PROBLEMS OF ECONOMIC THEORY УДК 330.101 JEL: B41 MAZARAKI Anatolii1, LAGUTIN Vasуl2 1State University of Trade and Economics, Research ID : http://www.researcherid.com/rid/E-2399-2018 PARADIGM OF ECONOMICS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ITS CHANGES IN THE XXI CENTURY Changes in the paradigm of economics are viewed as a response to the systemic transformations of the economy at the beginning of the XXI century. The potential for paradigm change is understood as the level of readiness and capacity of modern economics for paradigmatic shifts. At the same time, the change of the scientific paradigm is determined both by the internal potential of science itself and by the potential influence of the external socio-economic environment. The authors' understanding of the essence and structural components of the paradigm of economics in the XXI century is represented. In the context of the problem of mono-/polyparadigmality of economics, the essence of the paradigmatic complex is defined on the basis of criterion application of three fundamental categorical types: ontological, epistemological and axiological. The main normative tenets of the currently dominant neoclassical paradigm as the mainstream of economics are revealed from the standpoint of critical attitude to them. The central anomaly of the neoclassical paradigm is the de facto denial of the "value" as a category. The architecture of the modern financial system dominated by virtual financial assets, which are "detached" from assessment of their real value, successfully "works", according to neoclassicists, without the category of "value". It is proved that scientific economic research in its reality cannot but use quantitative scientometric models, which should be based on the category of "value". Value is the primary ontological foundation of economics. The interpretation of potential possibilities of paradigmatic renewal of modern economics is suggested taking into account corresponding objective changes in global social and economic development. The necessity of paradigmatic overcoming the isolation of micro- and macroeconomics, expanding the use of empirical analytical methods and their formalized interpretation based on the use of artificial intelligence in research, improving the management of complex socio-economic systems based on forecasting their development is substantiated. Keywords:economics; paradigm; monoparadigmality; polyparadigmality; paradigmatic complex; neoclassical; orthodoxy; heterodoxy; value; paradigmatic changes.
1. Mises L. Human Action: A Treatise on Economic Theory. Chelyabinsk, Sotsium, 2008 [in Russian]. 2. Whewell W. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon their History. Moscow, Knorus, 2016 [in Russian]. doi.org/10.5840/eps201647141 3. Foucault M. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Saint Petersburg, А-cad, 1994 [in Russian]. 4. Holton G. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Moscow, Progress, 1981 [in Russian]. 5. Feyerabend P. Science in a Free Society. Moscow, АСТ, 2010 [in Russian]. 6. Blaug M. Kuhn Versus Lakatos, or Paradigms Versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics. History of Political Economy, 1975, Vol. 7 (4), pp. 399-433. doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7-4-399 7. Lakatos I. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 91-196. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009 8. Wade Hands D. Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology. In: Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology. London, Routledge, 1993, pp. 61-75. doi.org/10.4324/9780203392805_chapter_3 9. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow, АСТ, 2015 [in Russian]. 10. Akerlof G. Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics. Economic Policy, 2021, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 104-123 [in Russian]. doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2021-1-104-123 11. Courvisanos I., Doughney I., Millmow A. Reclaiming pluralism in economics. Routledge, 2018. 12. Lari T. When does complementarity support pluralism about schools of economic thought? Journal of Economic Methodology, 2021, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 322-335. doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1945659 13. Akerlof G.A., Michailat P. Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2018, Vol. 115 (52), pp. 13228-13233. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816454115 14. Zveryakov M., Grymalyuk A. Economic theory, state policy and public administration. Economy of Ukraine, 2019, No. 11-12, pp. 3-33 [in Ukrainian]. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2019.11.003 15. Eshchenko P. Neoliberal market model and its impact on the development of Ukraine. Economy of Ukraine, 2020, No. 5, pp. 25-40 [in Ukrainian]. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2020.05.025 16. Korablin S. Neoliberal mainstream: when America is against. Economy of Ukraine, 2017. No. 5-6, pp. 90-105 [in Ukrainian]. 17. Lin Yifu I. New Paradigm for interpreting the Chinese Economy: Theories, Challenges and Opportunities. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2014. doi.org/10.1142/8849 18. Kolodko G.W. China and the Future of Globalization: The Political Economy of China's Rise. Financial Times, Summer Book, 2020. doi.org/10.5040/9781788315487 19. Kuhn T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2012. 20. De Landa M. Assemblage theory. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2016. 21. Kolodko G.W. Whither the World: The Political Economy of the Future. Moscow, Magistr, 2014 [in Russian]. doi.org/10.1057/9781137470256 22. Hodgson G.M. Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evolutionary and Institutional Economic Review, 2007, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 7-25. doi.org/10.14441/eier.4.7 23. Modern evolutionary economics. An overview. R. Nelson et al. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018. 24. Groenewegen I. Bridging original and new institutional economics? In: Institutions and evolution of capitalism. F. Gagliardi, D. Gindis (Eds). Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2019, pp. 93-109. doi.org/10.4337/9781785365003.00016 25. Menard C., Shirley M.M. The future of new institutional economics: From early intuitions to a new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics, 2014, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 541-565. doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400006X 26. Lacurelli S., Givliani A., Baron H. The past and future of social sciences. A Schumperetian theory of scientific development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2019, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1701-1722. doi.org/10.1093/cje/bez001 27. Elsner W. Complexity Economics as Heterodoxy: Theory and Policy. Journal of Economic Issues, 2017, Vol. 51, Iss. 4, pp. 939-978. doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2017.1391570 28. Stockhammer E., Dammerer Q., Kapur S. The Research Excellence Framework 2014. Journal ratings and the marginalization of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2021, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 243-269. doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaa054 29. Streeck W. Does "behavioural economics" offer an alternative to the neoclassical paradigm. Socio-Economic Review, 2010, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 387-397. doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwq002 30. Angner E. We're all behavioral economists now. Journal of Economic Methodology, 2019, Vol. 26 (3), pp. 195-207. doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1625210 31. Vines D., Wills S. The rebuilding macroeconomic theory project part II: multiple equilibriа, toy models and policy models in a new macroeconomic paradigm. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2020, Vol. 36, Iss. 3, pp. 427-497. doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa066 32. Hodgson G.M. On the complexity of economic reality and the history of the use of mathematics in economics. Fіlosofia de la Economia, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 125-148. 33. Crafts A.N. Artificial Intelligence as a general-purpose technology: an historical perspective. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2021, Vol. 37 (3), pp. 521-536. doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grab012 34. Einav L., Levin J.D. The Data Revolution and Economic Analysis. In: Innovation Policy and the Economy. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research. 2013, Vol. 14, pp. 1-24, available at: www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19035/w19035.pdf doi.org/10.1086/674019 35. Aasrveit K.A., Anundsen A.K., Herstad E.I. Residential Investment and Recession Predictability. International Journal of Forecasting, 2019, Vol. 35 (4), pp. 1790-1799. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.09.008 36. Greenwood R., Hanson S., Shleifer A., Sorensen J. Predictable Financial Crises. NBER Working Paper, 2020, No. 27396. doi.org/10.3386/w27396 37. Reznikova N., Panchenko V., Ivashchenko O. From the revision of the economic theory to the revision of the economic policy: the traps of the new macroeconomic consensus. Economy of Ukraine, 2021. No. 3, pp. 19-40 [in Ukrainian]. doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2021.03.019 |
|
Published since September 1958 |
|||
| Login |
| |||