scholarly journals Scientific schools and directions of economic theory on the modern era of development

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-151
Author(s):  
S. S. Repin ◽  
L. V. Gogolina

The modern expansion of subject areas of application in the development of economic theory, scientists, as a rule, distinguish four large eras of development, which are equal in their level of influence on the development of economic knowledge.

Author(s):  
Cyril V. FENIN

We carried out a theoretical analysis of various concepts used to describe and explain the development, progress and evolution of economic theory (economic science). The study found that the dynamics and transformations of economic theory were described using models of the development of scientific knowledge of three prominent philosophers and thinkers, namely: K.R. Popper, T. Kuhn and I. Lakatos. Nevertheless, the merits of each of these conceptual schemes are balanced by shortcomings, following mainly from the fact that K.R. Popper, T. Kuhn and I. Lakatos's concepts were developed to analyze the development of natural science knowledge. In this regard, an attempt was made to describe and explain the development of economic science through the use of an earlier approach - the law of the intellectual evolution of humanity by A. Comte. This approach reveals its advantages, expressed in the simplicity of presentation, openness to further research and interpretation of new results in the field of research on the development of economic thought. At the same time, it is worth noting the existence of shortcomings of the author's approach, consisting in the difficulty of establishing a chronological framework for the development of economic theory, the impossibility of using the A. Comte's law to describe the evolution of all economic schools, the fuzziness of the boundaries (periods) of the development of economic knowledge and a simplified understanding of the development of science itself as non-discontinuous progress - improvement.


Author(s):  
Svetlana L. Sazanova

The article is devoted to the analysis of the content and results of the First International Lvov Forum, dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the birth of Academician D. S. Lvov (1930–2007). The forum was held on October 20–21, 2020 at the State University of Management with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project No. 20-010-22058. Major Russian and foreign scientists, academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading Russian universities, universities of the Czech Republic, France, Bulgaria and other countries took part in the First Lvov Forum. The Forum discussed fundamental problems of modern Russian and world economic science, including: the problem of the crisis of the paradigm of economic theory; the problem of the relationship between philosophical and economic knowledge; the need to form a new paradigm of economic science; the problem of interaction between society, state and business at the micro, meso and macro levels in the face of modern challenges; place and role of Russia in the world socio-economic system; development strategy of the Russian socio-economic system in the context of the new paradigm of economic science in the context of modern challenges. The discussion of the above fundamental problems was on the basis of a synthesis of the principle of dichotomy and a systematic approach. The First Lvov Forum took a significant place among such major Russian scientific events as the Gaidar Economic Forum, the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum, the Moscow Economic Forum, etc. due to the relevance of the problems considered at the Forum, the novelty of the methods proposed for their solution. The ideas of Russian and foreign scientists presented at the Forum can be used for the further development of modern economic theory, as well as for the development of programs for the development of the Russian economy at the micro, meso and macro levels.


Vestnik NSUEM ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 22-34
Author(s):  
V. Z. Balikoev

The article analyzes and criticizes a vicious practice of the economists who attribute the ideas to the eminent economists who didn’t elaborate those ideas.The practice existed in the 19th and 20th centuries. It does exist today. It has done a huge damage to the development of economic theory and certain and specific economic sciences. Especially in the last century Keynesianism was at the receiving end since it clearly defined the watershed between the obsolete but die-hard «laissez-faire» economic theory – «invisible hand of the market»,free competition and government management of the economy.In this regard the economic theory constantly faces the question of certain «Keynesianism crisis», allegedly indicative of obsolescence of Keynesianism as economic theory.The article on the contrary proves that «Keynesianism crisis» is far-fetched and of ideological nature. Keynesianism itself is relevant today, more than ever, especially in the conditions of Russia, where, according to invincible belief of the author,state-directed market economy named state capitalism is being formed slowly and surely.


1979 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 725-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Scott

A survey of the economic literature of fisheries regulation shows that little of analytical value for the comparison of alternative regulatory techniques has emerged. The suggestion that the general literature on regulation, and on public choice, has something to contribute to the understanding of alternative regimes produces eight criteria. These are applied to the choice between two systems of restricting entry: a tax, and quotas. The transactions costs of the two systems are also investigated. The hypothesis is formed that the eight criteria, plus expected transactions costs, give the edge to a quota system; but this is only illustrative of the approach. Key words: regulation, management, costs, quotas, taxes, revenue, licensing


Author(s):  
Giovanni Marseguerra

Riassunto. – All’interno della comunità degli economisti sembra essere oggi presente un crescente disagio e un diffuso malcontento relativamente alle capacità della modellistica neoclassica di comprendere e spiegare i fenomeni economici. La relazione intende esaminare criticamente il contributo della formalizzazione matematica nelle teorie economiche, mettendo in evidenza sia punti di forza di un tale approccio sia le debolezze insite in un’analisi che rischia spesso di privilegiare la bellezza dello strumento rispetto all’oggetto di studio. Si considerano poi alcune delle moderne prospettive per l’indagine economica offerte dalla modellistica basata sulla simulazione a computer che consente di tener conto della complessità della realtà in misura maggiore di un approccio puramente analitico. Viene infine evidenziata l’importanza di garantire la coesistenza di una pluralità di scuole di pensiero in economia e si esaminano altresì le difficoltà per la valutazione della ricerca provocate dall’esistenza di un paradigma dominante. Nelle conclusioni viene enfatizzata la necessità di considerare l’economia come una vera scienza sociale.***Abstract. – There is today a widespread discontent within the international economists’ community as far as the capacity of the dominant neoclassical paradigm both to enhance our knowledge of economic phenomena and increase our capacity of governing the real economy. Somehow surprisingly, the lack of explicative relevance of the theory went almost hand in hand with the massive use of mathematics to formalize the theory. In order to investigate this peculiar feature of the evolution of economic science, this paper examines the contribution of mathematical formalization to the development of economic theory in the last sixty years pointing out both weaknesses as well as merits of a quantitative approach to economics. Finally, the need to consider economics as a truly social science si strongly emphasized.


1954 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Alan T. Peacock ◽  
Gunnar Myrdal ◽  
Paul Streeten

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Prasch

The ideal of Political Economy is not unrestricted competition, but competition that is truly free, because controlled by justice and by law. The distinction between freedom and license needs to be preserved in this department of political philosophy. With that distinction clearly maintained, we may still retain, in economics as in politics, our beautiful watchword, liberty (John Bates Clark 1879, p. 167).John Bates Clark has had a formidable impact on the development of economic theory and the theory of income distribution. In addition, Clark's marginal product theory of distribution has often played an instrumental role in the defense of laissez-faire policies. His theory has been used to criticize a wide variety of market interventions, including minimum wage legislation. As a result it is not surprising that Clark's theory of income distribution, and Clark himself, have drawn more than a few critics.


1957 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 554-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia L. Thrupp

Our conference today on comparative economic history is in some clanger of rushing into the wide-open spaces of ambiguity, for the term is new, and to agree too quickly on its meaning and implications may not even be desirable. In order to avoid engaging in a mere game of definitions, this paper will deal first with three general types of comparison in relation to their bearing on problems of evidence. It will then review some of the chief uses to which these types of comparison have been put in building up our body of knowledge about Western economic history. The survey will close with particular reference to our own preindustrial stages of economic growth, when western Europe was, in our uncomplimentary phrase, an underdeveloped or backward area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document