economic Logic. Fourth edition. Washington, DC.
16. Tarscott D., Tarscott A. (2018). Blockchain revolution. How the technology behind bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is changing the World. New York.
17. The Age of digital interdependence. (2019). Report of UN Secretary General’s High – level Panel on Digital cooperation. NY. Retrieved from www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalCooperation-report-for%20web.pdf
18. Wolff R.D., Resnik S.A. (2012). Contending economic theories: neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. Cambridge.
№ 4/2021
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic world: logic
Ekon. teor. 2021; 4:95-112 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2021.04.095 |
ABSTRACT ▼
The article examines logical aspects of the economic universe through the lens of its key elements – resources, institutions and interconnections between them. It is emphasized that starting from the New Times one of the main issues of economic science has been the study of logic, the historical tendency of movement of two key factors (resources): capital and labour. At this stage logical preconditions of the analysis of natural, financial, technological resources acquire considerable significance. The logic of capital and labour is investigated in the context of economic heritage of A. Smith, K. Marx, R. Luxemburg, representatives of the Cambridge school, modern authors (T. Piketty). Starting from ХІХ century, the correlation between capital value and labour value in the national income has been considered the main integral indicator reflecting the state and logic of labour. The logic of natural resources is most fully exemplified by the concept of sustainable economic development, which reflects the content and types of interrelations between the society and the natural environment both at present and in future. At the same time access, distribution and use of resources should take place on the basis of the expenditures-income principle and continue for each generation in a logical and fair way. The logic of technological resources is revealed primarily through the lens of industrial revolutions. Logical dimensions of financial resources have been represented in the works of J.S. Mill, J. Schumpeter and Ch. Kindleberger. Ch. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the basis of institutional logic. Traditions, customs, their evolution, influence on an individual’s behaviour and the philosophy of American pragmatism were the foundation of logic of Veblen’s institutionalism. The logic of relations between resources and institutions is based on the works of B. Russell, A. Whitehead and R. Carnap. Interaction of resources and institutions has been researched in the light of using resources by different generations of human communities and was called ‘the logic of the play between generations’.
Keywords:logic, resources, institutions, capital, labour, evolution, revolution, habits, traditions
JEL: P10; P16
Article in Russian (pp. 95 - 112) | Download | Downloads :105 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 95 - 112) | Download | Downloads :103 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. Castells, M. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Moscow [in Russian].
3. Keynes, J. M. (2007). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The Selected Works. Moscow: GU VShJe [in Russian].
4. Leontief, V. V. (2007). Selected Works in 3 Vol. Vol. 3. Selected Worksarticles. Moscow [in Russian].
5. Marx, K. (1982). Capital. Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3. Кyiv [in Ukrainian].
6. North, D. C. (2010). Understanding the Process of Economic Change.Transl. Moscow: Izd. dom Gos. un-ta — Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki [in Russian].
7. Piketti, T. (2016). Capital in XXI century. Кyiv: Nash format [in Ukrainian].
8. Popper, K. (2010). The Logic of scientific discovery. Moscow: AST; Astrel [in Russian].
9. Samuelson, P. A. (1992). Economics. Vol 1. Moscow: Algon [in Russian].
10. Smith, A. (2001). The Wealth of Nations. An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations. Кyiv: Port-Royal [in Ukrainian].
11. Filipenko, A. (2020). Digital Economy: Theorethical and Applied Aspect. Econ. teor. – Economic theory, 2, 54-66. doi.org/10.15407/etet2020.02.054 [in Ukrainian].
12. Filipenko, A. (2014). Economic World: the Ontology. Econ. teor. – Economic theory, 3, 38-47 [in Ukrainian].
13. Filipenko, A. S. (2017). Basic methodological views on economic theory. In Society, Economics and Economic Science in the XXI Century: materials of the II International. scientific-practical conf.\ April 21-22, 2017 (p. 15-18). Kyiv: KNEU [in Ukrainian].
14. Sztompka, P. (2020). Sociology. Analysis of society. Lviv: Kolir PRO [in Ukrainian].
15. Almeida, F. (May-Aug 2016). Society and brain: A complementary approachto Thorstein Veblen’s conspicuous consumerbased on Tibor Sci-tovsky’s neuropsychology. Nova econ, 26 (2). doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/2994
16. Bates, R. H. (1996). Institutions as Investments. Development Discussion Paper, 527.
17. Becchio, G. (2020). The Two Blades of Occam’s Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic. Economic Thought, 9.1: 1-17.
18. Cairnes, J. E. (2001). The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy. Kitchener.
19. Jagodziński W. (2017). The concept of institutional logic in the research of the spatial organization of economics. World Scientific News, 72, 618-627. Retrieved from www.worldscientificnews.com
20. Kuczynski, J. (1937). Labour Conditions in Western Europe 1820 to 1935. London.
21. Maddison A. (2003). The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris. doi.org/10.1787/9789264104143-en
22. Mestrovic S. G. (2010). Vicious abstractionism and the Darwinian struggle for existence of Veblen’s and Durkheim’s ideas. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3. Dizi, 21, 61-84.
23. Morck, R. (January 2021). Kindleberger Cycles: Method in the Madness of Crowds? Working Paper, 28411. Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w28411. doi.org/10.3386/w28411
24. Robinson, J. (1956). The Accumulation of Capital. London.
25. Robinson, J. (1971). Economic Heresies. New York.
26. Priest, G. (2017). Logic: A Very Short Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford University Press.
27. Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva.
28. Soskise, D., Bates, R. H., Epstein, D. (1992). Ambition and Constraint: The Stabilizing Role of Institutions. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations, 8. doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198811701.001.0001
29. Mäki, U. (ed.) (2009). The Methodology of Positive Economics. Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427
30. The Technology and Innovation Report 2021. Geneva, 2021.
№ 3/2022
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Economic resilience in the context of institutional logic
Ekon. teor. 2022; 3:45-56 | https://doi.org/10.15407/etet2022.03.045 |
ABSTRACT ▼
Economic resilience of the system is one of the main indicators that characterizes its qualitative and quantitative aspects, response to external and internal shocks and challenges. The problem of resilience becomes especially important in extreme situations (economic and financial crises, ecological and natural disasters: typhoons, floods, earthquakes, etc., political revolutions, military conflicts). The current Russian-Ukrainian war has become a serious test of the stability of the domestic economy, in which relative macroeconomic balance is ensured in extremely difficult conditions due to the maximum mobilization of domestic resources and effective foreign aid. An important component is institutional stability, i.e. operational response to changes in the economic situation of authorities and management at all levels, legislative institutions, financial and banking institutions, foreign economic sphere, attention to such attributes of institutionalism as trust, social optimism, mentality, traditions, habits, etc. In a gener-alized form, at the theoretical level, institutional sustainability is proposed to be con-sidered in the article in the context of institutional logic in three hypostasises at the micro-, macro-, and geoeconomic levels. Institutionalism, including economic theory, is dominated by traditional, formal logic, which mainly uses natural (scientific) lan-guage. Consciously or intuitively, the main laws of logic are taken into account: identi-ty, contradiction, the Law of Exclusion, sufficient reason. The logic of evolutionism is considered the basis of institutional logic, which provides a general idea of changes in all components of the institutional environment. In the institutional economic theory, two levels of institutional logic are visible: the macro level (Veblen and the old Ameri-can school, North) and the microlevel (Coase, Williamson, etc.). In the publications of the last quarter of the 20th century the logic of the global (mega) level is also analyzed. Evolutionism is the basis of the logical construction of institutional logic in economic theory. Generalizing indicators that synthesize different approaches of institutional logic regarding economic sustainability are the institutional logic of sustainability (ILS) and the logical index of sustainability (LIS). Institutional logic of the microlevel was initiated by R. Coase, continued by O. Williamson and others. The logic of transaction costs of R. Coase is formulated in two theorems: regarding zero costs, ownership and economic results, and the principle of internalization. The second theorem was called comparative logic of economic organization. In critical relation to both of Coase's theorems, they remain basic constructs of microlevel resilience. Among the indicators and criteria of macro-level economic resilience, monetary components are of leading importance, which, under the conditions of a free market, provide a kind of warning signals to the economic system as a whole. A feature of this approach was the transformation of the monetary component into a system of monetary and financial analysis. This reflects fundamental qualitative changes in recent decades regarding the structure of the economy, in which the financial subsystem acquires dominant (key) importance, affecting aggregated macroeconomic indicators: growth, inflation, employment, etc. Globalization, that is, the megalevel, its economic resilience, inevitabil-ity and irreversibility are characterized by three deterministic logics: technical (technological), economic and political
Keywords:logic, institutionalism, resilience, evolutionism, micro-level, macro-level, megalevel, political logic, factor logic
JEL: B15; 010
Article in Russian (pp. 45 - 56) | Download | Downloads :131 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 45 - 56) | Download | Downloads :128 |
REFERENCES ▼
2. National resilience of Ukraine: a strategy for responding to challenges and anticipating hybrid threats (2022). Retrieved from www.nas.gov.ua/EN/Messages/Pages/View.aspx?MessageID=9206/ [in Ukrainian].
3. Nelson, R. R., Winter S. G. (2002). Evolutionary theory of economic changes. Moscow: Delo [in Russian].
4. North, D. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change. Moscow: Izd. dom Gos. un-ta - Vyssh. shk. Jekonomiki [in Russian].
5. Smith, A. (2001). The welfare of nations. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Welfare of Nations. Kyiv: Port-Royal [in Ukrainian].
6. Afonso A., Devitt C. (2016). Comparative Political Economy and International Migration. Socio-Economic Review. Retrieved from ser.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/15/ser.mww026.abstract; doi.org/10.1093/ser/mww026
7. Beaney M. (2017). Analytic philosophy. A Very short introduction. Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198778028.001.0001
8. Bravo V. L., Villacrés M. J., Silva M.E. (2021, July 8). Supply Chain Management. Retrieved from G:/Analysing%20competing%20logics%20towards%20sustainable%20supplier%20management%20_%20Emerald%20Insight.html
9. Hestad D., Tàbara D. J., Thornton T. F. (2021). The three logics of sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations: a multi-disciplinary review. Sustainability Science, 16, 647–661. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00883-x
10. Kimura R., Reeyes M. and Whitaker K. (2019, March 22). The New Logic of Competition. Retrieved from G:/New%20Logic%20of%20Competition%20_%20BCG.html)
11. McGrew A. (2011). The Logics of Economic Globalization in: Global Political Economy. Oxford University Press.
12. Rechene S. T. Silva M. E., Campos S. A. P. (2018). Sharing Economy and Sustainability Logic: Analyzing the Use of Shared Bikes. BAR – Brazilian Administration Review, 15 (3), 4. doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2018180026
13. Taylor Chr. (2011). A Macroeconomic Regime for the 21-st Century. Towards a New Economic Order. London & New York. doi.org/10.4324/9780203830635
14. Filipenko A. (2021). Economic world: logic. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 4: 95-112. doi.org/10.15407/etet2021.04.095
15. Filipenko A. (2020). Digital economy: theoretical and applied aspect. Ekon. teor. – Economic theory, 2: 54-66. doi.org/10.15407/etet2020.02.054
16. Williamson O. I. (1988). The Logic of Economic Organization. Journal of Law. Economics & Organization, 4, 1.
17. Wyplosc Ch. (2021). The ECB's New Definition of Price Stability: Better but Short of Specifics. Monetary Dialogue Papers, November. Retrieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2021/695473/IPOL_IDA(2021)695473_EN.pdf
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 |