Academician Abalkin. Precepts of the Russian school of socio-economic thought and the practice of perestroika reforms

2020 ◽  
pp. 116-180
Author(s):  
Yu.V. Yakutin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Creative Development ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
Russian School ◽  
Huge Impact ◽  
The Government

The article continues the series of articles in the journal MBA about Russian academicians who actively collaborated with the VEO of Russia. Academician L.I. Abalkin (1930–2011) — a prominent scientist and economist of the last decades of the Soviet era and the beginning of the post-Soviet period. L.I. Abalkin's activity is multi-faceted both in the field of economic theory, especially political economy, and in the field of practical justification of economic reforms, transformation of the planned Soviet system into a market economy. Participation in 1989–1990 in the work of the government as Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and Chairman of the Commission on economic reform, describes him as an outstanding representative of academic science, who had a huge impact on the development of economic theory and economic practice. L.I. Abalkin played an exceptional role in developing the problems of the Russian school of socio-economic thought. He not only justified its distinctive features and principles of methodological approach to its study, but also brought back to scientific circulation the works of many undeservedly forgotten Russian economists. The article also shows the need to continue Abalkin's research in this area of economic theory, the creative development of the scientific heritage of L.I. Abalkin.

SCIENTIFIC HERITAGE OF ANATOLIY POKRYTAN IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC THEORY

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-92
Author(s):  
Mykhailo ZVERYAKOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Economic System ◽  
National Economy ◽  
Social Reproduction ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
Modern Development

The most important aspects of the scientific heritage of the outstanding domestic scientist-economist Anatoliy Pokrytan are revealed. It is shown that the scientific developments of A. Pokrytan and representatives of his school made an important contribution to the methodology of economic theory. It is substantiated that the research of scientists on the problems of property, the theory of social reproduction, methodological problems of economic theory are in demand today in the study of the problems of the Ukrainian economy and the world economic system. According to A. Pokrytan, in the process of scientific research it is impossible to study the structure of the economic system without taking into account its genesis, and vice versa, the study of genesis is possible only on the basis of knowledge of its structure. The genesis and structure of production relations are closely intertwined with the unity of the historical and the logical in economic theory. It is shown that the combination of logical and historical forms of cognition allowed A. Pokrytan in the conditions of independent Ukraine to give not only an objective assessment of the past economic system, but also to comprehend the nature of market reforms in the national economy and identify the problems that must be resolved in order to overcome the negative trends that arose in the process of formation of the market economy. It is substantiated that this methodological approach makes it possible to single out a much more complex than traditional (liberalization, privatization) set of transformational systems. It is shown that the scientific work of A. Pokrytan is distinguished by the diversity of research topics, the depth of development of methodology and theory of political economy, as well as the involvement of new scientific problems in the field of theoretical analysis. The scientific research of the scientist is the methodological and theoretical tools that allow to study the nature of modern development of the national economy.

The Return of Scientific Heritage: Socio-Economic Thought of Russian Emigration

2008 ◽  
pp. 128-140
Author(s):  
T. Kouznetsova
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Economic Policy ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Social Thought ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
Vital Importance ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
In The Beginning

The article presents the analysis of works by three prominent representatives of Russian social thought, who had to leave the country in the beginning of the Soviet era and kept working abroad - A. D. Bilimovich, S. S. Maslov and N. S. Timasheff. The author shows that despite the lack of information they managed to work fruitfully in such fields as economic theory, applied economic analysis (especially in agricultural issues) and sociology. The ideas of these scientists concerning ways of Russia’s historical development, Soviet economic policy etc. are of vital importance till nowadays.

Nikolay Sieber in the history of prerevolutionary Russian economic thought

2018 ◽  
pp. 95-110
Author(s):  
L. D. Shirokorad
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Organic Synthesis ◽  
Marginal Utility ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of ◽  
Three Stages

This article shows how representatives of various theoretical currents in economics at different times in history interpreted the efforts of Nikolay Sieber in defending and developing Marxian economic theory and assessed his legacy and role in forming the Marxist school in Russian political economy. The article defines three stages in this process: publication of Sieber’s work dedicated to the analysis of the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital and criticism of it by Russian opponents of Marxian economic theory; assessment of Sieber’s work by the narodniks, “Legal Marxists”, Georgiy Plekhanov, and Vladimir Lenin; the decline in interest in Sieber in light of the growing tendency towards an “organic synthesis” of the theory of marginal utility and the Marxist social viewpoint.

Essays of a “comparatively progressive” economist (On the 150th birth anniversary of Vladimir Geleznoff)

2019 ◽  
pp. 135-145
Author(s):  
Viktor A. Popov
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
The Political ◽  
Russian History ◽  
Working Ability ◽  
Intellectual Inquiry ◽  
History Of

Deep comprehension of the advanced economic theory, the talent of lecturer enforced by the outstanding working ability forwarded Vladimir Geleznoff scarcely at the end of his thirties to prepare the publication of “The essays of the political economy” (1898). The subsequent publishing success (8 editions in Russia, the 1918­-year edition in Germany) sufficiently demonstrates that Geleznoff well succeded in meeting the intellectual inquiry of the cross­road epoch of the Russian history and by that taking the worthful place in the history of economic thought in Russia. Being an acknowledged historian of science V. Geleznoff was the first and up to now one of the few to demonstrate the worldwide community of economists the theoretically saturated view of Russian economic thought in its most fruitful period (end of XIX — first quarter of XX century).

Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies? (With comments by L. Pasinetti, F. Fisher, J. Felipe and J. McCombie, R. Greenfield and reply by the authors)

2009 ◽  
pp. 4-27
Author(s):  
A. Cohen ◽  
G. Harcourt
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Chronological Order ◽  
Capital Theory

The article written by the well-known theorists and historians of economic thought contains a detailed overview of the Cambridge capital controversy, which had raged from the mid-1950-s through the mid-1970-s. The authors track the origins of the controversy and cover arguments of both sides in chronological order. From their point of view, the discussion hasnt been resolved, and its main underlying aspects were ideological beliefs and fundamental methodological controversies on the nature of equilibrium and on the role of time in economic theory. The article is published with comments written by other leading theoreticians.

Not by Firkowicz’s Fault: Daniel Chwolson’s Comic Blunders in Research of Hebrew Epigraphy of the Crimea and Caucasus, and their Impact on Jewish Studies in Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-668
Author(s):  
Michael Nosonovsky ◽  
Dan Shapira ◽  
Daria Vasyutinsky-Shapira
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Jewish Studies ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Crimea ◽  
Huge Impact ◽  
Academic Argument

AbstractDaniel Chwolson (1819–1911) made a huge impact upon the research of Hebrew epigraphy from the Crimea and Caucasus. Despite that, his role in the more-than-a-century-long controversy regarding Crimean Hebrew tomb inscriptions has not been well studied. Chwolson, at first, adopted Abraham Firkowicz’s forgeries, and then quickly realized his mistake; however, he could not back up. Th e criticism by both Abraham Harkavy and German Hebraists questioned Chwolson’s scholarly qualifications and integrity. Consequently, the interference of political pressure into the academic argument resulted in the prevailing of the scholarly flawed opinion. We revisit the interpretation of these findings by Russian, Jewish, Karaite and Georgian historians in the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Soviet period, Jewish Studies in the USSR were in neglect and nobody seriously studied the whole complex of the inscriptions from the South of Russia / the Soviet Union. The remnants of the scholarly community were hypnotized by Chwolson’s authority, who was the teacher of their teachers’ teachers. At the same time, Western scholars did not have access to these materials and/or lacked the understanding of the broader context, and thus a number of erroneous Chwolson’s conclusion have entered academic literature for decades.

Institutional Historical Memory and History in Post-Soviet Belarus

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-73
Author(s):  
Alena Marková
Keyword(s):  
Historical Memory ◽  
Typical Feature ◽  
Historical Narrative ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
National History ◽  
Nationality Policy ◽  
Second Shift ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
The Government ◽  
Clear Shift

Abstract Belarusian institutional historical memory (as defined by Richard Ned Lebow) and the interpretation of Belarusian national history have experienced radical shifts in the past several decades. The first shift (1990–1994) was characterized by radical rejection of the interpretational and methodological patterns of the Soviet period, resulting in the creation of a new concept of Belarusian national history and historical narrative. The second shift in the existing historical narrative and institutional memory followed rapidly. It came with the transformation from a parliamentary republic into a parliamentary-presidential (1994) and then presidential republic (1996). The second wave demonstrated a clear shift towards a methodological, theoretical approach and terminological framework typical of the historiography of the Soviet period. These changes were in response to the growing demands for ideological control of institutionalized historical research supported by the government in the same decade. One of the characteristic features of recent Belarusian state-sponsored historiography (Lyč, Chigrinov, Marcuĺ, Novik and others) is the linking of post-Soviet national initiatives to Nazi occupation and collaboration in World War II. Another typical feature is simplifying historical explanations and often using undisguised pejorative terminology. The last shift in institutional historical memory also resulted in further re-interpretations of many symbolic centres and milestones of Belarusian history (for example, the period of the first years of post-Soviet independence, the introduction of new national symbols (Pahonia coat of arms and white-red-white flag) and the interwar nationality policy of Belarusization of the 1920s.)

THE THE INDIGENOUS IDENTITY INTERPRETED AS A CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS IN POPULATION STUDIES

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (Especial) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Dante Choque-Caseres
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Indigenous Identity ◽  
Critical Thought ◽  
Northern Border ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Government ◽  
New Research

In Latin America, based on the recognition of Indigenous Peoples, the identification of gaps or disparities between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population has emerged as a new research interest. To this end, capturing Indigenous identity is key to conducting certain analyses. However, the social contexts where the identity of Indigenous persons are (re)produced has been significantly altered. These changes are generated by the assimilation or integration of Indigenous communities into dominant national cultures. Within this context, limitations emerge in the use of this category, since Indigenous identity has a political and legal component related to the needs of the government. Therefore, critical thought on the use of Indigenous identity is necessary in an epistemological and methodological approach to research. This article argues that research about Indigenous Peoples should evaluate how Indigenous identity is included, for it is socially co-produced through the interaction of the State and its institutions. Thus, it would not necessarily constitute an explicative variable. By analyzing the discourse about Aymara Indigenous communities that has emerged in the northern border of Chile, this paper seeks to expose the logic used to define identity. Therefore, I conclude that the process of self-identification arises in supposed Indigenous people, built and/or reinforced by institutions, which should be reviewed from a decolonizing perspective and included in comparative research.

Mercantilism Revisited

1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. C. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Economic Policy ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Extreme Case ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Situation ◽  
The Status

The intention of this paper is to look at some of the problems which arise in attempts to provide ‘explanations’ of mercantilism and especially its English manifestations. By ‘explanations’ I mean the efforts which some writers have made causally to relate the historical appearance of sets of economic notions or general recommendations on economic policy or even acts of economic policy by the state to particular long-term phenomena of, or trends in, economic history. Historians of economic thought have not generally made such attempts. With a few exceptions they have normally concerned themselves with tracing and analysing the contributions to economic theory made by those labelled as mercantilists. The most extreme case of non-explanation is provided by Eli Heckscher's reiterated contention in his two massive volumes that mercantilism was not to be explained by reference to the economic circumstances of the time; mercantilist policy was not to be seen as ‘the outcome of the economic situation’; mercantilist writers did not construct their system ‘out of any knowledge of reality however derived’. So strongly held an antideterminist fortress, however congenial a haven for some historians of ideas, has given no comfort to other historians – economic or political, Marxist or non-Marxist – who obstinately exhibit empiricist tendencies. Some forays against the fortress have been made. Barry Supple's analysis of English commerce in the early seventeenth century and the resulting presentation of mercantilist thought and policy as ‘the economics of depression’ has passed into the textbooks and achieved the status of an orthodoxy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document