Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Mesoeconomics and Complexity Economics: Going Beyond the Limits of Economic Orthodoxy

Mesoeconomics and Complexity Economics: Going Beyond the Limits of Economic Orthodoxy

Journal of Institutional Studies, , Vol. 10 (no. 3),

The main goal of the article is to show how such new approaches as Mesoeconomics (ME) and Complexity Economics (CE) in economic analysis meet the challenges facing modern economic science. It is shown that the development of these approaches has been brought about by both practical needs and shifts in the system of paradigmatic scientific knowledge. Also shown are the differences between the initial assumptions of CE and ME, and the set of initial postulates of neoclassical mainstream economics. It is emphasized that CE and ME are based on modern ideas of self-organization of complex systems. At the same time, they restore the traditions of classical Political Economy, since they also consider the organic nature of the economy, evolutionism and historical conditioning. Both approaches explore the logic of the formation of economic mechanisms that create patterns of economic life and the spread of change. Along with the commonality of the approach from the ME perspective and the approach from the point of view of CE, their distinctive characteristics are identified, which allows them to complement each other. Comparison of ME and CE makes it possible to carry out a more in-depth analysis of the methodological features of mesoeconomic analysis, in comparison with the author's earlier works on this subject (Kirdina-Chandler, Maevsky, 2017; Kirdina-Chandler, 2018 – both in Russian).


Keywords: meso level of economic analysis; complexity economics; heterodox economics; economic orthodoxy; institutional mesoeconomics; increasing returns

References:
  • Arthur, W. B. (2013). Complexity and the Economy: a Different Framework for Economic Thought. SFI Working Paper: 2013-04-012.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the Economy. Science, 284(5411), 107–109.
  • Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. N. and Lane, D. A. (1997). Introduction. In Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. N., and Lane, D. A., editors, The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Massachussets: Addison Wesley.
  • Avdiysky, V. I. and Bezdenezhnykh, V. M. (2011). Uncertainty, variability and inconsistency in problems of risk analysis of the behavior of economic systems. Effective Anti-Crisis Management, 3(66), 46–61. (In Russian).
  • Chernavsky, D. and Kurdyumov, V. (2010). What is the Institute of Complexity in Santa Fe and do we need its analogue in Russia. Economic strategies, 1, 96–99. (In Russian).
  • Dementiev, V. E. (2018). Mesoeconomics is the key to understanding economic development. In: «Fundamental Features of Mesoeconomic Analysis: Opportunities and Perspectives of the Evolutionary and Synergetic Paradigm». Collection of abstracts. Moscow: IE RAS, 10–12. (In Russian).
  • Dosi, G. (2012). Economic coordination and dynamics: some elements of an alternative evolutionary paradigm. Voprosy economiki, 12, 31–55. (In Russian).
  • Fontana, M. (2010). Can Neoclassical Economics Handle Complexity? The Fallacy of the Oil Spot Dynamic. Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 584–596.
  • Fujita, M. and Krugman, P. (2004). The New Economic Geography: Past, Present and The Future. Papers in Regional Science, 83, 139–164.
  • Henriques, G. R. (2003). The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.
  • Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Helix Books.
  • Horgan, J. (2001). The end of science: the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the Scientific Age. SPb.: Amphora. (http://fil.wikiraeding.ru/25046 – Access Date: 17.06.2018). (In Russian).
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (2018). The meso level: a new look in Economics. Working paper. Moscow: Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. and Maevsky, V. I. (2017). Methodological issues of meso-level analysis in Economics. Journal of Institutional Studies, 9(3), 7–23. (In Russian).
  • Kirman, A. P. and Vignes, A. (1991). Price-Dispersion: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence from the Marseille Fish Market. In K.J. Arrow (Ed.), Issues in Contemporary Economics: Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of the International Economics Association, Athens, Greece. Vol. 1. Markets and Welfare, 160–185. London: MacMillan.
  • Koshovets, O. and Orekhovsky, P. (2018). Discursive practices of “economy” and “economic system” and structuralism. Working paper. Moscow: Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
  • Kruglova, M. S. (2017). Mesoeconomic theory in English-scientific literature. Journal of Institutional Studies, 9(3), 24–35. (In Russian).
  • Krugman, P. (2009). The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography. American Economic Review, 99(3), 561–571.Li, T. Y. and Yorke, J. A. (1975). Period Three Implies Chaos. American Mathematical Monthly, 82(10), 985–992.
  • Libman, A. M. (2018). Empirical research in Economics: “the credibility revolution”? Part 2. In: Where is modern economic science moving? Working paper. Moscow: Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
  • Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity Thinking and Evolutionary Economic Geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(5), 573–601.
  • Matkovskyy, R. (2010). Theoretical Aspects of Mezzo Economic System Development. Economic and Forecasting. Kyiv, 4, 9–21.
  • Matkovskyy, R. (2012). A Meso-level Representation of Economic Systems: a Theoretical Approach. School of Economics, North-West University. MPRA Paper No. 44093. (http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44093/ – Access Date: 04.06.2018).
  • OECD (2015). Final NAEC Synthesis: New Approaches to Economic Challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • Orekhovsky, P. A. (2017) Intermittent trend in the development of structuralism: an alternative tradition of economic analysis (R. Prebisch, Yu. Yaremenko, G. Mensh and others). Voprosy ekonomicheskogo regulirovaniya, 1(1), 6–25. (In Russian).
  • Pilyasov, A. N. (2011). New economic geography and its contribution to the studies of placement of productive forces in Russia. Regional studies, 1(31), 3–31. (In Russian).
  • Russell, M. G. and Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2018). Leveraging Complexity for Ecosystemic Innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. In Press, Corrected Proof (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.024 – Access Date: 14.03.2018).
  • Schneider, V. (2012). Governance and Complexity // The Oxford Handbook of Governance / D. Levi-Faur (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 129–142.
  • Silim, A. (2012). What Is New Economic Thinking. Complex New World: Translating New Economic Thinking Into Public Policy / T. Dolphin, D. Nash (eds.). London: IPPR, 18–27.
  • Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2015). The globalized economy: from hierarchies to the network way of life. Moscow: Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russian).
  • Volynskii, A. I. (2017). Mesolevel as object of research in the scientific economic literature of contemporary Russia. Journal of Institutional Studies, 9(3), 36–49. (In Russian).
  • Walras, L. (2000). Elements of pure economics, or the theory of social wealth. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
  • Yudin, E. G. (1978). System approach and principle of activity. Methodological problems of modern science. M.: Science. (In Russian).
  • Zezza, A. and Llambí, L. (2002). Meso-Economic Filters Along the Policy Chain: Understanding the Links Between Policy Reforms and Rural Poverty in Latin America. World Development, 30(11), 1865–1884.
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297