13 research outputs found
ΠΠΠ ΠΠΠΠ’ΠΠΠΠ‘Π’Π‘ΠΠΠ ΠΠ‘ΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ― Π’ΠΠΠ Π§ΠΠ‘ΠΠΠΠ ΠΠΠ‘ΠΠΠΠΠ― Π.Π’. ΠΠΠ‘ΠΠ¨ΠΠΠΠ
The article examines historical preconditions that gave rise to disagreements and disputes regarding the intellectual legacy of one of the prominent Russian economists of the early XVIII century Ivan Pososhkov. Essential aspects of mercantilist and non-mercantilist extracts from his Book of Poverty and Wealth (Β«Kniga o skudosti i bogatstveΒ») are revealed and described.Through a retrospective analysis of past and present alternative assessments of Pososhkovβs economic doctrine it is reasoned that the intellectual legacy of the Russian self-taught economist viewed in the theoretical and methodological context cannot be regarded as belonging to the physiocratism or the classical political economy in the whole, including the institutionalism. It is concluded and proved that Pososhkovβs views are mercantilist in their essence.Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ²ΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ»ΠΊΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ² Π² ΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π½Π°ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ· Π²ΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π° XVIII ΡΡΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΈΡ Π.Π’. ΠΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°. ΠΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΠΊΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·Π²Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈΠ· Π΅Π³ΠΎ Β«ΠΠ½ΠΈΠ³ΠΈ ΠΎ ΡΠΊΡΠ΄ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ³Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Β». ΠΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π°Π»ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΊ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π.Π’. ΠΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π° Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π°ΡΠ³ΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Ρ Π² ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠ΅Π΅ ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ Π² ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²ΡΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ
ΠΠΠΠΠ’ΠΠΠ-ΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ§ΠΠ‘ΠΠΠ Π€ΠΠΠΠΠΠ Π ΠΠ‘Π‘ΠΠΠ‘ΠΠΠ Π¨ΠΠΠΠ« ΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ§ΠΠ‘ΠΠΠ ΠΠ«Π‘ΠΠ
The long-standing research traditions of Russian economists in matters of studying the evolution processes of economic ideas and economic life in the context of their past and present investigations are examined in the paper through the prism of the politico-economic phenomenon of the Russian school of economic thought developed between the last third of the XIX and the first third of the XX century. It is noted that the outstanding Russian academician L. I. Abalkin, by introducing holistic conceptual judgments about the realistic and humanistic background of the Russian school of economic thought characterized it largely as a result of the rethinking by the domestic political economists of the values of the German historical school, Marxism and early (orthodox) neoclassicism. Sharing the views of Leonid Abalkin, the authors studied and summarized the most significant innovations in the creative heritage of predecessors and current representatives of the Russian school of economic thought, including specific features of their definition of the subject of studying political economy at the level of βnational economyβ and βsocial wealthβ. Special attention is paid to their commitment primarily to systemwise and interdisciplinary methods of analysis, the principles of ethics, morality and social justice. It is concluded that since the Russian political economy, including the Russian school of economic thought, has always been distinguished by the desire to substantiate the mechanisms for economic life transformations and evaluate the role of βhuman capitalβ in the economy, it is the scientific duty of Russian economists to continue and develop this tradition ensuring the de-ideologization of scientific research.ΠΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ²ΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠ² ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΉ ΠΈ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ Π² ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡ
Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ Π² ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²ΠΈΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ Π² ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π½Π΅ΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ XIX ΠΏΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡ XX ΡΡΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ Π°ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΊ Π. Π. ΠΠ±Π°Π»ΠΊΠΈΠ½, Π²Π²Π΅Π΄Ρ Π² Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈ Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΡ
ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ, Π²ΠΎ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΠ΅Ρ Π΅Π΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ, ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ° ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π½Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ (ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ) Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°. Π‘ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ΄Π°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΡΡΡ Ρ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π. Π. ΠΠ±Π°Π»ΠΊΠΈΠ½Π°, Π² ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΡ
Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π± ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ Π½Π°ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ² ΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Π΅ Β«Π½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π°Β» ΠΈ Β«ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±ΠΎΠ³Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π°Β». ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΡΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°ΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°, ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°ΠΌ ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΠΌΠΎΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ, Π½ΡΠ°Π²ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π΅Π΄Π»ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. Π ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡ, Π² ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΡΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ, Π²ΡΠ΅Π³Π΄Π° ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ, ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π² ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Β«ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π°Β», Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π΄ΠΎΠ»Π³ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² Π·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ, ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ
ΠΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΡΡ, ΡΡΠ°ΠΏΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ
The relevance of the study is underpinned by continuing sharp scientific and practical discussion on the evolution of economic science aimed at obtaining exhaustive answers to such questions as: βWhat is orthodoxy in economic science? Why is it that the theoretical and methodological orthodoxy that accompanies the emergence and transformation of alternative directions of world economic thought cannot be overcome not only in the past but also at the present time? What is the historical significance of a retrospective analysis of vectors, stages and problems of the formation of unorthodox foundations in the development of this branch of human knowledge? and others. The findings of prominent Russian and foreign scientists-economists, allowing to reveal and comprehend the diverse methodological and theoretical components of orthodoxy in the past and present set the subject of this review article. The purpose of the study is to consider, systematize and generalize the evidentiary warnings published in the works of prominent modern researchers about the urgent need to overcome the negative consequences of orthodox maxims, which, having been absolutized since the time of the βfathers of political economyβ, continue to manifest themselves to this day. The key research methods include systematic approach, evolutionary and cross-industry analysis. The results of the review incorporate conclusions and evidence that make it possible to unbiasedly comprehend the key scientific and practical problems for the fate of this science in the past and present. In particular, the authorβs position is argued that the examples of postulating judgments about the presence and coexistence of βWestern-non-Westernβ, βbourgeoisnon- bourgeoisβ economic science, which are still found in Russian economic literature, are based solely on the classformational research approach and therefore are completely untenable. It has been proved that from its βancestorsβ and βfathersβ of economics, i. e. adherents mercantilism and classical political economy principles to modern economists (from institutionalists to Keynesians and neoliberals) the existing palette of orthodox theoretical and methodological innovations accompanying the development of economic science explicitly or implicitly along with its commitment to the class analytical approach are due to a certain subtext of the absolutization of βobjective economic lawsβ.ΠΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ, Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΎΠ² Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΡ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ: ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠ΅? ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΡ, ΡΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ, Π½Π΅ ΡΠ΄Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΡ Π½Π΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΠΎ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΌ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ Π² Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ? Π² ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΈΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π²Π΅ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ², ΡΡΠ°ΠΏΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ? ΠΈ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠ΅. ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈ Π·Π°ΡΡΠ±Π΅ΠΆΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ°ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ. Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ β ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΡ, ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π² ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΉ ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅, Π°Π±ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ Β«ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ² ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈΒ», ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ°ΡΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΡΠ½Π΅. ΠΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π²ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΡΠΉ, ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·. Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΎΡΠ° Π²Π±ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ ΡΠΌΠΎΠ·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²Π°, ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π΅ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π²Π·ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π²ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π± ΡΡΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ. Π ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Π°ΡΠ³ΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π²ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΎ Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ Β«Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ-Π½Π΅Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΠΎΠΉΒ», Β«Π±ΡΡΠΆΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΠΉ-Π½Π΅Π±ΡΡΠΆΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΠΉΒ» ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎ-ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½Ρ. ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ²ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠ° ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π½ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π° Π΅Π΅ Β«ΠΏΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉΒ» ΠΈ Β«ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ²Β», Ρ. Π΅. Π°Π΄Π΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ² ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ° ΠΈ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ, Π·Π°ΡΠ΅ΠΌ β ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² (ΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² Π΄ΠΎ ΠΊΠ΅ΠΉΠ½ΡΠΈΠ°Π½ΡΠ΅Π² ΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ±Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ²) ΡΠ²Π½ΠΎ Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΡΠ²Π½ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ΄Ρ Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΠΌ Π°Π±ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Β«ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π·Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ²Β»
Π€ΠΠΠΠΠΠ Π Π«ΠΠΠ§ΠΠΠΠ Π₯ΠΠΠ―ΠΠ‘Π’ΠΠ
Subject. Investigations carried out and scientific forums related to the problems of the holistic theoretical and methodological insight into socially oriented grounds of the market economy phenomenon in the post-Soviet period are matters of top priority for a large part of the Financial University researchers. Intrinsic, methodological and theoretical problems underlying this phenomenon are considered in the context of research findings obtained by members of the 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference βThe Market Economy Phenomenon: From the Origins into Our Daysβ held by Financial University in cooperation with Kuban State University. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of historical, economic, institutional, reproductive and transformation aspects of the phenomenon of the market economic system. Purpose. Investigation into a wide range of up-to-date debatable methodological and theoretical problems of the market economy phenomenon. Identification of βbottlenecksβ in the modern mainstream of the theoretical economic knowledge. Demonstration of the spheres of βthe impotence of market mechanismsβ subject to overcoming by the scientific and practical community. Methodology. The research is based on the historical and economic approach along with using methods of evolutionary and interdisciplinary analytical tools. Results. Notwithstanding permanent attempts of domestic and foreign economists to provide a conceptual justification of the non-alternative nature of the market organization of the economy, the current theoretical concepts of economic growth have not yet turned into applied tools of the market economy and the economic policy. As the research shows, the only actor able to make the transition of the Russian economy to a new technological tenor is still the state capable of running its investment activity. Conclusion. The key concern of the modern scientific economic community of Russia is to provide the basis for socially oriented theoretical and reformatory programs of the market economy regulation that would ensure the improvement of management practices and promote crisis-free, efficient and progressive socioeconomic development. Since the state investing can ensure only point breakthroughs rather than the overall socio-economic development of the country, due to considerable inherent systemic constraints, the development of investment activity of the Russian business sector should become the main driver of the economic development.ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅Ρ. ΠΠ·ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΌΡ, ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π°, ΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
Π€ΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°. Π Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΡΠ΅, ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ, Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° Π² ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π€ΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ Ρ ΠΡΠ±Π°Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ V ΠΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ Β«Π€Π΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π°: ΠΎΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ² Π΄ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡ
Π΄Π½Π΅ΠΉΒ». ΠΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
, Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΠ² ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. Π¦Π΅Π»ΠΈ. ΠΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ° Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π°. ΠΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΉΠ½ΡΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ Β«ΡΠ·ΠΊΠΈΡ
Β» ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ. ΠΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΡΡΠ΅Ρ Β«Π±Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ²Β». ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΊΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π΅, ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ. Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. ΠΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΊΠ°ΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈ Π·Π°ΡΡΠ±Π΅ΠΆΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ
-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π±Π΅Π·Π°Π»ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ, Π½ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ° Π²ΡΠ΅ Π΅ΡΠ΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π²ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡ Π² ΠΏΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π°Π΄Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΡΠΌ ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΊΠ»Π°Π΄, ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²ΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ.ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ. ΠΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π²Π°Ρ Π·Π°Π΄Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΈΡ Π² ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ Π±Ρ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π±Π΅ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌΡ, ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ. ΠΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΡ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ Π²Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠΌ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π½Ρ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡ Π»ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ²Ρ, Π° Π½Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΉΠ²Π΅ΡΠ° ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ
Hidden metabolic disorders in high-class athletes
Objective: to reveal the frequency of deviations occurrence in individual biochemical indicators, which can be markers of hidden metabolicconditioned deviations in the health of athletes.Materials and methods. Members of sports teams of Russia at the age of 16 to 38 years were examined. The total number of examined athletes was 5245: 3167 were male athletes and 2078 were female athletes. We studied 25 indicators of the biochemical composition of blood, showing latent metabolic disorders and the activity of its regulators, negative shifts in the functional state of individual physiological systems of the body and possible damage to tissues of individual organs.Results. Reference ranges and their centile gradations were calculated on the basis of a large array of data for 25 biochemical parameters. The use of centile gradations in assessing the values of blood biochemical parameters, recorded during the current monitoring in athletes, makes it possible to establish the vector of their changes and timely make changes in the volume and orientation of training loads, as well as to reasonably develop individualized programs for the athleteβs metabolic support. The use of the centile approach and the formation on its basis of gradation scales for each of the studied blood biochemical parameters also made it possible to establish the percentage of persons with significant deviations in certain biochemical parameters among the studied sample of athletes, admitted to the training process within the framework of in-depth medical examinations (DMO).Conclusion: such deviations from the norm may indicate hidden metabolic disorders that occur against the background of professional sports loads, and in the absence of timely compensation, they can lead to a breakdown in adaptation and the development of various metabolic-related pathologie
ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΡ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ
Early prediction of disease severity helps clinicians prevent adverse events and/or minimize losses in the event of a life-threatening complication. This provision fully applies to refractory septic shock, in which norepinephrine administration at a dose exceeding 0.5 ΞΌg/kg-1/min-1 is needed to maintain mean arterial pressure.The objective: to determine predictors of lethal outcomes in patients with refractory septic shock.Subjects and methods. A retrospective study included 79 patients with refractory septic shock aged from 42 to 74 years (59.7 Β± 7.8), with severity of the condition as per SOFA varying from 8 to 16 scores. The predictive value of indicators was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.Results. In multivariate analysis, the only significant predictor of an unfavorable outcome was the SOFA score (adj. OR: 1.626 [95% CI: 1.313; 2.014], p < 0.001). Other putative indicators (age, oxygenation index, lactate and procalcitonin concentrations, and norepinephrine dose) had no predictive value.Conclusion: The SOFA score is an independent predictor of lethality in adult patients with refractory septic shock (Π°dj. OR: 1.26 [95% CI: 1.313; 2.014], p < 0.001). According to the results of the ROC analysis, along with SOFA, norepinephrine dose was also a significant predictor (AUC 0.989 [95% CI 0.934; 1.000], p < 0.001).Π Π°Π½Π½Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Π°Π΅Ρ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ(ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ) ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ Π² ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°Π΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΡΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½Π΅ΡΠ³ΡΠΎΠΆΠ°ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΠ°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΊ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΊΠ°, ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎ Π²Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ½Π° Π² Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π΅ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ 0,5 ΠΌΠΊΠ³ Β· ΠΊΠ³-1 Β· ΠΌΠΈΠ½-1.Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ: ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΡ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Π² ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΊΠ°.ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ. Π ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎ 79 ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Π² ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΊΠ° Π² Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡ 42 Π΄ΠΎ 74 Π»Π΅Ρ (59,7 Β± 7,8 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π°) Ρ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠΊΠ°Π»Π΅ SOFA ΠΎΡ 8 Π΄ΠΎ 16 Π±Π°Π»Π»ΠΎΠ². ΠΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈ Π² Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. Π ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ Π½Π΅Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»Π°ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠΊΠ°Π»Π΅ SOFA (Π°dj. OR 1,626 [95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,313; 2,014], p < 0,001). Π£ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°Π΅ΠΌΡΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ (Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡ, ΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ P/F, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π»Π°ΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ½Π°, Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π° Π½ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ½Π°) ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π½Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π°.ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄. ΠΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠΊΠ°Π»Π΅ SOFA ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π½Π΅Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Ρ Π²Π·ΡΠΎΡΠ»ΡΡ
ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ (Π°dj. OR 1,26 [95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,313; 2,014], p < 0,001). ΠΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΌ ROC-Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°, Π½Π°ΡΡΠ΄Ρ Ρ SOFA, Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π° Π½ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ½Π° (AUC 0,989 [95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 0,934; 1,000], p < 0,001)
ΠΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΠ° Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π³ΠΎΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ COVID-19, Π½Π°Ρ ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ²ΡΠΈΡ ΡΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π°Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ
The objective: to develop a predictive model for assessing the risk of death in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).Subjects and Methods. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of hospital mortality in patients admitted to ICU of V.P. Demikhov City Clinical Hospital from March 6 to June 3, 2020.Results. Case histories of 403 patients were analyzed. In-hospital 30-day mortality among patients treated in ICU was 44.9% (181/403 patients). A multivariate analysis showed that significant predictors of death in patients with COVID-19 were the age of 60 years or more (adj. OR 3.84; 95% CI 1.56β9.44, p = 0.003), COPD (adj. OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.12β4.95, p = 0.024), peripheral artery diseases (adj. OR: 5.08; 95% CI 1.87β13.76, p =Β 0.001) and CKD stage 3b and higher (adj. OR 4.58; 95% CI 2.36β8.90, p < 0.001), LDH 300 IU/l or more (adj. OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.23β7.58, p =Β 0.016), and CRP 200 mg/l or more (adj. OR 3.65; 95% CI 1.95β6.85, p < 0.001). Predictive model quality: AUC = 0.811 [0.733β0.874], p < 0.001.Conclusions. A nomogram to assess the risk of death in patients with COVID-19 has been developed. It includes the assessment of age, history of COPD, CKD stage 3b and higher, peripheral artery diseases, and monitoring of LDH and CRP.Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ: ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π² ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ 30 Π΄Π½Π΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ Π³ΠΎΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ COVID-19, ΠΏΡΠΎΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ²ΡΠΈΡ
Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π°Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ (ΠΠ ΠΠ’).ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ. ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π³ΠΎΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ², Π½Π°Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡ Π½Π° Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΠ ΠΠ’ ΠΠΠ£Π Β«ΠΠΠ ΠΈΠΌ. Π. Π. ΠΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΠΠΒ» Π² ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ Ρ 6 ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎ 3 ΠΈΡΠ½Ρ 2020 Π³.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½Π΅ΠΉ 403 ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ². ΠΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ 30-Π΄Π½Π΅Π²Π½Π°Ρ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° 44,9% (181/403). ΠΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ COVID-19 ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡ: Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡ 60 Π»Π΅Ρ ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ (adj. OR 3,84; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,56β9,44, p = 0,003), Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π² Π°Π½Π°ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π·Π΅ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ
(adj. OR 2,35; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,12β4,95, p = 0,024), Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉ (adj. OR 5,08; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,87β13,76, p = 0,001) ΠΈ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊ 3b ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ΅ (adj. OR 4,58; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 2,36β8,90, p < 0,001), Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Ρ Π»Π°ΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠ΄Π΅Π³ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π°Π·Ρ 300 ΠΠ/Π» ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ (adj. OR 3,05; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,23β7,58, p = 0,016) ΠΈ Π‘-ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±Π΅Π»ΠΊΠ° 200 ΠΌΠ³/Π» ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ (adj. OR 3,65; 95%-Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΠ 1,95β6,85, p < 0,001). ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π»ΠΈ: AUC = 0,811 [0,733β0,874], p < 0,001.ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ. Π Π°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ°Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΠ° Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° Π½Π°ΡΡΡΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π»Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ COVID-19, ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ°, Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² Π°Π½Π°ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π·Π΅ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ
, Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊ 3b ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ΅, Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉ, ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ½Π³ Π»Π°ΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠ΄Π΅Π³ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π°Π·Ρ ΠΈ Π‘-ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±Π΅Π»ΠΊΠ°
POLITICO-ECONOMIC PHENOMENON OF THE RUSSIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT
The long-standing research traditions of Russian economists in matters of studying the evolution processes of economic ideas and economic life in the context of their past and present investigations are examined in the paper through the prism of the politico-economic phenomenon of the Russian school of economic thought developed between the last third of the XIX and the first third of the XX century. It is noted that the outstanding Russian academician L. I. Abalkin, by introducing holistic conceptual judgments about the realistic and humanistic background of the Russian school of economic thought characterized it largely as a result of the rethinking by the domestic political economists of the values of the German historical school, Marxism and early (orthodox) neoclassicism. Sharing the views of Leonid Abalkin, the authors studied and summarized the most significant innovations in the creative heritage of predecessors and current representatives of the Russian school of economic thought, including specific features of their definition of the subject of studying political economy at the level of βnational economyβ and βsocial wealthβ. Special attention is paid to their commitment primarily to systemwise and interdisciplinary methods of analysis, the principles of ethics, morality and social justice. It is concluded that since the Russian political economy, including the Russian school of economic thought, has always been distinguished by the desire to substantiate the mechanisms for economic life transformations and evaluate the role of βhuman capitalβ in the economy, it is the scientific duty of Russian economists to continue and develop this tradition ensuring the de-ideologization of scientific research
THE MERCANTILIST BASIS OF THE INTELLECTUAL LEGACY OF IVAN POSODHKOV
The article examines historical preconditions that gave rise to disagreements and disputes regarding the intellectual legacy of one of the prominent Russian economists of the early XVIII century Ivan Pososhkov. Essential aspects of mercantilist and non-mercantilist extracts from his Book of Poverty and Wealth (Β«Kniga o skudosti i bogatstveΒ») are revealed and described.Through a retrospective analysis of past and present alternative assessments of Pososhkovβs economic doctrine it is reasoned that the intellectual legacy of the Russian self-taught economist viewed in the theoretical and methodological context cannot be regarded as belonging to the physiocratism or the classical political economy in the whole, including the institutionalism. It is concluded and proved that Pososhkovβs views are mercantilist in their essence
THE PHENOMENON OF THE MARKET ECONOMY
Subject. Investigations carried out and scientific forums related to the problems of the holistic theoretical and methodological insight into socially oriented grounds of the market economy phenomenon in the post-Soviet period are matters of top priority for a large part of the Financial University researchers. Intrinsic, methodological and theoretical problems underlying this phenomenon are considered in the context of research findings obtained by members of the 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference βThe Market Economy Phenomenon: From the Origins into Our Daysβ held by Financial University in cooperation with Kuban State University. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of historical, economic, institutional, reproductive and transformation aspects of the phenomenon of the market economic system. Purpose. Investigation into a wide range of up-to-date debatable methodological and theoretical problems of the market economy phenomenon. Identification of βbottlenecksβ in the modern mainstream of the theoretical economic knowledge. Demonstration of the spheres of βthe impotence of market mechanismsβ subject to overcoming by the scientific and practical community. Methodology. The research is based on the historical and economic approach along with using methods of evolutionary and interdisciplinary analytical tools. Results. Notwithstanding permanent attempts of domestic and foreign economists to provide a conceptual justification of the non-alternative nature of the market organization of the economy, the current theoretical concepts of economic growth have not yet turned into applied tools of the market economy and the economic policy. As the research shows, the only actor able to make the transition of the Russian economy to a new technological tenor is still the state capable of running its investment activity. Conclusion. The key concern of the modern scientific economic community of Russia is to provide the basis for socially oriented theoretical and reformatory programs of the market economy regulation that would ensure the improvement of management practices and promote crisis-free, efficient and progressive socioeconomic development. Since the state investing can ensure only point breakthroughs rather than the overall socio-economic development of the country, due to considerable inherent systemic constraints, the development of investment activity of the Russian business sector should become the main driver of the economic development