93.185.164.21
How Many Paradigms There are in Economic Theory – and Can it Become a One-paradigm Science
How Many Paradigms There are in Economic Theory – and Can it Become a One-paradigm Science
Annotation

Over the past 100 years, economics has stood out from other scientific disciplines because of the presence of two fundamentally different approaches to understanding its subject: from a systemic point of view, and from the point of view of individual choice. All the main directions of modern economic theory turn out to be reducible to two paradigms, conceptually related to two main interpretations of the economic science subject. The understanding of the economy as an equilibrium or non-equilibrium system is associated with two said paradigms. The author believes that the development of economic theory after Keynes can be interpreted as a series of attempts to integrate the identified paradigms. In another form, this is the question of the synthesis of micro- and macro-approaches in economic theory. 

About authors
Dmitrij Egorov
professor
Pskov branch of the Academy of Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia
References

1. Аvtonomov V.С. (1993) Chelovek v zerkale ekonomicheskoy teorii [Man in the Mirror of Economic Theory]. Moscow: Nauka. 176 p. (https://ecsocman.hse.ru/text/19183244/).

2. Аvtonomov V.С. (2014) Yeshche neskol'ko slov o metodologicheskom individualizme [A Few More Words on Methodological Individualism]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost. no. 4, pp. 53–56.

3. Becker G.S. (2003) Chelovecheskoe povedenie: ekonomicheskii podkhod [Human Behavior. Economical Approach]. Moscow: Vishaya shkola economiki. 671 p.

4. Chernavsky D.S., Starkov N.I., Malkov S.Yu., Kosse Yu.V., Shcherbakov A.V. (2011) Ob ekonofizike i yeye meste v sovremennoy teoreticheskoy ekonomike [On Econophysics and its Place in Modern Theoretical Economics]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk. no. 7, pp. 767–773.

5. Dzarasov S. (2008) Postkeynsianstvo i innovatsionnaya model' razvitiya [Post-Keynesianism and an Innovative Development Model]. Economist. no. 4, pp. 67–77.

6. Egorov D.G. (2016) Neoklassika vs klassika: yest' li v ekonomicheskoy teorii tretiy put'? [Neoclassic vs Classic: Is There a Third Way in Economic Theory?]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya. no. 6, pp. 35–41. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-6-35-41.

7. Egorov D.G., Egorova A.V. (2020) O postroyenii neravnovesnoy mikroteorii [On the Construction of a Non-Equilibrium Microtheory]. Obshchestvo i ekonomika. no. 2, pp. 18–33.

8. Egorov D.G., Egorova A.V. (2021) Skol'ko paradigm v ekonomicheskoy nauke? [How Many Paradigms There are in Economics?]. Obshchestvo i ekonomika. no. 2, pp. 31–42. DOI: 10.31857/S020736760013635-7.

9. Eichner A.S. (1991) The Macrodynamics of Advanced Market Economics. NY: Armonk. 1075 p.

10. Glazyev S.Yu. (2016). O novoy paradigme v ekonomicheskoy nauke Ch. 1 [On a New Paradigm in Economic Science. Part 1] Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii. no. 3, pp. 7–17.

11. Gobbs T. (2017) Leviafan [Leviathan]. Moscow: Ripol-Classic. 503 p.

12. Gorbunov V.K. (2013) K teorii rynochnogo sprosa: regulyarnost' i ekonomicheskoye ravnovesiye [Towards the Theory of Market Demand: Regularity and Economic Equilibrium]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii. no. 4, pp. 19–35.

13. Greenberg R.S. (2020) Mir v poiskakh novoy modeli ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. U Rossii svoy put' [The World in Search of a New Model of Economic Development. Russia Has its Own Way] Vozmozhnyye stsenarii budushchego Rossii i mira: mezhdistsiplinarnyy diskurs. Moscow: Mezhregional'naya obshchestvennaya organizatsiya sodeystviya izucheniyu, propagande nauchnogo naslediya N.D. Kondrat'yeva, pp. 11–15.

14. Hayek F. (1992) Pagubnaya samonadeyannost' [Pernicious Arrogance]. Moscow: Novosti. 304 p.

15. Haken G. (1980) Sinergetika [Synergetics]. Moscow: Mir. 406 p.

16. Keynes J.M. (1993) Obshchaya teoriya zanyatosti, protsenta i deneg [General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money]. Keynes J.M. Izbrannyye proizvedeniya. Moscow: Economica, pp. 224–518.

17. Kirdina S.G. (2013) Metodologicheskiy individualizm i metodologicheskiy institutsionalizm [Methodological Individualism and Methodological Institutionalism]. Voprosy ekonomiki. no. 10, pp. 66–89.

18. Kornai J. (1999) Sistemnaya paradigma [System Paradigm]. Obshchestvo i ekonomika. no. 3-4, pp. 85–96.

19. Kropotkin, P. A. (1907) Vzaimnaya pomoshch' kak faktor evolyutsii. [Mutual Assistance as a Factor in Evolution]. Saint-Petersburg: Tovarishchestvo «Znaniye». 256 p.

20. Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 264 p.

21. Maevsky V.I. (1999) Evolyutsionnaya teoriya i neravnovesnyye protsessy [Evolutionary Theory and Nonequilibrium Processes]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii. no. 4, pp. 45–62.

22. Mayrowski F. (2012) Fizika i «marzhinalistskaya revolyutsiya» [Physics and the “Marginalist Revolution”] Terra economicus, no. 1, pp. 100–116.

23. Nelson R.R., Winter S.J. (2000) Evolyutsionnaya teoriya ekonomicheskikh izmeneniy [Finstatinform Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change]. Moscow: Finstatinform. 472 p.

24. Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya [New Philosophical Encyclopedia]. (2001) Vol. 3. Moscow: Mysl. (https://iphras.ru/enc.htm).

25. Plato. Gosudarstvo [Republic]. In Platon. Sochineniya: v 4 t. Moscow: Mysl'. vol. 3, pp. 79–420.

26. Polterovich V.M. (1998) Krizis ekonomicheskoy teorii [The Crisis of Economic Theory]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii. no. 1, pp. 46-66.

27. Popper K. (1992) Otkrytoye obshchestvo i yego vragi [The Open Society and Its Enemies]. Vol. 1–2. Moscow: Feniks.

28. Robbins L. (1993) Predmet ekonomicheskoy nauki [The Subject of Economic Science]. THESIS. Issue 1, pp. 10–23.

29. Rozmainskiy I.V. (2010) Vvedeniye v postkeynsianstvo [Introduction to Post-Keynesianism]. Idei i idealy. no. 1, vol. 1, pp. 88–105.

30. Sergeev V.M. (1999) Predely ratsional'nosti [The Limits of Rationality]. Moscow: Fazis. 149 p.

31. Smith A. (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell. 754 p.

32. Stepin V.M. (2000) Teoreticheskoe znanie [Theoretical Knowledge] Moscow: Progress – Traditio. 744 p.

33. Stiglitz J. (2011) Krutoye pike: Amerika i novyy ekonomicheskiy poryadok posle global'nogo krizisa [Steep Dive: America and the New Economic Order after the Global Crisis]. Moscow: EKSMO. 512 p.

34. Tambovtsev V.L. (2020) Neproduktivnost' popytok metodologicheskogo sinteza [The Unproductiveness of Attempts at Methodological Synthesis]. Voprosy teoreticheskoy ekonomiki, no. 3, pp. 7–31. DOI: 10.24411/2587-7666-2020-10301.

35. Veblen T. (1984) Teoriya prazdnogo klassa [The Leisure Class Theory]. Moscow: Progress. 368 p. (https://www.klex.ru/i6l).

36. Woodford M. (2009) Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. no. 1, pp. 267–279. DOI: 10.1257/mac.1.1.267.

Полная версия доступна только подписчикам
Подпишитесь прямо сейчас