Many questions have accumulated for modern economic science. Is it the same as physics and chemistry, or is it something completely different? Is there something in common between the natural sciences and economics that makes them similar? Or is it a different type of knowledge altogether?
During the passing 20th century, economic science has strengthened its positions both in terms of its "internal" development, and in terms of social significance. The breakthrough made in the development of the economy was so great that it allowed it to take one of the first (if not the first!) Places among other sciences. Despite this, many of its methodological features remain not fully comprehended. So, on the one hand, economic research is fundamentally different from research in the natural sciences, and on the other hand, it has a lot in common with them. Roughly the same is true for economics and other social disciplines.
The differences between economics and other sciences begin with the object of research, affect the methods of studying the economic world and the very structure of science, and end with the methods of practical use of the results obtained and the forms of influence on social ideology and the real course of events. At the same time, it would be a gross mistake not to see those general methodological points that make economics akin to exact disciplines and allow it to harmoniously integrate into the general building of modern scientific research. This state of affairs forms a very peculiar and complex interaction of the economy with other sciences, both natural and social. This article is devoted to the disclosure of such general and specific points in economics.
It should immediately be stipulated that there will be few personal ideas of the author in this work; in most cases, references to authoritative opinions of recognized scientific luminaries will appear here. This approach seems to be quite justified, since most of the issues raised by us were discussed in detail earlier, thereby depriving us of the opportunity to say something fundamentally new. Nevertheless, a systematic and compact presentation of modern views on economic science is still lacking, which determines the relevance and significance of the presented article.
SUBJECT, TASKS, IDEOLOGY AND STRUCTURE OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE
Consider the subject and tasks of economics. Only by clearly outlining the contours of what science does, it is possible to move further towards understanding its specifics.
Proceeding from the position of A. Poincaré that any science is a system of relations, the task of economic science is to collect facts, systematize, interpret them and derive appropriate conclusions from them. To understand the essence of economics, J. Schumpeter's thesis that its roots lie, on the one hand, in philosophy, and on the other, in disputes about pressing problems and difficulties, is very useful.
The first approximation to a constructive understanding of the subject of economics is the assertion of J.S. Mill that this discipline views a person as engaged in the acquisition and consumption of wealth. An equally capacious and compact definition is given by A. Marshall, saying that the economy considers wealth as a tool for satisfying "needs" and as a result of "efforts." Its more detailed definition reads: "Economic science (Economics) deals with the study of the normal life of human society; it studies the sphere of individual and social actions, which is closely related to the creation and use of the material foundations of well-being. Therefore, on the one hand, it represents is the study of wealth, and on the other, it forms part of the study of man. ”An important commentary and addition to this definition is the following Marshall maxim:“ Economics studies how people exist, develop and what people think about in everyday life. But the main subject of her research is those incentives that most strongly and most steadily affect the behavior of a person in the economic sphere of his life. "
Despite the fact that the above definition of A. Marshall is the most accurate and comprehensive, it still needs some clarifications. First of all, modern economics studies not only normal, but also abnormal effects in social life, as well as not only material, but also non-material foundations of well-being.
It is this broad interpretation of the research subject that is characteristic of today's economic science. This is due to the fact that modern economists, having already penetrated deep enough into the depths of social phenomena, are trying to explain especially complex effects that were left unattended in the time of A. Marshall (for example, anomalous effects in pricing, anomalous emergence of inflationary trends, anti-natural inhibition of crisis processes etc.). At the same time, extremely subtle aspects of human behavior are touched upon, many of which are intangible in nature (for example, the consideration of human capital as a factor of production and consumption, the role of time and information in the economic cycle, etc.).
There are other, narrower ideas about the subject of economics. For example, according to R. Barr, economic science is the science of managing rare resources. According to L. Stoler, "finding ways to make the best use of national resources has become the very definition of economic science." Such definitions, while not fundamentally erroneous, still cannot serve as a guideline in understanding the subject of modern economics. Nevertheless, they very accurately highlight the tasks of modern economic analysis, and this justifies their existence.
The fusion of the subject, tasks, categorical apparatus and methodological tools of economic science leads to the formation of its ideology. By the latter, we mean a certain methodological approach or a certain specific angle of scientific analysis, which is so universal that it can be applied in the “splitting” of any social problem. The economic ideology has a "two-tier" structure and, in general, can be formulated as follows: all observed changes in the socio-economic system can be explained by two types of shifts - shifts in the level of prices and incomes (the first "link") and shifts in the level of results and costs (second "link"). In accordance with this approach, any political, social, military, ethnic and other social metamorphosis can be translated into economic language, interpreted in appropriate terms and explained with the help of the theories, principles and laws available in the arsenal of economic science.
Specifying the tasks of economic analysis automatically determines the structure of the economy, which, like any other science, aims to describe, explain and foresee facts, as well as direct our actions. Accordingly, the theories she uses are based on four classes of models: descriptive, explanatory, predictive, and decision-making models. Although such a division of economic theories and models is somewhat arbitrary (some models may belong simultaneously to several classes), it still quite well illustrates the structure of modern economic science and allows us to clearly define in it the place and role of each specific study.
In turn, the general body of economic knowledge can be divided into three large groups. In accordance with the classification of J.N. Keynes, the following scientific strata are distinguished: positive economics as the sum of systematized knowledge about what exists; normative economics as the sum of systematized knowledge about what should exist; economic art as a system of rules to achieve a set goal. Only the first group and small parts of the second and third groups belong to economic science. This is due to the fact that the transition from descriptive (positive) economics to normative (recommendatory) economics and from normative economics to economic policy (the art of decision-making), the level of scientific uncertainty increases sharply. For natural and technical sciences, this state of affairs is less typical.
LAWS AND PRINCIPLES: THEIR ESSENCE AND DIALECTICS OF RELATIONSHIP
Any serious science should contain its own specific laws in its arsenal. Economics is no exception. Moreover, according to A. Marshall, science itself is moving forward by increasing quantity and precision their laws, subjecting them to ever more stringent scrutiny and expanding their scope. This logic of the development of scientific knowledge is determined by the simple fact that "if some law is correct, then with its help you can discover another law." The very possibility of "stringing" some laws onto others is associated with the fundamental properties of human thinking, for the "law itself is a method, way of perception the mind is a series of phenomena and this process takes place in our mind. "
To understand the originality of economic laws, let us first find out what a law is in general. There are many definitions on this score, but, perhaps, none of them provides comprehensive information. In this regard, we will consider a certain set of opinions on this issue, which ultimately will give a fairly complete picture of the law.
At the most elementary level, the understanding of the essence of the law was well disclosed by R. Feynman: “the phenomena of nature have their own shape and rhythms inaccessible to the eye of the beholder, but open to the eye of the analyst; we call these forms and rhythms laws. " The generally accepted definition is as follows: "a law is an internal, essential and stable connection of phenomena, which determines their orderly change." In S. Vivekananda's interpretation, “the law is the tendency of phenomena to recurrence”. According to A. Poincaré, “a law is a relationship between a condition and an effect; it is a constant connection between the previous and the next, between the present state of the world and the immediately advancing state. "
As well as laws there are so-called scientific principles, which are understood as some extremely general and universal provisions regarding the nature of the course of the phenomena under study, which have the widest possible scope of application. The dialectic of law and principle, in our opinion, is exhaustively disclosed by R. Feynman: “the variety of individual laws is permeated with certain general principles that are somehow contained in each law”. Thus, any science should include some basic principles about its subject of research and various laws that reflect certain aspects of this subject. Otherwise, the area of knowledge turns into a meaningless collection of disparate information.
The existence of laws automatically presupposes a certain mathematization of science. This is due to the fact that any relations and connections are expressed by equations, and if the equations remain valid, then the sought relations retain their reality. In other words, any relationship can be represented by a geometric curve. Consequently, any law makes sense as such only if it is expressed in mathematical form. Experience shows that practically any meaningful verbal formulation of laws can be successfully translated into the language of mathematics; otherwise, verbal constructions turn into a banal statement of some primitive facts and cannot pretend to be universal laws.
Let us summarize what has been said: any science consists of some generalizing principles of the functioning of the system under study, as well as specific laws that establish in mathematical form the connection between individual phenomena.
Specifying what has been said in relation to economics, let us point out that among the fundamental economic principles H. Becker, for example, distinguishes the following: the principle of maximizing behavior of the subject (the principle of rationality), the principle of market equilibrium and the principle of stability of tastes and preferences of economic agents. These principles are implicitly present in various economic laws. For example, the laws of L. Walras, J.-B. Say and D. Hume are "hung" on the principle of market equilibrium, the laws of J.M. Keynes, G. Gossen and J. Hicks, and so on, are attached to the principle of rationality.
INACCURACY OF ECONOMIC LAWS
Economic science, like any other science, consists of specific laws and principles. At the same time, among economists, the so-called “ignorance paradox” is observed everywhere, according to which many qualified specialists cannot name at least a dozen economic laws. The existence of such a paradox in economics is a unique phenomenon that justifies a cruel joke addressed to the representatives of this science: "Some economists know that they do not know anything, while others do not even know that."
The "weakness" of economic knowledge has always provoked various comparisons of economics with other sciences. For example, A. Marshall believed that economics does not have a close resemblance to any physical science; it is rather a broadly interpreted branch of biology. M. Blaug believes that in terms of the status of the criterion of refutability, economic science is approximately halfway between psychoanalysis and nuclear physics. Quite often, economics is compared to meteorology, which operates with dynamic effects that are equally difficult to predict. G. Soros went even further, arguing that the very term "social sciences" is a false metaphor; in his opinion, economics is a kind of alchemy, rather than science in the strict sense of the word.
Such comparisons are fully justified and, moreover, absolutely fair. But what underlies this mistrust of economic knowledge?
The answer to this question lies in the specificity of the economic laws themselves. So, even A. Marshall wrote that “there are no economic laws, precision comparable with the law of gravitation ”, they should be compared with the laws of sea tides, and not with a simple and precise law of gravitation.
A fact that is very often overlooked should be emphasized here. Almost all laws known to mankind are, to one degree or another, imprecise... So, for example, every physicist "knows that even in laws that are considered well established, weak points can arise, that new features can be discovered in a well-studied phenomenon." At present, many physical laws are known, which, as it turns out, are not fulfilled in reality. For example, the notorious law of gravitation at a distance of one meter does not apply. Even R. Feynman put forward the concept of inaccuracy of physical laws and physical formulas. In his opinion, for a correct understanding of physical laws, one should understand that they are all to some extent approximations... Indeed, "as soon as you say something about an area of experience that you did not directly touch, you immediately lose confidence." However, "to prevent science from turning into simple protocols of experiments done, we must put forward laws that extend to as yet unexplored areas." And, as R. Feynman sarcastically remarked, "there is nothing wrong here, only science turns out to be unreliable because of this."
To paraphrase R. Feynman, we can say that for a correct understanding of economic laws, one should constantly keep in mind that all of them are largely approximations... And to a much greater extent than the laws of natural sciences, "for the economy deals with constantly changing, very subtle properties of human nature." The immediate result of this state of affairs is the extremely limited effect of economic laws. The latter are not universal theses that are true everywhere and always. On the contrary, they are fundamentally relative and make sense only under strictly defined conditions; going outside the limits of these conditions means an automatic violation of the formulated laws. This fact was fully realized by the classics of political economy. Thus, A. Marshall wrote: “Economic laws are a generalization of tendencies that characterize human actions under certain conditions. it is much more difficult for science than for natural science to clearly formulate these conditions. " Accordingly, in economics, the task of not spreading any relations to all cases comes to the fore, but defining the "fields of application" of these relations, that is, cases when such a spread is legitimate.
It should be added to the above that the boundaries of economic laws, as a rule, are immeasurably narrower than in the natural sciences. The consequence of this is the frequent exit of the system beyond the boundaries of the validity of the laws under consideration, which predetermines their lower significance and applicability in comparison with the laws of the exact sciences. Nevertheless, economic laws cover the most probable, most typical states of the system, which determines their value. Difficulties associated with delineating the boundaries of the operation of economic laws give rise to the problem of distinguishing between correctness and applicability economic theory. And if the first depends on the logic of reasoning, then the second requires the provision of conditions necessary for the implementation of the law.
To illustrate what has been said, let us take as an example the law of demand: an increase in the price of a product leads to a decrease in demand for this product. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the formulated law works flawlessly. Nevertheless, in economic practice, there are cases when an increase in the price of a product is accompanied by an increase in demand for it (the Giffin effect). And although such goods are an exception to the rule, they still exist and thus greatly limit the scope of the law of demand. Determining the general conditions for the implementation of this law is generally problematic.
MATHEMATIZATION OF ECONOMY; DIALECTICS OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE
As mentioned above, economic laws, generally speaking, should be expressed in mathematical form. In this regard, apparently, it will not be erroneous to say that the main (but not the final!) the goal of modern economics is to find quantitative relationships between economic variables, because only on this basis can one count on the "conquest" of the economic world with its inherent stochastics and uncertainty. From this fact, it follows that the economy is more likely to be accurate than to humanitarian disciplines. The same opinion is shared, in particular, by M.Alle, who points out that economic science now appears before us as a science of efficiency and, therefore, as a science. quantitative... Confirmation of this thesis is the abundance of numbers, tables, models, diagrams, formulas, equations and theorems, which are overflowing with modern economic literature. Thus, from the point of goal setting and the methodological tools used, economics is an exact, quantitative science.
At the same time, the economy still remains quality(humanitarian) science, for "the substance on which the economist works remains economic and social." Such an amorphous and complex subject of research largely denies the high accuracy of the constructed economic models and calculations. Thus, according to A. Gray, economic science differs from other sciences, first of all, in that it does not have an inevitable transition from lesser to greater reliability; it does not have an inexorable desire to go to the end, to the truth, which, once revealed, will be the truth for all time. This is primarily due to the fact that economic science "deals with constantly changing, very subtle properties of human nature." Paraphrasing A. Govinda, we can say the following: an unknown factor always participates in the formation of economic realities, a directing creative force that cannot be observed or subjected to scientific analysis, a principle that cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula or mechanical theory. As F. Perrou rightly said, "the human is not limited to quantity."
Thus, the economy, using quantitative methods, works with social phenomena mainly on a qualitative level, which predetermines a kind of dialectic of quantitative and qualitative. So, for example, it is obvious that life cannot be squeezed into mathematical formulas, but in mathematical formulas you can reflect essence life. It is impossible to cram all the diversity of social life, all its forms and colors into abstract formulas, but key aspects of social life can be incorporated into formulas. Revealing this contradiction between quantitative and qualitative in economics, as well as the dialectics of their existence in mathematical constructions, A. Marshall warned: to reflect by a number of equations any complex problem of real life entirely or at least a significant part of it is doomed to failure, since many important aspects, especially those related to the various influence of the time factor, are not easy to express mathematically, so they will either have to be omitted completely, or squeezed and trimmed in such a way that they look like conventional birds and decorative art animals. This tends to misrepresent economic proportions ... This is a danger the economist must constantly be aware of more than any other. However, to avoid it completely would mean to limit the use of the main means of scientific progress ... ".
In this regard, economics, along with purely quantitative, mathematical tools, widely uses other means of analysis. So, in addition to rigorous models and mathematical theories built on their basis, economics contains in its arsenal a lot of qualitative concepts and theories that reveal the basic laws of the functioning of economic mechanisms and provide a certain general scheme for analyzing ongoing processes. The highly mathematized economic theories include, for example, the theory of profit sharing by M. Weizmann, the theory of time allocation by G. Becker, etc., and the qualitative theories are the theory of reflexivity by J. Soros, the theory of multilevel economics by Yu. V. Yaremenko, etc. A priori, it is impossible to give an unambiguous preference to one of the above two classes of theories, in connection with which they are in a state of peaceful coexistence.
Generally speaking, the use of various scientific instruments in economic research presupposes their rather complicated hierarchy. So, for example, according to M.Alle, "if for understanding economics it would be necessary to choose between mastery of economic history or mastery of mathematics and statistics, then one should, no doubt, choose the former." At the same time, the economist must always keep in mind the subordinate and limited nature of each of the scientific instruments he uses. This is especially pronounced when using the mathematical apparatus, which for economic science is only an auxiliary means of expression and reasoning - no more.
I must say that the mathematization of economics makes it very similar to physics. For example, the following analogy is characteristic: both the direction that later received the name of mathematical physics branched off from general physics, and mathematical economics emerged from general economic theory. There are also personnel parallels in these sciences. Thus, many modern theoretical physicists, being carried away by mathematics, are increasingly detached from physics; quantum field theorists are often retrained as mathematicians. Likewise, many modern model economists are gradually moving into the caste of "pure" econometrics and statisticians. All this suggests that in the depths of economics sometimes there are undesirable spillovers of form into content.
WEAK FORM OF ECONOMIC LAWS; QUALITATIVE CALCULATION IN THE ECONOMY
One of the most important features of economics is the predominantly weak form of many economic laws. As already mentioned, the highest form of any law is an equation, a specific formula. However, most economic laws are formulated in a "weak", non-rigid form, that is, in the form inequalities... In addition, as the analysis of infinitely smalls penetrates into the economy, many economic laws are written in differential form.
The following can be cited as examples of inequality laws in incremental (differential) form: the law of satisfaction of social needs - demand (D) creates supply (S), that is, dS / dD> 0; J.-B. Say's law - supply creates its own demand, that is, dD / dS> 0; D. Hume's law - an increase in exports (J) of a country leads to an increase in its imports (I), that is, dI / dJ> 0; the law of demand - an increase in the price of a product (P) leads to a decrease in demand for this product, that is, dD / dP<0; закон предложения - рост цены товара ведет к росту предложения данного товара, то есть dS/dP>0; Gossen's law - the marginal utility of the good (X) decreases as the consumption of this good grows, that is, d 2 U / dX 2<0 (U - полезность экономического блага X); закон А.Вагнера - по мере возрастания объемов производства (Y) доля государственных расходов в валовом продукте (g) возрастает, то есть dg/dY>0; Keynes's law - as income (Y) increases, the increase in consumption expenditures (C) decreases, that is, d 2 C / dY 2<0; закон Дж.Хикса - по мере роста потребления товара x предельная норма замещения товара y товаром x уменьшается, то есть çd 2 y/dx 2 ç<0 и др.
The weakness of economic inequality laws is obvious. For example, the law of demand says that an increase in price leads to a decrease in the amount of demand, but does not say how much demand will decrease. Such a "weak", clearly insufficient mathematization of economic laws is a natural consequence of heterogeneity economic objects and incomplete information about them.
The weak form of economic laws underlies the whole area of economic analysis, which, with the light hand of P. Samuelson, was called "qualitative calculus". In accordance with this direction, many quantitative studies are aimed not at obtaining specific digital results, but at clarifying the qualitative situation. In other words, economists in this case are not faced with the task of predicting magnitudes this or that variable, and predictions directions its possible change as a result of various disturbing influences. Thus, it is formed a fundamental understanding of the possible course of events without quantifying the overall picture... In this case, researchers are only dealing with signs derivatives, which are determined based on the marginal inequality laws available in the arsenal of economic science. In works of this kind, the dialectic of quantitative and qualitative in economics is clearly manifested.
CONCEPT OF LAW AND ADJACENT CATEGORIES: REGULARITY, HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, MODEL, EFFECT
The formal vagueness of most economic laws leads to the fact that many of them are implied, but not formulated in an explicit form. As a result, many laws are contained in economic science in a latent form, which greatly complicates their widespread use. This state of affairs provokes the assertion that the very term "economic law" is misleading, because by default it presupposes a high degree of accuracy, universality, and even moral justice. In this regard, along with the concept of "law" in economics, there are other categories that claim a similar role. For example, C.R. McConnell and S.L.Brew use the terms "law", "principle", "model" and "theory" as synonyms. Representatives of the old German school operated mainly with some "regularities", and Antonelli considered it expedient to move from the concept of "law" to the concept of "effect". Currently, the opinion is widespread, according to which there are no economic laws at all and cannot be due to the too great complexity of economic processes. In this case, the goal of economics is proclaimed the study of the behavioral properties of the economic system, based on some fundamental "principles" and "hypotheses".
In our opinion, equating all of the above concepts with laws is illegal and creates confusion in economic science itself. Since the difference between laws and principles has already been mentioned above, we will dwell only on the differences between other concepts.
First of all, about the lack of identity between by law and regularity... In our opinion, the law is a more universal thesis, bearing timeless character as opposed to a pattern that occurs only within a certain period of time. In addition, even within a certain time interval, the pattern is more often violated than the law. In this regard, the law is formulated on the basis of a fundamental analysis of economic mechanisms, while the pattern is established on the basis of empirical facts. Difference between by law and hypothesis lies in the degree of verification. So, a law is a certain fact, that is, a position, the truth of which has been tested by time and proven in practice; a hypothesis is an assumption, that is, a statement that needs additional verification.
Concepts theory and the law cannot be mixed at all. The dialectics of these categories can be viewed in three dimensions. First, a law is a rather narrow and content-limited thesis, while a theory is a collection of numerous theses linked together into a logically consistent system. Secondly, any particular theory, as a rule, is based on many laws. This is due to the causal vastness of the theory, which links many facts in a complex logical chain. The law is just a link in this chain. Third, economic laws, due to their universality, can permeate many theories. This is due to the fact that any theory has a limited scope. Indeed, each theory is purposefully created to solve well-defined problems and problems, and, as a rule, it is not suitable for explaining the phenomena that lie outside the original problem. Currently, the prevailing opinion is that there is no unified economic theory and cannot be; it is just that each problem must have its own theory. Laws, on the contrary, apply to the overwhelming number of economic phenomena and remain valid in relation to many problematic sections, which allows them to be used as an initial "building material" for creating a variety of theories.
Now let's look at how the concepts “ law" and " model", As well as the concepts of" model "and" theory ". A model is a schematic reflection of a certain piece of reality. The theory is always based on one or several models, and in this sense the theory is broader than the model. In this case, the model acts as the primary building material for the theory, and therefore the same model can be used in different theories. In addition, the theory assumes meaningful conclusions and recommendations, and the model serves only as a tool for obtaining these conclusions. The relationship between law and model is somewhat more complex. For example, the model itself can serve as a source for the formulation of new laws. On the other hand, when analyzing the model, already known laws can be used, which allows one to draw important and interesting conclusions about the functioning of the economic system. Sometimes, at the stage of model construction, certain laws can be used as initial postulates. Strictly speaking, any highly formalized model in itself reflects a certain law in accordance with which the modeled system operates. However, the law of such a high degree of abstractness, as a rule, turns out to be useless for understanding reality, in connection with which a deeper analysis of the model is carried out and more concrete conclusions and laws are formulated.
Concerning the connection of the concepts “ law" and " the effect»We can say that there is no identity here either. In the general case, the concept of an effect is much broader than the concept of a law. It can be said that laws indicate typical effects that are predominantly binding. At the same time, in economics, various anomalous effects are quite often considered, which quite rarely occur, in contrast to those effects that are fixed by economic laws.
Thus, economic science consists of an extensive set of laws, hypotheses, principles, patterns, models, theories and effects, which are intertwined in complex ways. Thus, various theories, laws and models can be used to explain some complex effects; the action of various principles and effects can lead to the emergence of specific patterns; the use of certain hypotheses and models leads to the creation of economic theories, etc. This section of the problem complements the above ideas about the structure and structure of economic science.
LACK OF WORLD CONSTANTS IN ECONOMIC SCIENCE
Closely related to the weak form of economic laws is the fact that there are no universal economic constants in economic science. This fact is key to understanding the methodological difficulties faced by economists. So, for example, in order for any law to acquire practical significance, it must be expressed in a strong form (that is, in the form of equality), which, as a rule, presupposes the presence of certain coefficients of proportionality. If these coefficients are constants, then the law expressed with their help acquires a timeless meaning and can be applied to any period of time. It is these laws that are characteristic of the natural sciences, and above all for physics. For example, in quantum mechanics, the constants of Planck, Rydberg, fine structure, screening, etc. appear as universal physical constants; in astrophysics - the constants of Oort, Boltzmann, Roche, Hubble, Lyapunov, gravity, the speed of light, etc.
In economics, such universal determinants, which D. Shimon aptly called "world constants", simply do not exist. However, it is the world constants that cement scientific theories; without them, there is simply nothing to "catch on" in analytical constructions and forecast calculations. As J. Soros rightly noted, “without constants, there is no tendency to balance.” As a result of this state of affairs, the typical course of economic events follows an irregular boom-bust pattern. It is quite obvious that a stable prediction of such fluctuations is impossible.
The absence of world economic constants is based on the fact that, unlike inanimate nature, which is constant in its manifestations, man and society do not have stable laws of behavior. In the latter case, we are faced with a fundamental limitation in the use of the mathematical apparatus to describe socio-economic processes. In fact, mathematics is a highly effective means of studying relatively primitive worlds (mechanical, physical, chemical); supercomplex processes occurring in economic systems are difficult to mathematize. For this reason, many even purely theoretical studies of economic laws are carried out using simulation (behavioral) models based on the cybernetic concept of large systems.
However, again, one should not think that economics is completely different from the natural sciences. For example, in astrophysics, the Hubble constant is not precise; its value is in a certain interval, however, it has not yet been possible to perform a point identification of this constant. In economics, the specified "uncertainty interval" for the corresponding constants is simply very much expanding.
ECONOMIC (LOGICAL) AND ECONOMETRIC (STATISTICAL) LAWS
The problems of the weak form of economic laws and the absence of world constants in practice are partially eliminated by constructing econometric dependencies. However, the latter are not universal and act only for a limited period of time. In this case, the dialectic of economic and econometric laws is manifested, which, generally speaking, should not be identified. So, according to L. Stoleru, "an econometric law is primarily a law based on correlations of the past, while an economic law is a law based on reflections on the behavior of economic units." A similar position is adhered to by R. Barr, who calls economic laws logical because they follow from qualitative (abstract) analysis, and econometric - statistical, because they are obtained as a result quantitative (empirical) analysis.
Of course, the distinction made between the two types of laws is somewhat arbitrary, since there is a constant connection between theoretical reflections and facts. We only emphasize that the division of laws into economic (logical) and econometric (statistical) is based on the concepts causality and correlations... So, if the econometric law fixes correlations between phenomena and shows their systemic interdependence, which can be temporary and random, then the economic law reveals deep causal relationships. At the same time, economic and econometric laws complement each other. The dialectic of this process is approximately the following.
Due to their weak form, most economic laws require numerical refinement. This is achieved by obtaining the corresponding econometric dependencies, which include specific coefficients that make it possible to compensate for the absence of world constants and thereby fill the quantitative "windows" of economic laws, transferring them from the weak form (inequality form) to the strong one (equality form). For example, the economic law of demand has the form: dD / dP<0, то есть рост цены ведет к падению спроса. Чтобы уточнить, насколько сильно влияет цена на объем спроса на основе данных ретроспективных рядов можно построить простейшую эконометрическую зависимость: D=bP+a. Теперь экономический закон спроса запишется в следующем эконометрическом виде: dD/dP=b. Параметр b в данном уравнении играет роль мировой константы. Таким образом, исходный экономический закон на определенном временном интервале конкретизируется эконометрическим законом, что позволяет проводить прикладные расчеты.
On the other hand, in practice, there is always a need to limit the study of correlations, knowing in advance the interdependent quantities. Here economic laws come into play to reveal possible relationships between variables, so it remains only to check valid communication by obtaining a satisfactory degree of correlation. Thus, economic laws allow you to save energy, time and other resources when conducting specific research.
ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC DEPENDENCES
The effective mathematization of the economy, among other things, is greatly complicated by the asymmetry of many functional dependencies. Let us explain what has been said with a simple example. The demand curve D = D (P), which establishes the dependence of demand on price, in the overwhelming majority of cases is characterized by a negative slope due to the law of demand, that is, dD / dP<0. Чисто формально цена может быть представлена функцией, обратной к функции спроса - P=P(D). В этом случае при возрастании спроса на товар цена на него должна уменьшаться, то есть dP/dD<0. Однако в реальности имеет место прямо противоположная ситуация: рост спроса ведет к росту цены, то есть dP/dD>0. Thus, we have arrived at a substantial contradiction. Thus, most economic dependencies "work" only in one direction, reflecting either direct or inverse relationship between economic variables. It is clear that a primitive "frontal attack" of the economy from the side of mathematics is possible only in exceptional cases.
Another fact complicating the application of formal methods in economics is the existence of a hysteresis effect in many phenomena. Here the problem arises even within the framework of one functional dependency. For example, the price curve P = P (D) in this case, as it were, “bifurcates”: one of its trajectories shows the change in prices with growing demand, and the other with falling demand. This kind of "hysteresis" asymmetry of economic dependences further limits the thoughtless, mechanistic use of mathematics to model complex socio-economic processes.
INVERTIBILITY OF MANY ECONOMIC VARIABLES
One of the most "terrible" problems of economics is either complete or partial unverifiability of many fundamental economic variables and, as a consequence, basic laws. So, for example, modern economic analysis actively operates with such "vague" categories as: demand, utility of goods, labor burden, inflation expectations, preferences, fundamental conditions, information, knowledge, final goods, human capital, educational level, etc. For all their seeming comprehensibility and even obviousness, the listed concepts belong either to the category of directly unobservable, or to the category of fundamentally non-computable. For example, how to quantify the usefulness of a particular good? How do you measure the amount of useful information? Even the volume of demand is problematic to calculate for a situation when the demand in the market exceeds the amount of supply. In this case, the demand acts as some abstract needs that were not satisfied.
But if, for example, we cannot evaluate the usefulness of some good, then how can we find out the truth of Gossen's law, which deals with its marginal utility? If we cannot calculate the volume of demand, how can we check the validity of the law of demand? Of course, in practice, various indirect methods of assessment are used, but their legitimacy is always in doubt, since in some cases they do not even give an approximate assessment of the true state of affairs. In addition, it is rather difficult to check analytical constructions of a microeconomic nature, since most of the available statistical information is macroeconomic, aggregate.
The problem of unverifiability of many economic variables does not mean that they should be excluded from the arsenal of economics. In this case, all economic knowledge would automatically turn into a formless mass of empirical facts, since it is these poorly verified indicators that give conceptual integrity to all economic constructions. As K. Boulding aptly noted, "a theory without facts may be empty, but facts without theory are meaningless." To maintain integrity and meaningfulness, modern economic science, along with well-measurable variables and parameters, is forced to use unverifiable characteristics.
However, one should not think that the above economic categories are somehow especially speculative and abstract. In our opinion, there is a certain analogy between utility in economics and energy in physics, as well as between demand in economics and the wave y-function in quantum mechanics. Despite the fact that these quantities cannot be directly measured, they still objectively exist and help in scientific research. However, unlike the natural sciences, social disciplines lack the ability to conduct a controlled experiment. As a result, in order to test and finally discard any theory, economists simply need much more facts than, for example, physicists.
One of the features of economic science is the subjective and ideological coloring of the practical recommendations arising from it. In this regard, the comparison made by R. Karson is appropriate. In his opinion, economists are usually seen as either doctors or auto mechanics. Physicians study medicine to cure disease and improve human health; auto mechanics must be able to determine the cause of malfunctioning mechanisms and repair cars. Accordingly, economists study economics and must know how to heal or repair it - no more and no less. However, the recommendations of economists, "even if they are made with the utmost impartiality in assessing the available data, ultimately can be interpreted differently, either from the point of view of their own or the prevailing worldview in society." The last point is especially important, since in fact every economist has his own view of the world, his own “personal equation”.
In other words, economic theory is, in the words of R. Barr, "a box with tools." Everyone can have such a box, but everyone can use it in their own way. Likewise, economics does not provide ready-made conclusions, being just a method, a way that allows you to draw correct conclusions from facts.
In general, it can be stated that “economics, as the study of human behavior and beliefs, cannot avoid biased judgments”; it is "a discipline that cannot be free of ideology." Simply put, the main problem arises when, according to the figurative expression of S. Lem, a lofty idea comes into contact with a rough reality. Thus, in practice, economics turns out to be not so much a science as an art, because it is based on subjective judgments, and not formal evidence. One might even say that the objectivity of economics ends at the decision-making stage; then the realm of the subjective begins.
ONTOLOGICAL SELF-VALUE OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE
The weakness of economic laws discussed above does not allow for accurate forecasts. In addition, economics has another feature that severely limits its predictive capabilities. In this case, we are talking about thinking, which, according to G. Soros, plays a double role. On the one hand, people strive to understand the situation in which they are involved; on the other hand, their understanding serves as the basis for making decisions that affect the course of events. These two roles constantly interfere with each other. In fact, this means that the thinking of the participants in the events introduces uncertainty into the subject of research.
If we add to the above the fact of subjectivity of all practical recommendations arising from economic theory, then the question of the value of economic science involuntarily arises. Since economic science does not allow predicting future events and does not give unambiguous recommendations, then maybe it has no value at all?
Apparently, E. Leroy can be considered the founder of scientific pragmatism, who argued that science is only a rule of action. Hence, the understanding of the value of science follows logically: “either science does not provide an opportunity to foresee, in this case it is devoid of value as a rule of action; or it allows one to foresee (in a more or less imperfect way), and then it is not devoid of meaning as a means to knowledge. " P. Bragg adhered to a similar opinion: “science is reason in action”. With regard to economics, this position was expressed by M. Friedman in 1953: the significance of economic theory is determined solely by the accuracy of its predictions. Finally, "scientific pragmatism" was transferred to economic science in 1956 by L. Rogin, according to which the objective significance of economic theory lies in its recommendations for practical policy.
The main negative of these views is that, thanks to them, the criterion of the value of scientific doctrines begins to replace the ultimate goal of economic science, which is fundamentally wrong. As Poincaré rightly noted, it is not action that is the goal of science, but rather the opposite: knowledge is the goal, action is the means. There is also a quite definite methodological danger in the cultivation of "scientific pragmatism". The point is that “a science created exclusively for applied purposes is impossible; truths are fruitful only when there is an inner connection between them. If you are looking for only those truths from which you can expect immediate results, then the connecting links elude and the chain falls apart. "
In other words, the absence of predictive and managerial applications of economics does not negate its value. For example, many economic theories lack specific empirical content and serve only to streamlining information. There are also a number of important economic theses and theorems that, while identifying important points in economic behavior, still do not allow it to be directly predicted. In this case, Mach's assertion that the role of science consists in saving thought, just like a machine creates a power saving. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the well-known aphorism of F. Knight: "The most harmful thing is not ignorance at all, but the knowledge of a hell of a lot of things that are actually wrong."
Speaking about the role of economic science, P. Heine rightly noted that "economists know how different things are related to each other." J. Hicks, opposing primitive empiricism in economics, also emphasized the "intrinsic value" of theoretical constructions and the importance of the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships as such. According to M. Blaug, the true significance of economic science lies primarily in the fact that the functioning of the economic system is now understood much better than ever before. Thus, the main value of economics is the possibility correct understanding economic reality, because, as the famous aphorism says, "the best practice is a good theory."
Indeed, one should not think that the purely cognitive, ontological aspect of economic science has nothing to do with economic practice. In this regard, the views of M.Alle, who, speaking about such an abstract concept as a competitive economy, believed that the latter is not even an image of reality, look very fresh and relevant; she happens to be frame of reference helping us to understand to what extent the society where we live does not use its capabilities. Thus, even the most abstract theoretical constructions of economics sometimes contribute to correct orientation in understanding practical problems.
ECONOMIC THEORY AS A BASIS OF SOCIAL FORECASTS AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
However, the role of economics is by no means exhausted by its ontological potential. One can, in particular, talk about its special place in comparison with the rest of the social sciences for predicting social phenomena. The fact is that quite often many sciences consider alternative ways of developing the same process in their own ways. At the same time, they evaluate probability the onset of certain events. However, events that are quite probable from the standpoint of one of the sciences turn out to be completely impossible from the standpoint of others. Following the approach of V. Leontiev, the region possible the development of the process from the point of view of individual sciences can be geometrically depicted by squares of various areas. Their mutual location will have nested a structure like the one shown in Fig. 1. In accordance with this approach, the value of economics lies in the fact that the area of possible development of events it outlines is, as a rule, much narrower than for other sciences. This means that the economy has a more significant "sifting potential" of events and thus allows leaving a rather narrow band of possible strategies for the development of the system. Thus, economic forecasts are more realistic, which allows them to play a dominant role in social forecasting.
The ability of the economy to determine the possible and desirable (that is, the most effective) through development also predetermines its capabilities in terms of the formation of practical recommendations in terms of management decisions. In this sense, the development of economic science provides a certain guarantee against gross economic mistakes and miscalculations. “Describing the economic laws that govern the use and formation of resources in a given period of time, identifying the boundaries created by the current situation for the future, it is possible to outline the area of possible development paths step by step. Economic theory urges to exclude from these options some development strategies that would lead to the waste of resources. " Thus, the economy allows, on the one hand, to build the most realistic, easily foreseeable forecast scenarios, and on the other hand, to choose the most rational among them.
Of course, making forecasts and choosing the optimal paths of development cannot be fully formalized. These procedures are usually a complex, iterative, informal process. However, the use of the entire arsenal of economic science allows you to gradually go through all the stages of this process and get the desired solution.
SOCIAL ROLE OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE
Speaking about the social role of the economy, one can recall the statement of J.M. Keynes about the impact of economic ideas on the process of making political decisions: “Practitioners who sincerely believe in their intellectual independence are in fact usually slaves to the ideas of some deceased economist”. This thesis was beautifully supplemented by EF Heckscher: "economic policy is determined not so much by economic reality, but by ideas about this reality in the minds of people." This clearly shows the danger that faulty economic theories and erroneous famous economists can pose. “A physicist who is only a physicist can still be a first-class physicist and a most valuable member of society. However, no one can be a great economist by being only an economist. And I can't help but add: an economist who is just an economist is more likely to become a boring (if not dangerous) person. "
Thus, both correct and erroneous economic theories play a huge role in the construction and restructuring of a particular economic system. As biological evolution proceeds under the influence of genetic mutations, so, according to J. Soros, historical processes are formed by the wrong concepts and mistakes of their participants.
However, in addition to the simplest practical mistakes due to the use of incorrect economic doctrines, the problem of applying economic theory is seriously complicated by the following two facts.
First, there is a multivariance of optimal management decisions. This means that most practical economic problems can be successfully solved in various ways, among which it is very difficult to choose the best one. The following simple analogy is appropriate here. The quadratic equation has two roots; in the cubic equation, the number of solutions increases to three. As the degree of the algebraic equation grows further, the corresponding increase in the number of its roots occurs. In this case, the roots of the equations under consideration are absolutely "equal" and none of them can be given preference based on the consideration of the roots themselves. So in the process of making management decisions, there are many different ways to achieve this goal. This fact is reflected in economic science in such a concept as Pareto optimality.
Secondly, the effectiveness of a particular decision often depends not on how correct this decision is, but on how it is implemented. Quite often, wrong decisions lead to positive results, while the right strategies end in complete fiasco. “In the field of natural phenomena, the scientific method is effective only if the correct theory is used; but in the area of social, political and economic issues, wrong theories can also be effective. Although alchemy as a natural science has failed, social science as alchemy can succeed. " Thus, the effectiveness of economic decisions to a decisive extent depends on the volitional efforts of the individual, conducting them, as well as on the specific forms and mechanisms of their implementation.
ECONOMY AND PROBLEM OF INTERACTION OF SCIENCES; ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM
One of the features of economics is its "borderline" nature. In fact, none of the definitions of economic science makes it possible to clearly outline its boundaries and "radius of action". Indeed, economics is organically intertwined with such sciences as history, political science, psychology, sociology, biology, geography, technology, law and philosophy. Schematically, this process can be represented by the “rose of sciences”, in the center of which is the economy (Fig. 2). Methodologically, this means that the economist must constantly abstract from the secondary (non-economic) aspects of the studied reality, which are in the competence of other sciences. However, it is impossible to achieve a satisfactory understanding of social life if you do not have a synthetic picture that allows you to enter into a single framework the results obtained in various fields of knowledge. Moreover, according to M.Alle, "it is on the path of synthesis that social sciences can achieve the greatest success today."
There is no doubt that the role of that synthetic social "super-science", which accumulates all the achievements of private social sciences, is increasingly being played by economics. Such a tendency towards the globalization of science objectively leads to an ever greater "capture" by the economy of "foreign" territories. Such a process in the development of economic science has even received a special name - "economic imperialism." Not only political science, sociology, history and law, but even biology and science of science have already undergone the "colonization" of economists. At the same time, economic science is increasingly acquiring a planetary-cosmological coloration. So, for example, the modern economics of world economic relations is forced to take into account the modern theory of mutagenesis, according to which each new ethnic group arises as a result of a sudden change in the gene pool of living beings, which occurs under the influence of external conditions in a certain place and at a certain time. In particular, LN Gumilyov's theory of passionarity successfully explains the numerous shifts that have taken place in the world economy. In this case, it is extremely important that “a passionary impulse, if it occurs, never affects one country, one ethnic group. As a global, planetary phenomenon, the explosion of ethnogenesis covers extended narrow strips on the earth's surface, passing through different regions inhabited by different peoples. It is on these strips stretching for thousands of kilometers that the genesis of different peoples begins at the same time. " On the other hand, according to L.N. Gumilyov, "without taking into account the factor of international trade, the history of not only Khazaria, but the whole world is incomprehensible." The given example illustrates well, on the one hand, the encyclopedic nature of modern economics, and on the other hand, its synthesizing role, which is manifested in the “gluing” of various social sciences into a single whole.
In recent years, economics has been "digging into" even anthropology and physiology. For example, the problem of the distribution of time between leisure, work and sleep falls into the sphere of economic analysis. According to current research, sleep time appears to be influenced by income and replacement effects. Moreover, in the time triad "work-leisure-sleep" the main factor is precisely the working hours, which gradually subordinate the logic of their economic functioning (efficiency, utility, productivity) to the other components of the daily time budget of individuals.
An interesting cut of economic analysis is the theory of distribution of time by H. Becker, which reveals the fundamental properties of time formation (in the sense of organizing time) in social systems. Methods and forms of mastering time play a huge role in the economic development of all countries and peoples. It is even believed that the so-called "temporary wars" (changes in ideas about space and time) determine the course of economic events and the politics of tomorrow. So, for example, economic studies of time streams and their perception by individuals make it possible to fairly fully and subtly explain a number of complex economic phenomena. Thus, studying such problems, economic science enriches our understanding of the essence and properties of time, which was originally considered the prerogative of physicists and philosophers.
Guided in its advancement by the thought that in order to achieve a satisfactory explanation of reality it is necessary to use all the methods of scientific knowledge, economic analysis in the methodological terms is closely related to mathematics, statistics, cybernetics, and even, paradoxically, with physics. It will not be a mistake to say that in terms of the degree of scientific "saturation" and methodological diversity, economics is the undisputed leader among all sciences. In this regard, the works of M.Alle attract attention. By his own admission, the search for fundamental factors underlying fluctuations in "precipitation" of the most proven economic models led him to understand the fact that all fluctuations in natural and social phenomena result from the resonance effect mainly from the influence of countless vibrations that permeate our inhabited space and whose presence today is a reliable fact. This, it turns out, can largely explain the seemingly incomprehensible structure of fluctuations in exchange quotations. Such an interpretation of socio-economic effects on the basis of the "fine" structure of the Universe is truly cosmological in nature and points to the outlined synthesis of social and natural sciences in general and economics and physics in particular.
SOCIAL PORTRAIT OF A CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIST SCIENTIST
The consequence of the large-scale expansion of the economy into other sciences is its expansion both in breadth and in depth. This fact imposes special requirements on the professional qualifications of an economist. A classic portrait of a scientist-economist was given in his time by J.M. Keynes: “Talented or simply competent economists are the rarest breed. The subject is easy, but those who succeed in it are few. The paradox is explained by the fact that the economist must have a rare combination of talents. He must achieve a level of excellence in several different directions and possess abilities that rarely come together. He must be a mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher ... He must understand the language of symbols and express his thoughts in clear terms. He must consider the particular from the point of view of the general and approach the abstract and the concrete in the same movement. He must study the present in the light of the past, with the future in mind. He should not be alien to any part in the nature of man and his institutions. He must certainly strive for a practical and completely disinterested goal: to be detached and incorruptible, like an artist, but sometimes be as practical as a politician. "
Complementing this detailed description with the "ethnic" characteristics of an ideal scientist, M. Allera advocated the training of economists "possessing qualities inherent in different nations: attention to the facts of the Anglo-Saxons, the erudition of the Germans, the logic of the Latins."
On the basis of the foregoing, one involuntarily suggests a comparison of an economist with a kind of equilibrist, masterly juggling with all possible scientific instruments and at the same time not losing the main goal and logical thread of his reasoning. In this regard, it can be stated that one of the most essential features of an economist is an internal, one might say, an innate sense of proportion. Thus, an ideal economist, to use the terminology of K. Castaneda, must possess four magical qualities of a true stalker: ruthlessness, dexterity, patience and gentleness. Here we mean the following: ruthlessness in stating facts, dexterity in dealing with any scientific methods, patience in constructing logical schemes and selecting facts, gentleness in relation to their opponents. The latter fact is especially important, since all economic truths are very relative and to insist on them means to make a mistake, because, according to A. Govinda's apt remark, "dead truth is no better than a lie, because it causes inertia, the most difficult to grasp form of ignorance."
LITERATURE
Poincaré A. On Science. M .: Science. 1990.
Marshall A. Principles of Economic Science. In 3 vols. M .: Progress. 1993.
Barr R. Political Economy. In 2 vols. Vol. 1. M .: International relations. 1995.
Stoleru L. Equilibrium and economic growth. M .: Statistics. 1974.
Balatsky E.V. The problem of rationality in economic theory // "Man", No. 3, 1997.
Allé M. Economics as a Science. Moscow: Science for Society, Russian State University for the Humanities. 1995.
Feynman R. The nature of physical laws. M .: Science. 1987.
Vivekananda S. Four Yogas. M .: Progress; Progress Academy. 1993.
Philosophical Dictionary. M .: Politizdat. 1986.
Kapelyushnikov R.I. Gary Becker's economic approach to economic behavior // "USA - economics, politics, ideology", №11, 1993.
Balatsky E.V. Modern economic analysis: principles, approaches, paradigms // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, No. 11, 1995.
Balatsky E.V. Transient processes in the economy (methods of qualitative analysis). M .: IMEI. 1995.
Birman I. Deadlock in science and how to deal with it // "Economics and Mathematical Methods", no. 4, 1992.
Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. M .: Delo Ltd. 1994.
Soros J. Alchemy of Finance. M .: Infra-M. 1996.
Gromov A. On the inaccuracy of laws in astronomy // "Engineering newspaper", no. 11 (748), 1996.
Govinda A. The Way of White Clouds. Buddhist in Tibet. M .: Sphere. 1997.
McConnell C.R., Bruce S.L. Economics: principles, problems and politics. M .: Republic. 1992.
Shimon D. On the functional of economic development // "Economics and Mathematical Methods", No. 3, 1992.
Carson R. What economists know (chapters from the book) // "USA - Economics, Politics, Ideology", No. 5, 1994.
Bragg P. Golden Keys to Internal Physical Health. SPb .: "Nevsky Prospect". 1999.
Reader on economic theory. M .: Yurist. 1997.
Hicks J. Cost and Capital. M .: Progress. 1993.
Bulletin of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia. No. 1, 1993.
Leontiev V. Economic essays. Theory, Research, Facts and Politics. M .: Politizdat. 1990.
Oiken V. Basic principles of economic policy // "Russian economic journal", №7, 1993.
Barry N., Loibe K. Two comments on the article by R. Ebeling "The role of the Austrian school in the development of world economic thought in the XX century" // "Economics and Mathematical Methods", No. 3, 1992.
Gumilev L.N. From Rus to Russia: Essays on Ethnic History. M .: Ecopros. 1992.
Gumilev L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M .: Thought. 1992.
Vasiliev V.S. Time is in captivity. Russian realities and G. Becker's theory // "USA - economics, politics, ideology", no. 4, 1996.
Vasiliev V.S. The time factor in social processes // "USA - economics, politics, ideology", №9, 1993.
Castaneda K. The Power of Silence. Donner F. The Witch's Dream. Kiev: Sofia. 1992.
Govinda A. Psychology of early Buddhism. Foundations of Tibetan mysticism. S-P: Andreev and sons. 1993.
1. When and how the real economy emerged
In domestic and foreign textbooks on economics (especially on economic theory) nothing is said about when and why the economic activity of people arose.
Some students give their own answer to this question. They claim that economics was "discovered" by the outstanding scientist of ancient Greece, Aristotle. But in this answer, Aristotle's definition of the term "economy" is mistakenly identified with the practical process of creating a real (from the Latin.
At the same time, it is very important to get correct ideas about the economy that existed from the very beginning and is developing at the present time. Otherwise, it is impossible to determine the historical timing of the development of human economic activity, to find out the qualitative changes in different periods of economic development, including the 21st century.
Therefore, an intellectual problem 1.1 arises in the lecture (the first number denotes the section number, the second - the task number. In each topic, tables and figures are indicated by one successive number).
Task 1.1. When and how did the economy emerge?
To solve this problem, you need:
a) use the factual data of historical science about the beginning of the existence of human society;
b) know what abilities were needed for people to organize economic activities;
c) establish the reasons that prompted a person to constantly engage in economics.
Readers who have coped with this task can compare the results obtained with the answer placed at the end of Section I of the lecture course.
Continuing to clarify the essence and role of the real economy, we proceed to clarify its main goal and ways to achieve it.
2. The main goal of the economic activity of people
Undoubtedly, the goal of the economy is to create such goods that are necessary for the life of people. It is customary to understand good as something that satisfies a person's needs, meets his life tasks. All the variety of goods can be divided into two kinds:
a) natural goods - products of nature (forest, land, fruits of plants and trees, etc.);
b) economic benefits are the result of the creative activity of people.
In turn, the natural goods used by people are divided into two types:
ready-made consumer goods, called "gifts of nature";
natural resources (funds, stocks) from which the means of production are created.
As for economic benefits, they are divided into two types:
means of production - natural substances used for the manufacture of consumer goods;
consumer goods - consumer goods. A visual representation of the interdependence of all types of goods
gives rice. 1.
Shown in fig. 1 the difference between the two types of goods of material production indicates two main divisions:
a) production of means of production;
b) production of consumer goods.
To better understand this division of the production of goods, let us try to solve the following problem. This will require the use of personal experience and business practice.
Task 1.2. What economic goods are means of production,
and which ones are commodities:
a) granulated sugar; b) a car; c) oil extracted from wells;
d) personal computers; e) candy.
Now, having some idea of the internal structure and results of economic activity, we will proceed to the important question of the importance of the main link in the real economy - production.
3. The importance of production for the development of the economy
The most important principle (from the Latin rpnarsht - the basis) of economic activity is to ensure its continuity. The constant maintenance of human life depends on it. In turn, such a vital necessity is provided due to the non-stop development of production.
Production serves as the starting point for the entire economic chain. Take, for example, a simple peasant farm. The manufacturer first grows, say, tomatoes. Then he distributes them: he keeps some for his family, and sells the rest. On the market, tomatoes that are unnecessary for the family are exchanged for other products necessary for the household (for example, meat, shoes). Finally, material goods reach their final destination - personally
Task 1.3. Show graphically the main options for the dynamics of production.
After comparing the three options for possible changes in the state of production, you can easily find the most preferable change. It is the progressive development of production activities. What does this progress mean?
4. New needs as a driving force of the economy
Now we have to consider such an integral link of the real economy, which is included in the mechanism of its movement. It's about the needs of the people. Needs are a need or lack of something necessary to support the life of a person, a social group and society as a whole.
Modern civilization (the current stage of development of the material and spiritual culture of society) knows many different needs. They are divided into the following types:
physiological needs (food, clothing, housing, etc.);
the need for security (protection from external enemies and criminals, help with illness, etc.);
the need for social contacts (communication with people who have the same interests; friendship, etc.);
the need for respect (respect from other people, the acquisition of a certain social position);
the need for self-development (improving all capabilities and abilities).
A very characteristic feature of human needs is their elasticity (flexibility, extensibility). This predetermines their rapid and significant variability. It is also important to note that with regard to the upper limit of the growth of all needs and demands, man is strikingly different from any animal whose ultimate desire is to satisfy only natural biological needs. People do not have such a limiter.
Under favorable economic and other conditions, needs are most capable of elevation - unlimited growth in quantitative and qualitative terms.
Each person is characterized by tendencies to raise needs during certain periods of his life. In this regard, the reader of the textbook, apparently, can solve the next intellectual problem.
Task 1.4. How do needs rise in society?
The solution to this problem makes it possible to better understand the following circumstances. With the spiral movement of production and consumption (see Fig. 1 in Answers to Intellectual Tasks), the process of raising people's needs begins vertically (raising them in quality) and horizontally (the necessary expansion of the production of new generations of economic goods).
However, with such a rise in the level of society's needs, it is revealed that the previously achieved level of production is not able to satisfy new social needs. As a result, the main contradiction of the real economy arises and intensifies, i.e. the discrepancy between the new state of needs and outdated production deepens.
It is quite obvious that in order to resolve such a contradiction, it is necessary to radically restructure production. How can this economic transformation be accomplished?
5. Ways to transform production
Some authors of textbooks on economic theory uniquely define the production capabilities of society. They argue that people's needs grow infinitely, but economic resources are always limited. They see a way out of this deadlock in the following changes. When new needs appear, it is necessary to redistribute resources: to reduce the output of old goods in order to create new products.
Is this judgment true or false?
To find the correct answer to this question, it is important for us to solve the following problem.
V Task 1.5. What are the driving forces of production?
After finding out the answer to the intellectual task, we can understand what and how should be changed in the transformation of the economy.
Depending on the role of factors of production in the development of the economy, they can be divided into: traditional and progressive.
The conditions of economic activity that have arisen in previous periods of time and are more and more obsolete are traditional.
Progressive conditions are those that many times exceed weakly changing factors both in qualitative and quantitative terms.
From the history of the real economy, it is known that since its inception and for about nine millennia, physical labor of people and manual labor tools used to develop natural resources were traditional for production and predominated. And only in the ХУ1-ХУШ centuries. a new era has begun in the development of factors of production. Mankind, on an ever larger scale, began to use the creative power of a qualitatively completely new factor of progress - the achievements of science and technology.
Science and technology gave rise to revolutionary changes in production processes, which began to be carried out through the use of machines, chemical and other methods. The limited possibilities of human power were replaced by the forces of nature, routine ways of working - by the conscious application of natural science. As a result, qualitative transformations accelerated sharply in accordance with the newly emerging needs of society. For the first time, such transformations were quantitatively measured in special economic indicators. These are the indicators of labor productivity and production efficiency.
Labor productivity is measured by the amount of products created in a given time by an employee. It is characteristic that if in the initial period of the existence of agriculture one worker could create products for two people, then in the XX century. in the most developed countries, one worker created food for 20 people.
Production efficiency (EP) can be measured using the indicator:
where B is the volume of production (at the enterprise, in the country);
P is the amount of resources expended.
From all that has been said, the following conclusions are obvious. If new needs arise in society, they become a powerful stimulus for technological progress. In turn, the progress of technology and technology causes a completely natural saving of resources per unit of production, or an increase in production efficiency.
However, this causal relationship is opposed by a completely different trend. The fact is that, firstly, the rise of needs for a certain time is completed when a certain ultimate level is reached. Needs stop developing vertically and horizontally. Secondly, the technological progress that has begun is developing unevenly and, over a certain period, exhausts its capabilities. All this again leads to an exacerbation of the basic contradiction in practical economics. Thus, historically, the need for the transition of the production of economic goods to a higher orbit is maturing.
Throughout economic history, three stages of production development have arisen (three orbits of their movement have arisen). Their differences from each other can be seen in table. 1-3.
As is known from theme I, 10 thousand years ago there was a Neolithic (characteristic of the new Stone Age) revolution, and with it an agrarian (agricultural) revolution. People have learned to polish stone tools well and use them to create a variety of products from bone and wood. The agrarian revolution is based on two great discoveries - agriculture (at first in the form of primitive tillage and grain sowing) and cattle breeding (domestication of wild animals and breeding them as livestock). Later, food products were created using more productive metal technical means (the plow and the wheel were invented).
A manufacturing economy favored a dramatic increase in population. In the Neolithic era, the growth rate of the world's population increased almost threefold. In modern times, population growth accelerated even more, and the level of its needs increased. This came into sharp conflict with the limited capabilities that are inherent in manual production. This contradiction was overcome at the second stage of production (Table 2).
table 2
Second stage of production
The second stage of production is characterized by the following qualitatively new processes:
the main thing is the mechanized industrial production;
industry on the basis of machine technology is transforming other important branches of the economy;
rapid growth of cities: up to 2/3 of all residents of the country live in them;
important was the transition to new sources of energy (from steam technology to the use of electricity and internal combustion engines).
A new stage of the economy is associated with a new large increase in population: the population of the world (which in 1650 was 650 million people) increased sevenfold.
However, the achievements of the industrial economy are clearly insufficient for the current stage of development of needs. Indeed, in mechanized work, an employee often drives one machine. And he is not able to constantly provide high quality products, without which it is impossible to create the latest technology. Industrialized countries are increasingly experiencing the need for natural raw materials and energy sources. As a result, a deep contradiction has developed between the relatively limited production capabilities and a completely new - in quantitative and qualitative terms - level of needs. This contradiction is resolved in the course that began in the 40-50s. XX century. a grandiose scientific and technological revolution (STR), which opened an unusually promising era of economic development. Instead of traditional natural substances and fuel, it has created many new (unparalleled in the biosphere) types of materials and energy carriers (Table 3).
Topic: "Changing the real economy and development
economic theory: peculiarity and relationship "
|
Introduction ……………………………………………………………… .... |
||
|
1. The concept of economic theory. The subject of economic theory research …………………………………………………. |
||
|
2. The history of the development of economic theory ……………………………. |
||
|
2.1. The origins of economic theory …………………………………… .... |
||
|
2.2. Modern aspects of the development of economic theory ... ... ... ... ... |
||
|
3. The relationship between the real economy and economic theory ... ... ... ... |
||
|
3.1. The crisis of economic science ……………………………………… .. |
||
|
3.2. The influence of economic theory on the modern economy of Russia …………………………………………………………………. |
||
|
Conclusion |
||
Introduction
Economic theory is one of the oldest sciences. She has always attracted the attention of scientists and all educated people. This is explained by the fact that the study of economic theory is the realization of the objective necessity of knowing the motives of people's economic activity, the laws of management at all times - from Aristotle and Xenophon to the present day.
First of all, I would like to limit my task. The concept of "economic theory" is too broad in content to be operational. Can we talk about the unity of theory with the diversity of views and styles of research that we observe today? I believe that we can still talk about the unity of the main stream of economic research dating back to one decade, since the overwhelming majority of them are based on the same basic conceptual and model tools. This, in particular, is evidenced by the similarity of numerous lecture courses on micro- and macroeconomics.
Today, the interest of educated people in economic theory not only has not dried up, but is even growing. And this is explained by the global changes that are taking place all over the world.
The deep crisis of all aspects of the life of society could not but affect the current state of economic science. Its crisis as a particular form of manifestation of the general crisis is natural, since economic theory is a reflection of the economic life of society. As the history of the development of economic theory testifies, it is economic crises that have always served as a powerful impetus for its development.
The creators of modern economic theory were well aware of the difficulties it faced. In one of his works, R. Lucas writes:
"After all, these are just notes about some properties of mathematical models, completely fictional worlds, invented by economists. Is it possible to acquire knowledge of reality with pen and paper? Of course, there is something else: some of the data that I cited are the results of years of research projects, and all the models I have considered have important implications that could have been, but have not been compared with observations. Despite this, I believe that the process of creating models in which we are involved is absolutely necessary, and I cannot imagine how without it, we could organize and use the mass of data we have. " (Lucas (1993), p. 271)).
This quote contains questions that are most important in the context of this work: Should economics be based on the results of research in economic theory or on other research standards? Is the current state of economics the result of centuries of previous research? Is it possible to realize the "physical" ideal of a scientific theory? How does economics influence the development of theoretical sciences?
1. The concept of economic theory.
Research subject of economic theory
Economic theory - theoretical ideas about economic processes and phenomena, about the functioning of the economy, about economic relations, based, on the one hand, on logic, on historical experience and, on the other hand, on theoretical concepts, views of scientists-economists.
The subject of economic theory is the study of relations between people about the production, exchange, distribution and consumption of material goods and services as a result of the efficient use of resources to meet unlimited needs.
As a methodological science, economic theory, first of all, is called upon to investigate the issues of the place of production and exchange in the development of society. Humanity cannot exist without consuming and exchanging the results of labor: material, spiritual and social benefits. The constant increase in their production and their receipt in exchange forms the economic growth of society. It most concentrated reflects the results of social work, its moral and spiritual principles. Economic growth is an indicator and source of economic dynamics.
Economic growth is the core of economic theory as a science. It characterizes the general state of the economy and its possible dynamics. Through the prism of economic growth, various approaches and views of economists are analyzed, and their own position of the adequacy of the economy to historical, national and other traditions is formed.
Taking into account the use of potential opportunities for economic growth, the author considers the formation and functioning of commodity production and market relations in specific socio-historical conditions, as well as alternative theories of value formation based on the marginal utility of goods and services.
The object of study of economic theory is to analyze the relationship between the mechanism of market functioning and the presence of competition in the markets, the degree of monopolization of certain economic spheres, forms and methods of competition, ways and means of reforming market relations. The resumption of production and its economic growth occurs at the individual level (firm level) and on a social scale.
Structurally, economic theory includes microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics examines the behavior of individual producers, the patterns of the formation of entrepreneurial capital and the competitive environment. At the center of her analysis are the prices of individual goods, costs, costs, the mechanism of the firm's functioning, pricing, labor motivation. Macroeconomics studies the national economic system based on the emerging micro-proportions. The object of its study is the national product, the general level of prices, inflation, employment. Macroportions seem to grow out of microproportions, but acquire an independent character.
Microeconomics and macroeconomics are interdependent in the real economic environment and interact with each other.
Despite the different levels, micro - and macroeconomics in general analysis and the use of its results are subordinated to a single goal - the study of the laws and factors of economic growth in order to meet the needs of society. These are separate disciplines of a unified economic theory that have a common subject of research.
In the general system of sciences, economic theory performs certain functions.
1. First of all, it performs a cognitive function, since it must study and explain the processes and phenomena of the economic life of society. However, it is not enough to simply state the presence of certain phenomena.
2. Practical - the development of principles and methods of rational management, scientific substantiation of the economic strategy for the implementation of reforms in economic life, etc.
3. Predictive and pragmatic, involving the development and identification of scientific forecasts and prospects for social development.
These functions of economic theory are carried out in the everyday life of a civilized society. Economic science plays a huge role in shaping the economic environment, determining the scale and directions of economic dynamics, optimizing sectoral structures of production and exchange, raising the general living standard of the population on a national scale.
Economic theory and real economy are interconnected. Science develops under the influence of changes in the economic life of countries, the latter, in turn, relies on the experience of previous economic situations, solved or analyzed and fixed in the form of economic theorems, theses, conclusions and postulates. So, relying on the experience of our predecessors, we are developing the economy, it also replenishes and changes economic science.
2. The history of the development of economic theory
2.1. The origins of economic theory
To understand the essence of economic theory, its degree of development at the moment, the relationship with the real economy, it is necessary to know the history of its origin. Economic theory has gone through a number of stages in its development.
1. The origins of economic science should be sought in the teachings of the thinkers of the countries of the East, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Xenophon (430-354 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) first introduced the term "economy" into scientific circulation, which means the art of housekeeping. Aristotle subdivided two terms: "economics" (natural economic activity associated with the production of products) and "chremantistika" (the art of making wealth, making money).
2. Economic theory as a science took shape during the formation of capitalism, the birth of initial capital and, above all, in the sphere of trade. Economic science responds to the demands of the development of trade with the emergence of mercantilism - the first direction of political economy.
3. The doctrine of mercantilists is reduced to determining the source of the origin of wealth. They derived the source of wealth only from trade and the sphere of circulation. Wealth itself was identified with money. Hence the name "mercantile" - money.
4. The teachings of William Petty (1623-1686) are a bridge from the mercantilists to classical political economy. His merit is that he for the first time declared labor and land as the source of wealth.
5. A new direction in the development of political economy is represented by the physiocrats, who were the spokesmen for the interests of landowners. The main representative of this trend was François Quesnay (1694-1774). The limitation of his teaching is that the source of wealth was considered labor only in agriculture.
6. Economic science received further development in the works of Adam Smith (1729-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1783). A. Smith in his book "Research on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1777) systematized the entire amount of economic knowledge accumulated by that time, created the doctrine of the social division of labor, revealed the mechanism of the free market, which he called the "invisible hand". David Ricardo continued the development of A. Smith's theory in his work "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" (1809-1817). He showed that the only source of value is the labor of the worker, which is the basis of the incomes of various classes (wages, profit, interest, rent).
7. Based on the highest achievements of classical political economy, K. Marx (1818-1883) revealed the laws of development of capitalism, its internal source of self-movement - contradictions; created the doctrine of the dual nature of labor embodied in a commodity; the doctrine of surplus value; showed the historically coming character of capitalism as a formation.
2.2. Modern aspects of the development of economic theory
The modern style of theorizing in economics has developed over the past 50 years, although brilliant examples of this style appeared in the twenties and thirties of the last century. Suffice it to mention the names of F. Ramsey, I. Fischer, A. Wald, J. Hicks, E. Slutsky, L. Kantorovich, J. von Neumann. But the turning point came in the fifties. The emergence of game theory (Neumann and Morgenshtern (1944)), social choice theory (Arrow (1951)) and the development of a mathematical model of general economic equilibrium (Arrow, Debreu (1954), McKenzie (1954), Debreu ( 1959)). In subsequent years, the number of studies devoted to the development of these areas increased rapidly.
From a methodological point of view, several important aspects of the development of economic theory can be distinguished:
1) Improvement of mathematical tools.
There was a rapid development of the mathematical apparatus necessary for the study of economics, first of all, the theory of extreme problems and specific methods of data analysis, which constituted the content of econometrics. In addition, more and more new branches of mathematics were involved in the analysis of economic phenomena. It seems that there is not a single branch of mathematics that would not find applications in economics.
2) In-depth research and generalization of basic models.
We are talking, for example, about the Arrow-Debreu equilibrium model, the optimal growth model, the overlapping generation model, the Nash equilibrium model, etc. The questions of existence, uniqueness, stability of their solutions gave rise to an extensive literature. At the same time, the initial hypotheses were improved.
3) Coverage of the theory of new spheres of economic life.
The apparatus of equilibrium theory and game theory served as the basis for the creation of modern theories of international trade, taxation and public goods, monetary economics, and the theory of industrial organizations. The scale and pace of new developments are not only not decreasing, but accelerating. Economic theory penetrates into more and more new spheres, finds new areas of application. Experimental economics tries to test "in the laboratory" the basic postulates concerning economic behavior.
4) Accumulation of empirical data.
Thanks to computer technology, an unprecedented scale of economic research, improved methods of economic measurement, standardization of national accounts and the creation of powerful research departments in international credit institutions, an avalanche-like growth of economic information is taking place, available to most researchers in developed countries. This information is constantly updated and enriched both through the introduction of new measurable indicators and through the introduction of international standards in developing countries.
5) Changing the "strictness standard".
Over the past half century, the standard of rigor adopted in economics has radically changed. A typical article in a high-level journal should contain at least one of two things: either a theoretical model substantiation of the main theses, or their econometric testing on empirical material. Texts written in the style of Ricardo or Keynes are extremely rare in the most prestigious magazines.
6) The collective nature of generalizing works. The principle of coexistence.
Attempts to create all-encompassing economic theories are being made less and less and less and less successful. Dozens of contributors contribute to each volume, representing a variety of perspectives and using a variety of tools. The principle of the unity of theory seems to have given way to the principle of the coexistence of competing concepts.
7) "Behavioral" revolution in theoretical macroeconomics.
One cannot fail to note the revolution in theoretical macroeconomics that has taken place over the past two decades. It was largely stimulated by the "criticism of Lucas" (Lucas (1976)). After many years of almost separate existence of micro- and macroeconomics, a synthetic theory is now being intensively developed.
8) Organizational growth.
No stagnation is felt at the organizational level either. The prestige and salary of a qualified economist in the West is relatively high, the number of scientific journals is growing and the number of conferences is increasing. The frequency of contacts, the exchange of scientific and teaching personnel between universities, new technologies for the exchange of information have led to the internationalization of economic science. National schools have practically disappeared.
3. The relationship between the real economy and economic theory.
3.1. The crisis of economic science.
It would seem that the above testifies rather to the flourishing of economics than to a period of difficulties. Yet there are clear signs of a crisis in economic theory.
Empirical research did not lead to the discovery of fundamental laws or even regularities of a universal nature that could serve as a basis for theoretical constructions. A number of patterns that for decades were considered empirically proven were subsequently refuted.
The most general theoretical results are negative in a certain sense - these are conclusions that assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that the theories under consideration lack postulates in order to obtain answers to the questions posed.
To be convinced of the validity of this thesis, consider a number of key facts of theoretical economics:
Social choice theory: impossibility of rational reconciliation of interests.
General equilibrium theory: the impossibility of comparative statistics.
Monetary theory: instability of conclusions regarding small variations in postulates, etc.
“My main takeaway is that equally plausible models lead to fundamentally different outcomes,” wrote Jerome Stein in the 1970 introduction to his review of monetary growth theory.
Unfortunately, this conclusion is true in relation to almost any fundamental problem of macroeconomics. Is money super neutral? The answer is yes if transaction costs are accounted for through utility functions, as in Sidraussky's model, but negative if we take into account their impact on production functions; the answer depends on the way money is injected into the model with overlapping generations, on the ability of economic agents to predict the rate of price growth, etc.
There is nothing surprising in all this, the economic reality is complex. However, it is completely unclear how to use the theory, if, in order to apply it in each specific case, it is necessary to undertake a laborious study in order to establish which of the theoretical options is most adequate to the real state of affairs. For example, when considering the recession in the process of Russian reforms, we are faced with phenomena characteristic of both Keynesian and classical economic theory, and in addition to this, with non-standard behavior of economic agents, so there are no ready-made theoretical tools for analyzing the recession.
Of course, economists are trying to build a theory for specific classes of utility functions. The theory is split into subtheories, the possibility of applying which in specific situations remains unexplored.
ь Economic reality is too multivariate and the rate of its change is ahead of the pace of study.
b Economic conclusions turn out to be unstable with respect to "small" variations in the initial assumptions.
b Apparently, the diversity of economic phenomena cannot be explained on the basis of a small number of fundamental laws.
This led, as noted above, to the replacement of the principle of unity of theory with the principle of coexistence of competing concepts.
3.2. The influence of economic theory on the modern economy of Russia
If it is true that the main reason is the absence of universal economic laws, the extraordinary diversity and rapid variability of economic objects, then perhaps the way out consists in a fundamentally different organization of scientific research. Currently, both in the natural sciences and in economics, the leading role belongs to individual researchers. In physics, chemistry, biology, they make discoveries, but in economics, as Malinvo noted, they do not. It is possible that economic discoveries, by their very nature, must be short-term. Such a discovery could be, for example, the discovery of the causes of the current recession in Russia and the development of effective measures to overcome it. But if the period of life of the studied phenomenon is 4 - 5 years, then the individual researcher has too little chance of success.
Alternatively, imagine the following economic research organization, including a base institution, research teams, and advisory groups. The base institute creates a research environment, including databases, survey systems of economic agents, information processing systems, and other means of economic research. The research environment includes a small number of highly qualified experts in the main areas. The Institute organizes research teams for a limited period to solve specific scientific problems. Adviser groups are created under economic management bodies (for example, ministries) and large firms. The interaction of researchers and advisers should ensure the rapid and effective use of scientific results.
It is worth noting that such giants as the World Bank and the IMF actually use similar principles; setting up their own think tanks has become common practice for many types of government and private organizations; The grant system widely practiced in the West presupposes the creation of problematic research teams for a relatively short period of time. In other words, all elements of the system, schematically described above, already exist. It is necessary to realize that the economy is an unusually rapidly changing object, the study of which requires a special organization.
Awareness of the fact of the crisis in economic theory and understanding of its nature is especially important for Russia. Russian society in 1917 and 1992. partly became a victim of the natural-scientific form of economic knowledge, the belief that there is a source where an accurate and correct answer is found. Now the disappointment has come. However, even now we still hear references to non-existent theoretical evidence, for example, the negative relationship between inflation and growth. For Russia, seeking a way out of the crisis, a balanced attitude to economic theory is especially important. Economists should take care of this themselves and not create high expectations.
The history of theoretical research teaches caution in economic transformation. Radical transformations, as a rule, should leave room for adjustment and, therefore, be extended over time.
Another aspect of the problem is associated with the deep backwardness of economic science in Russia. We habitually talk about the backwardness of technology, and remember about science only in connection with its difficult financial situation. It must be admitted that for eighty years the gap between Western and Russian technologies of economic research has widened. Now there is hope for its reduction. Economic education is being renewed, translations of Western textbooks are being published, young people are appearing who have received high-level diplomas from Western universities. The statistical office is improving, albeit slowly. This is a movement in the right direction. The Russian economy is a gigantic laboratory where institutional transformations have been taking place over the course of several years, requiring decades in other countries and at other times. We can and must lighten the burden of these transformations, and for this it is necessary to understand them to the extent that the existing tools allow. The synthesis of institutionalism and modern economic growth theory is an exciting line of research that may allow expanding the scope of existing methodology.
From the foregoing about economic theory, it does not follow that it is useless, or that it is necessary to look for our own ways, not paying attention to what has been achieved. This approach will inevitably lead to a senseless repetition of the past. On the other hand, we should not just catch up with the express, rushing into the unknown distance. It is necessary to look for our own ways in cooperation with the world community of economists.
Conclusion
Economic theory is not a set of ready-made recommendations applicable directly to economic policy. It is more a method than a teaching, an intellectual tool, a technique of thinking, helping the one who owns it to come to the right conclusions.
John Maynard Keynes
The modern style of theorizing in economics has developed over the past 50 years. From a methodological point of view, several important aspects of the development of economic theory can be distinguished: improvement of mathematical tools, in-depth study and generalization of basic models, coverage of new areas of economic life by the theory, accumulation of empirical data, change in the "standard of rigor", the collective nature of generalizing works, "behavioral" revolution in theoretical macroeconomics, organizational growth.
The rapid pace of economic change and the qualitative variety of forms of economic organization are circumstances that were well known at the dawn of the emergence of economic science. In this respect, theoretical economics differs both from the natural sciences (where fundamental laws are found) and from other humanitarian disciplines, where the methods of analysis have not yet been refined to such an extent as to reveal the fundamental limitations of their capabilities.
The volatility of economic realities is partly rooted in the reverse influence of economic theories on economic behavior. Conclusions from economic theories quickly become the property of a mass of economic agents and influence the formation of their expectations.
The relationship between economic theory and real economy is obvious. Science develops under the influence of changes in the economic life of countries, the latter, in turn, relies on the experience of previous economic situations, solved or analyzed and fixed in the form of economic theorems, theses, conclusions and postulates. So, relying on the experience of our predecessors, we are developing the economy, it also replenishes and changes economic science.
There is no doubt that economic theory serves a useful function in providing the necessary tool for understanding reality. Undoubtedly, it is also possible to directly use this tool only in relatively few cases.
The Russian economy is a gigantic laboratory where institutional transformations have been taking place over the course of several years, requiring decades in other countries and at other times. We can and must lighten the burden of these transformations, and for this it is necessary to understand them to the extent that the existing tools allow. The synthesis of institutionalism and modern economic growth theory is an exciting line of research that may allow expanding the scope of existing methodology.
From the foregoing about economic theory, it does not follow that it is useless, or that we must look for our own ways, not paying attention to what has been achieved. This approach will inevitably lead to a senseless repetition of the past. It is necessary to look for our own ways in cooperation with the world community of economists.
List of used literature
1. Bartenev S.A. "Economic theories and schools (history and modernity): A course of lectures". - M .: Publishing house Beck, 1996 .-- 352s.
2. Borisov EF Fundamentals of economic theory. - M .: new wave, 2004.
3. Glazyev S.Yu. Support for science is a priority of Russia's economic policy. M., 2000.
4. Nosova S.S. - M .: Humanities. ed. center VLADOS, 2005 .-- 519 p. - (Textbook for universities).
5. Way to the XXI century: Strategic problems and prospects of the Russian economy. - M .: Economics, 1999 .-- 793 p. - (Systemic problems of Russia).
6. Raizberg B.A. "The course of economics". M: Infra-M, 1999
7. Sergeev M. The paradox of economic policy. M., 2002.
8. Economic theory. Textbook for universities. / ed. V.D.Kamaeva-M., 2000
Having outlined and assessed the situation in the modern mainstream, we would like to conclude by placing neoclassics in the context of other areas of modern economic science and present a classification of the main schools and areas of the latest stage in the development of economic theory.
In the modern history of economic doctrines, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between scientific programs characterized only by a general, albeit innovative, posing of questions and individual original conclusions, scientific schools, which appear in the form of an established unity of their own methodology, theory itself and a practical program, and, finally, scientific directions, uniting several scientific schools or consisting of a single, but influential school.
Based on the experience of preparing the five-volume edition of "World Economic Thought" and taking into account the data of the latest publications, we will try to offer our own vision of the evolution of the recent history of Western economic theory.
The general idea of the proposed tables is to try to link the theoretical content of the main currents and schools of Western economic theory with socio-political practice, as was the case in many publications of Russian scientists. The theoretical "streams" in the economic teachings of the West are located in each of the figures from left to right (that is, from bottom to top) - from left revolutionaryism (E. Mandel) to the ultra-liberalism of F. Hayek, L. Mises and their followers. The table includes: the left flank (Western Marxism and radical left criticism); center-left trends (social democratic economic theories, traditional institutionalism, evolutionism, French dirigism and regulationism, A. Sen's unorthodox theory of welfare, etc.);
Centrist concepts (mainly the theory of "social market economy", representing the ideological core of modern German neoliberalism, as well as the economic views of numerous followers of J. M. Keynes); right-liberal flank, represented mainly by modern neoclassicism and ultra-liberalism of the neo-Austrian school.
A relative innovation is the inclusion in the general scheme of a very broad "institutional-evolutionary direction" (64). In addition to modern followers of Veblen's institutionalism and French dirigisme, the institutional-evolutionary complex includes the school of French regulationism by R. Boyer, the center-left theory of welfare of A. Sen, which has many followers, as well as varieties of modern evolutionism: neo-Schumpeterianism (R. Nelson, S. Winter), historical neoinstitutionalism (D. North, R. Vogel), "qwerty-nomics" by P. David and B. Arthur.
The basis for bringing all these theories and schools into a single current is the presence of a similar methodology in them - with an emphasis on the variability, mobility of private economic structures separately and the entire national economy as a whole; the use of a close categorical apparatus with special attention to social institutions; verbal (not mathematical) modeling of economic situations; a general critical, sometimes downright negative, attitude towards the neoclassical mainstream, a moderately reformist practical economic program.
Note that the schemes in the figures are built on the opposition of the theoretical and economic mainstream to the anti-mainstream, or, following the apt expression of A. M. Libman, - "economic unorthodox".
At the same time, the mainstream is not limited to the modern neoclassical direction, but also includes schools that once competed with neoclassicism, but now assimilated with it (to one degree or another): neoclassical synthesis (P. Samuelson, J. Tobin), neoinstitutionalism (R. Coase, O Williamson, G. Becker), behavioral economic theory (G. Simon and others), neo-Austrian school. A generic feature of all schools and trends of the mainstream is the individualistic methodology (the doctrine of the "economic person"), the general theory of marginalism, primarily the concept of maximizing benefits by a rational individual, expressed in varying degrees of the desire to justify the status quo (in relation to capitalism as a system ), a conservative center-right or ultra-liberal economic program.
Economic theory, having gone through a complex evolution, differentiating itself into many directions and schools, steadily reproduced a significant difference in approaches, the immediate subject, and the features of analysis. As a result, on the one hand, a detailed analysis of the functioning of economic systems in the process of using limited resources was formed and, on the other hand, an analysis of the socio-economic structure and content of the economy in its real forms and in close relationship with other relations and institutions of society.
The structure of economic theory today is, firstly, the result of economic development from the simplest to complex economic systems of a mixed type. Secondly, it is the result of the increasing complexity and variety of models. Third, modern theory is the result of the development of scientific methods. At the end of the 19th century, a whole set of qualitative and quantitative methods arose that significantly expanded the possibilities of science. It becomes more and more obvious that the object and subject of economic theory is multifaceted, that attempts to describe the economy based on one approach, one method are unproductive and not promising.
Modern economic theory is a system of economic sciences related by a common subject -. Moreover, each component of economic theory has its own immediate subject.
The following can be distinguished as the main structural parts of modern economic theory.
The theory of rational (efficient) use of limited resources is an analysis of the functioning of economic relations at the micro level () and macro level ().
Socio-economic theory - analysis of the economy as a socio-economic system, in the unity of economic and social content, analysis of the economic system and specific models of the economy.
Institutional economic theory, which considers primarily organizational and economic relations, the relationship between economic and other institutions and their impact on the development of the economic system.
A special place in economic theory is occupied by the history of economic theory, designed not only to give a historical view of the development of economic science, but also to integrate various approaches as links of a single holistic view of the economy. Economic theory is a general theoretical science of economics, in contrast to private economic sciences, which study sectoral, specific economic problems. The latter disciplines also have a theoretical part, however, it is based on the general conclusions of economic theory. At the same time, in modern conditions, the theoretical basis for a comprehensive study of economics is both courses that set out the basics of the rational use of society's limited resources (Economics), and disciplines that study the socio-economic structure of society in its real forms and contradictions.
Due to the fact that economic theory is studied by various disciplines, the question arises about the name of "economic theory" and its constituent parts. At the same time, the subject of discussion is often the question of the relationship between Economics and political economy and their relationship with the main constituent parts of economic theory.
The names of the disciplines that make up the economic theory should be approached taking into account history and its real economic content at one stage or another in the development of society. History shows that one and the same name of science often hid opposite directions of economic theory, different methodological principles of its analysis and interests.
Initially, economic theory received the name "political economy" at the beginning of the 17th century. after the title of the work of Antoine Montchretien "A Treatise on Political Economy dedicated to the King and Queen", published in 1615 in Rouen. The current understanding of the subject of political economy, which grew together in the XX century. with the analysis of socio-economic, industrial relations, has little to do with what A. Montchretien had in mind, using the term "political economy". His desire to emphasize the need not only for skillful management of the economy, but for a state national economy, and explains the appearance of the word "political" in the name of economic science. And here the appeal to this term was completely justified: after all, "politics" from the Greek "politike" means the art of government. However, there were other, deeper reasons for the emergence of the name of our science in the 17th century. A. Montchretien was a mercantilist, and representatives of this trend in the history of economic thought were unanimous in the need for a state approach to the economy, in the need for the state to pursue a policy in order to grow the nation. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the name of economic theory as the science of wealth became characteristic of the period of mercantilism. And although ideas about wealth, about measures of state policy varied from early to developed mercantilism, such an understanding of economic science was present in the titles of the main works of all the largest representatives of mercantilism (T. Mena "The wealth of England in foreign trade, or the balance of our foreign trade as a regulator of our wealth ", IT Pososhkova" The book about poverty and wealth ", etc.).
For a long time, economic science remained by its name the science of wealth, judging by the titles of the works of its prominent representatives: P. Boisguillebert ("Discourse on the nature of wealth, money, payments"), A. Turgot ("Reflections on the creation and distribution of wealth") , A. Smith ("Research on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"), etc. However, it should be noted that the "official sign" of the names of these works is deceptive - the ideas of both mercantilists and physiocrats (Turgot) were hidden behind the same name of science, and classical English political economy (Smith).
With the decomposition of mercantilism, the emergence of capitalism, the subordination of not only the sphere of circulation, but also production to it, economic science more and more turned into a science of studying the relations of production, the reasons for the antagonistic nature of the distribution of the product, the essential socio-economic contradictions of society. As a result, in the 19th century, the name "Political Economy" changed its former name for science and became typical for all areas and schools of economic theory. The works of the classic of English political economy D. Ricardo, subsequent economists T. Malthus, J.S. Mill, J. McCulloch, G. Carey, the founders of marginalism K. Menger, L. Walras, W. Jevons, representatives social school in Germany F. Oppenheimer, A. Amonn and theoretical works of prominent representatives of pre-revolutionary economic thought in Russia Y. Zheleznov, A. Chuprov, M. Tugan-Baranovsky. And in modern conditions, a number of areas of socio-economic thought use the term "political economy" to denote a new subject of research - the influence of politics, income distribution and other social factors on economic growth and development.
Economic theory today uses various names to refer to its subject matter. With regard to academic disciplines, these are, first of all, Economics courses, which offer a systematic presentation of the theory of the efficient and rational use of limited resources. The classical name of science is also used - "political economy" (R. Barr. "Political economy" in 2 volumes. M., 1994) R. Temmen. "Fundamentals of the doctrine of economics". M., 1994). There are other variants of the names of economic theory.
Modern mankind is used to operating with a number of terms directly related to management, government, way of life and society. Examples include definitions such as "gross product", "imports", "exports", "taxation" and others. Along with them, there is such a concept as the economy, which is used today not only in the field of politics, the media, but also among the ordinary population.
Origin and meaning of the term
Etymologically, this concept goes back to the Greek language. The simplest morphological analysis of this word allows us to speak of its two-part nature. The first component is directly related to the definition of the law, the second - with the economy. Thus, we can say that initially the economy is a way of organizing. More precisely, the term originally meant running a household in accordance with the rules and regulations established by law.
Features of the original interpretation
Attention should be paid to the fact that the primary meaning of the concept was significantly different from the current one. This is due to the peculiarities of the organization of ancient Greece as a whole. Under the economy was understood, first of all, just housekeeping, and not its national manifestation, to which modern society is accustomed. Thus, initially, economics is the art of managing a natural economy.
It is this meaning of the term that entered the first explanatory dictionaries and, in a sense, has survived to this day. The very concept of economics was introduced into everyday speech by the ancient Greek philosopher Xenophon.
Expanding the meaning
As you know, the world does not stand still, so any terminological and ontological phenomenon sooner or later acquires new meanings and interpretations. The semantic properties of a word are gradually expanding, transforming and adjusting to the needs of the existing society.
In the modern world, economics is a much broader, more voluminous concept and phenomenon, something that existed in the minds of the ancient Greeks.
The first understanding of modern man
Like any other phenomenon of this kind, the concept considered in this article has received several interpretations at once. In its most general form, the economy is a system that is used by a particular state and all of humanity to ensure optimal life, the formation and improvement of conditions for its own existence.
In this case, we mean not only any material resources and the conditions for their action on the territory of a particular country, but also the totality of all material, spiritual benefits, all kinds of objects and things, the existence of which is aimed at improving the standard of living, ensuring movement forward with the point of view of the development of the national economy in the most general sense of the word.
Scientific component
The concept of economics as a science stands apart, based on the concept described above. In this case, we mean a certain abstract body of knowledge received by humanity and each country in particular about the peculiarities of the organization of this very national economy, ways to improve the quality of life, options for formalizing state and interstate relations.
In this context, the concept of economics as a science is closely related to such sciences as sociology, psychology and, of course, political science.
Species differentiation
As can be seen from the above, both science and the phenomenon itself, the subject of its study is a kind of system - multilevel and complex. Sectors of the economy can be very different and belong to one or another sector of the state system. In the issue of study, attention can be focused on market relations or the characteristics of agriculture. The study can be aimed at a comparative analysis of the patterns of organization of different states and the whole world as a whole. Modern economics opens up the broadest scope for research in this respect.
Branch division
The choice as an object and subject of study indicates the presence of a clear division of the economy as a whole into certain levels and types. Each of them requires detailed study and tracking in order to draw up an adequate picture and apply the necessary measures to improve the quality of life of the city, country and the whole world.
Branches of the economy are formed as a result of an objective historical process, the development of the state and society. This term should be understood as a certain set of single-order, similar in their structure, economic enterprises. Consolidation and demarcation occurs according to the principle of community in relation to the organization or products. Each specialized industry, in turn, is subdivided into smaller structures. Correlating with each other, they form a number of intersectoral complexes, the correct operation of which is the guarantor of a stable and developing economy.
World space
In this case, we mean the main, global massif of the economy, the highest point of its structure. The world economy is a set of national economies and industries of all countries of the world in their dynamics, development and expansion.
This concept can be called the most abstract, since it is not tied to a specific area, structure, industry. By and large, the world economy is a kind of image, an abstraction that requires study and gives an understanding of the direction of development of a particular structure, system and industry. Tracking it is necessary for the development of international relations, the formation of partner communities, the coordination of the world monetary fund, the acquisition of interstate relations in the field of trade, industry or investment in science.
Second level
The national economy is considered the next in importance and breadth of coverage. It is formed by 2 groups of industries, united according to the principle of similarity of scope. In this case, we mean the range of industries responsible for the social sphere of existence, and those that form the material production of the country.
The first include the health care system, education, social benefits, tourism, consumer services and sports. The material sector includes the construction sector, transport system, communications, internal and external trade.
Each national economy includes a micro and macro level and, if in the first case it is about the coordination and regulation of internal processes caused by particulars, in the second it is about integrity, the general level of development without reference to a specific education or sphere of production.
The state economy, being regulated at the local level, ultimately enters into the global totality, the world system.
Modern conditions
Today humanity lives in the conditions of an already formed system. Considering the features, levels and organization, it can be defined by such a term as a market economy.
This type of relationship is based on the principle of competition, consumer freedom and the ability to choose in terms of purchasing something. The market economy is based on the right of private property, which is inviolable for a third party, but can be acquired by him in whole or in part.
A characteristic feature of this type of state structure is freedom in relation to entrepreneurship. Any person can independently start the production of certain goods and provide various services by registering their own organization in the state system to ensure taxation.
In such a situation, the entrepreneur can independently determine the sales market, the cost of the offered product, its quality and ways of sale. This freedom ensures the existence of competition, which is the basic, basic characteristic of a market economy.
Note that this system operates not only at the state or private (enterprise level), but also at the international level. A typical example is the wholesale supply of gas by Russia or equipment by China to other countries. The process of interaction between countries and interstate unions (for example, the European one) determines the basis of the world economy, its features and development paths. Experts in this field monitor the received dynamics and, reacting to the information received, work to create a suitable basis for the further development and improvement of the world economy.
