Two Disputes of Methods Three Constructivisms and Three Liberalisms. Part I

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinf?r Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics

Вплив цифрових технологій на взаємодію влади і бізнесу в процесі трансферу технологій

The report states that the presence of digital technologies in the modern world is a normal, everyday phenomenon. Modern humanity cannot imagine its life without digital technologies. Confirmation of the words is the rapid deployment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0), which radically changes not only the technical, technological capabilities of production, but also the very way of life. The latest technologies are changing entire sectфors of the economy, changing forms of employment, business models, the relationship between capital and labor, the structure of forms of capital. In this regard, the main purpose of this report is to determine the role of digital technologies, which they have an impact on the interaction of technology transfer actors: business and government.У доповіді наведено, що наявність цифрових технологій у сучасному світі це вже нормальне, повсякденне явище. Сучасне людство не уявляє своє життя без цифрових технологій. Підтвердженням слів є стрімке розгортання Четвертої промислової революції (Індустрія 4.0), яка радикально змінює не лише технічні, технологічні можливості виробництв, але й сам спосіб життя людей. Новітні технології змінюють цілі галузі економіки, змінюються форми зайнятості, бізнес-моделі, відносини між капіталом і працею, структури форм капіталу. У зв’язку с цим основною метою вказаної доповіді є визначити, яку роль виконують цифрові технології, який вони мають вплив на взаємодію суб’єктів трансферу технологій: бізнесу і органів влади

Sudy of the Propagation of Decimeter Radiowaves in the Atmosphere of Venus with the Aid of AIS ''venera 4''

Radio wave propagation in Venus atmosphere based on approximating inhomogeneity of refractivit

The preparatory stage of presentation of a person for identification in the investigation of crimes against morality

Наукова стаття присвячена висвітленню деяких аспектів розслідування злочинів проти моральності. Розглядаються організаційні й тактичні особливості пред’явлення для впізнання в кримінальних провадженнях досліджуваної категорії. Акцентується увага на підготовчих заходах до проведення визначеної слідчої (розшукової) дії.The scientific article is devoted illumination of some aspects of the investigation of crimes against morality. The organizational and tactical especially of the producing for identification at the investigation of this crime are examined. The focus is on preparatory measures for conducting a certain investigative (search) action.Научная статья посвящена рассмотрению некоторых аспектов расследования преступлений против морали. Рассматриваются организационные и тактические особенности предъявления для опознания в уголовных производствах этой категории. Акцентируется внимание на подготовительных мероприятиях к проведению этого следственного (розыскного) действия

Оцінка працездатності пароперегрівачів парових котлів з урахуванням високотемпературної повзучості і рівномірної хімічної коррозии

It is proposed theoretical estimating workability of steam boilers superheaters on the base of considering the influence of a high-temperature uniform chemical corrosion on of a high-temperature creep of superheater pipes on account of stresses redistributions the pipes walls due to their thickness decreasing. The high-temperature uniform chemical corrosion is presented by the well-known time and temperature depend-ences of the height of damaged material. The high-temperature creep is considered using the well-known incremental-type theory taking into account the Cachanov-Rabotnov scalar damage parameter. It is proposed the mathematical model of state of superheaters pipes in the form of initial-boundary-value problem in the domain with the moving boundary. The differential equations, initial and boundary conditions of that problem are corresponded to the well-known in the theory of high-temperature creep. Moving of the boundary is corresponded to the well-known time dependence of the height of damaged material due to the high-temperature uniform chemical corrosion. Although, the used theory of creep and the used regularities of uniform corrosion are well-known separately, considering the influence of uniform corrosion on the creep is the complicated problem due to the moving boundary in the corresponded initial-boundary-value problem. It is shown, that the spatial variable replacement allows to reduce the proposed initial-boundary-value problem with the moving boundary to the initial-boundary-value problem with the fixed normed boundary, that allows to simplify numerical solving of the considered problem. The method of lines is discussed for solving the initial-boundary-value problem, representing the mathematical model of the state of pipes of superheaters.Пропонується теоретична оцінка працездатності пароперегрівачів парових котлів на основі врахування впливу високотемпературної рівномірної хімічної корозії на високотемпературну повзучість труб пароперегрівача через перерозподіл напружень стінок труб через зменшення їх товщини. Запропоновано математичну модель стану труб пароперегрівачів у вигляді початково-крайової задачі з рухомою границею. Показано, що заміна просторової змінної дозволяє звести запропоновану початково-крайову задачу з рухомою границею до початково-крайової задачі з фіксованою границею, що дозволяє спростити чисельне рішення даної задачі

Предмет и метод интерпретативной институциональной экономики

In this article, I renew the "dispute over methods" (Methodenstreit) taking into account contemporary achievements of the philosophy of science. The current dominant understanding of what is "scientific" in economics is derived from the classical natural science. Economists ignore the fact that at the end of the XIX century instead of this science appeared a non-classical science, and after the last third of the XX century a period of post-nonclassical science started. New Institutional Economics has been trapped in the classical paradigm by simulating not even contemporary natural science, but that existed more than a hundred years ago, which explored simple systems. Practically-oriented first institutionalists in Germany (the German Historical School headed by Gustav Schmoller) and in the USA (the American institutionalism represented by John Commons as its most important leader) dealt with complex socio-economic systems properly groped the interpretative approach appropriate for this kind of systems. This approach has recently received an increasing development, especially in relation to psychology, sociology and anthropology. I use these results for renovating the vision of the subject matter and the method of institutional economics. In this article, on the one hand, I propose to come back to the forgotten and maligned tradition of Schmoller and Commons, and on the other hand, I suggest restoring these traditions using the methodological and technical achievements of the interpretive paradigm in other social sciences. I dismiss the myth disseminated by Geoffrey Hodgson characterising the old American institutionalists in general as just data gatherers and John Commons in particular as a bad theoretician. I ascertain that Douglass North in his book Understanding the Process of Economic Change comes very close to the interpretive ontology, but does not make the appropriate epistemological conclusions. The latter supposes that any institutional analysis requires study of the texts of discourses of actors, and this study should not be oriented to confirm or to refute some a priori theoretical constructs, but to develop thick descriptions containing contextual and not universal concepts. These contextual concepts can be developed on the basis of Grounded Theory

Vers une autre science économique (et donc une autre institution de cette science)

Permanent readers of this journal have certainly noticed that the title of this article has a great similarity with the title of the issue No. 30 of the Revue du MAUSS. At first glance, the title of this issue “Toward another economic science (and thus toward another world)” may seem odd. Indeed, if the word "economic" is replaced in this title by the words "physical" ("chemical" or "biological"), we get a very strange statement: another type of physics (chemistry or biology) gives us another world in which we are supposed to live, that is to say, the physical properties of materials become different, chemical reactions occur differently, and biological properties of organisms are transformed. But if for natural sciences, this sentence does not make sense, it has a deep meaning for economics. The constructivist institutionalism gives us the key to understand this meaning. Following this institutionalism, economics provides society with the elements for the socio-economic-political discourse, and it is itself part of this discourse, which in turn significantly influence institutional change. This feature of economics creates a temptation for economists to go directly to the discourse (mainly what should be) without devoting enough attention to the study of reality (what is). The fact that economists do not resist this temptation has serious consequences: despite their good intentions, the proposed solutions elaborated without knowledge of the details of reality either do not give the expected results or often cause negative unexpected consequences. The 20th century gives plenty of evidence of this kind. According to social constructivism, "institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put it differently, any such typification is an institution" [Berger and Luckmann, 1991, p. 72]. It is not enough to define institutions just as rules, but according to social constructivism, we consider them as rules when they become habits. The constructivist institutionalism sees the source of social regularities in these habits, and in this way it requires to study institutions as the foreground of the economy rather than its background. This type of study requires close ("ethnographic") observation made in the past by the German ethico-historical school (Gustav Schmoller) and the Wisconsin institutional school (John Commons). Heterodox economists (post-Keynesians, Marxists, regulationists, conventionalists, socio-economists) who see institutions as the background of the economy, practice remote observations and do not exercise the collection of detailed information about the rules and beliefs that support them contained in the discourses of actors. From this point of view, we can consider that the orthodox and most of the heterodox currents belong to the same paradigm that does not provide an understanding of economic reality and which does not make us capable to foresee the arrival of such phenomena as the current crisis and to explain their mechanisms. The few who have managed to do so did their research in the framework of another paradigm, that of constructivist institutionalism, perhaps without knowing it. The transition of the community of economists to this paradigm requires a radical institutional reform of the profession. The constructivist institutionalism also gives us some suggestions on how to run this reform

Approche institutionnelle de l'analyse de la transition (le cas de l'agriculture du Nord-Kazakhstan)

The causes of the failure of the neoclassical approach to the economic transition in the countries formerly belonging to the Soviet Union are analyzed at a general level and then in the specific case of agriculture in North Kazakhstan. Three dimensions of Soviet-type economic institutions (legislation, organizations and culture) enter into the general analysis. Among the basic notions that are cursorily presented, attention is drawn to the economic culture. A description of the characteristics of Soviet agricultural institutions (state-owned land, collective farms, state farms, individual plots and local authorities in rural areas) completes this analysis at the general level. These theoretical patterns then serve to analyze the first two phases (stabilization and introduction of the market) in the neoclassical transition strategy as applied to farming in North Kazakhstan. In this area, the institutions inherited from the Soviet era continue to survive, sometimes under a slightly disguised form. They account for both the non-completion of a real transition and the gradual decline in farming. In these conditions, the third phase (structural corrections) of the transition under the neoclassical paradigm cannot be envisioned. Alternative proposals based on an institutional approach are presented

How to make the economics profession socially useful? (A reaction to George Soros’ lectures and INET’s activities)

The profession of economics does not fulfill its social function to provide people a correct understanding of economic phenomena. In other words, the institution of economics does not work properly. George Soros makes this conclusion in his lectures at the Central European University (Soros, 2010). He sponsored the creation of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with the objective to change this situation in economics. However activities of the INET are not oriented to change the institution of economics and most of participants in its activities are mainstream economists. This short paper summarizes my ideas in what way it is necessary to change the institution of economics. First, in order to make the profession of economists socially useful, it is necessary to reconsider the methodology and history of economics. At present the former leads the profession in a wrong way and the latter to a great extent justifies this wrong way. Secondly, it is necessary to reform the institution of economics. I define the notion of institution in the following way: an institution is a set of formal and informal rules, and also beliefs, that stand behind these rules, that orient the behaviour of members of a certain community. The rules of the institution of economics relate to the community of university professors and students of economics. These rules provide a framework for developing curricula and syllabi, as well as for the organization of examinations. They define the procedures and directions of economic research, and the criteria for publication of articles in academic economic journals. These rules include formal and informal rules of functioning of professional organizations of economists, such as the American Economic Association. Beliefs that underlie the rules of functioning of the community of academic economists are expressed in different answers to such questions as: What does it mean to undertake economic research? What is the purpose of economic research? What should economists study? How should they carry out the study? In what form should the results of the study be presented? What does it mean to teach economics? What kind of economics should we teach? The answers to these questions, along with formal and informal rules of behaviour based on the answers, together constitute the institutional knowledge of professional economists. Candidates for admission to the profession acquire most of this knowledge during the preparation and defense of PhD dissertations that many do in the framework of post-graduate studies. If someone becomes a member of the profession and does not have this knowledge, or refuses to follow its instructions, then sooner or later she/he will be rejected by the profession. To reform the profession of economists means to reform the institution of economics, i.e. to change their rules and beliefs. I think that the only way for economics to become a socially useful science is the transformation of economics from a kind of applied mathematics (mainstream economics) or social philosophy (heterodox economics) to something similar to social anthropology with its ethnographic method justified in the framework of the constructivist discursive methodology. The methodology that I prone can be expressed very shortly in the following way. The social-economic regularities result from the fact that people behave according to certain socially-constructed rules, and these rules are explained, justified, and kept in mind by telling themselves and others some stories. Taking this statement into consideration, we must agree with the fact that for the identification of social-economic regularities, we must explore and analyse these stories. Modern economics does not study the discourses of economic actors and thereby deprive itself of the ability to understand and predict economic phenomena. The study of discourse is not a deviation from the academic standards which are built into natural sciences, but rather an approximation to it, since almost all social interactions are mediated by language

Two disputes of methods, three constructivisms, and three liberalisms

The paper proposes to reconsider radically the methodology and history of economics, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Verein für Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics