г. Ростов-на-Дону ул. Пушкинская, 43, оф. 10
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
тел. +7(863) 269-88-14

scienceRU

Причинность, моделирование и социальные нормы: их место в теоретическом ядре гетеродоксной экономики

Причинность, моделирование и социальные нормы: их место в теоретическом ядре гетеродоксной экономики

Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований), , Том 10 (номер 4),

Дефиниции, используемые в рамках неортодоксальных экономических теорий и теоретические положения, составляющие их ядро, по-прежнему являются предметом дискуссий, равно как и определения и положения в рамках экономического мейнстрима. В связи с этим обсуждаются теоретические элементы, которые бы способствовали однозначному разграничению обеих позиций. В рамках неортодоксальных течений непросто выделить общие черты. Точно так же и мейнстрим нелегко описать посредством необходимых и достаточных характеристик, поскольку многочисленные авторы, по их собственным утверждениям, своим вкладом обогатили неоклассический экономикс, привнеся в него концепции из других социальных наук. С другой стороны, создаётся впечатление, что политику представителей неортодоксальных направлений и её отличия от мейнстрима (например, в оношении «строгости») легче идентифицировать. Несмотря на неопределенности данного характера, в настоящей статье показано, что некоторые ключевые концепции и теоретические допущения могут служить водоразделом между неортодоксальными течениями и экономичсеким иейнстримом. Значимость статьи заключается в обосновании того, что множество считающихся привычными различий между данными областями на самом деле не могут рассматриваться в качестве однозначных критериев для разграничения эпистемологических основ этих двух областей (например, эгоистичные агенты, методология моделирования, использование концепций социальных наук). Также в статье предложены несколько теоретических аспектов, которые могли бы служить ориентиром для такого разграничения – в частности, связанные с принципом причинности, концепциями времени и общества.


Ключевые слова: гетеродоксная экономика; методология экономической науки; моделирование; причинность; методологический индивидуализм; социальные нормы

Список литературы:
  • Andersson, J. and Godechot, O. (2018). Destabilizing Orders: Understanding the Consequences of Neoliberalism: Proceedings from the MaxPo Fifth-Anniversary Conference, Paris, 12–13 January.
  • Aspromourgos, T. (1986). On the Origins of the Term ‘Neoclassical’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 10, 3, 265–270.
  • Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, New York, Crown Business.
  • Arthur, W. B., (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-In by Historical Events. Economic Journal, 99, 394, March, 116–131.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
  • Arthur, W. B. (2013). Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought, Santa Fe, Santa Fe Institute, SFI working paper 2013-04-012.
  • Arthur, W. B. (2014). Complexity and the Economy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Atran, S. (2016). The Devoted Actor: Unconditional Commitment and Intractable Conflict across Cultures. Current Anthropology, 57, 13, June, 192–203.
  • Axelrod, R. (1986). An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Political Science Review, 80, 4, December, 1095–1111.
  • Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 211, 4489, 1390–1396, 27 March.
  • Azariadis, C. and Stachurski, J. (2005). Poverty Traps, in Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf eds., Handbook of Economic Growth, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
  • Backhouse, R. (2010). Review of Frederic Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. Economic History Review, 63, 1, 257–258.
  • Backhouse, R. and Cherrier, B. (2017). The Age of the Applied Economist: the Transformation of Economics since the 1970s. History of Political Economy, 49, 5, 1–33.
  • Ban, C. and Gallagher K. (2015). Recalibrating Policy Orthodoxy: The IMF Since the Great Recession. Governance, 28, 2, April, 131–146.
  • Berta, N. (2000). Le marché dans les modèles de Gérard Debreu. Recherches Economiques de Louvain-Louvain Economic Review, 66, 3, 303–308.
  • Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Bowles, S. and Gintis, H (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Boyer, R. (2017). Orthodoxie, hétérodoxies et capitalismes contemporains (How do Orthodoxy and Heterodoxies Analyze Contemporary Capitalisms). Revue de la Régulation, 22, Fall, special issue ‘Financialisation and Social Classes’. (http://journals.openedition.org/regulation/12626#ndlr)
  • Brancaccio, E. and Saraceno, F. (2017). Evolutions and Contradictions in Mainstream Macroeconomics: the Case of Olivier Blanchard. Review of Political Economy, 29, 3, 345–359.
  • Buono, D., Kapetanios, G., Marcellino, M., Mazzi, G., and Papailias, F. (2018). Big Data Econometrics: Now Casting and Early Estimates, Milan, Bocconi University, Baffi-Carefin centre working paper 82.
  • Camerer, C. F. and Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future., in Colin F. Camerer, George Loewenstein and Matthew Rabin eds., Advances in Behavioral Economics, Princeton University Press.
  • Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Coniglio, N., Vurchio, D., Cantore, N., and Clara, M. (2018). On the Evolution of Comparative Advantage: Path-Dependent versus Path-Defying Changes, Bari, Universita degli Studi di Bari, department of economics, working paper 1/2018.
  • Cummings, L. (1998). The Scientific Reductionism of Relevance Theory: The Lesson From Logical Positivism. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 1–12.
  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 2, 332–337.
  • David, P. A. (2000). Path Dependence, its Critics and the Quest for ‘Historical Economics’, Oxford, All Souls College, in P. Garrouste and S. Ioannides eds., Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
  • Deaton, A. (2010). Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, June, 424–455.
  • De Grauwe, P. and Ji, Y. (2018). Behavioural Economics is Useful Also in Macroeconomics: The Role of Animal Spirits. Comparative Economic Studies, 60, 2, 203–216.
  • De Vroey, M. and Pensieroso, L. (2016). The Rise of a Mainstream in Economics, Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES), discussion paper 2016–26.
  • De Vroey, M. and Pensieroso, L. (2018). La question du pluralisme en économie : une mise en perspective, Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES), Regards Economiques 137.
  • Di Maio, M. (2013). Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,72, 5, November, 1315–1348.
  • D’Ippoliti, C. and Roncaglia, A. (2015). Heterodox Economics and the History of Economic Thought, American Economic Association meeting. (https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2015/retrieve.php?pdfid=376), published in Tae-Hee Jo and Zdravka Todorova. eds. (2016). Advancing the Frontiers of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of Frederic S. Lee, London, Routledge.
  • Dobusch, L. and Kapeller, J. (2012). A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists. Review of Political Economy, 24, 3, 469–487.
  • Donaldson, D. and Storeygard, A. (2016). The View from Above: Applications of Satellite Data in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 4, Fall, 171–198.
  • Dosi, G. and Nelson, R. R. (1994). An Introduction to Evolutionary Theories in Economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4, 3, September, 153–172.
  • Dow, S. C. (2011). Heterodox Economics: History and Prospects. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35, 1151–1165.
  • Düppe, T. (2012). Arrow and Debreu De-Homogenized. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 34, 4, December, 491–514.
  • Durlauf, S. N. and Young, H. P. eds. (2001). Social Dynamics, Cambridge MA, MIT Press and Washington D. C., Brookings Institution Press.
  • Edwards, B. (2018). Sherlock of Trade: David Donaldson. Finance and Development, 55, 2, June, 37–39.Elsner, W. (2017). Social Economics and Evolutionary Institutionalism Today. Forum for Social Economics, 46, 1, 52–77.
  • Elsner, W., Heinrich, T. and Schwardt, H. (2015). The Microeconomics of Complex Economies: Evolutionary, Institutional, Neoclassical, and Complexity Perspectives, Amsterdam, Elsevier, Academic Press.
  • Enke, B. (2017). Kinship Systems, Cooperation and the Evolution of Culture, Cambridge MA, NBER working paper 23499.
  • Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., and Algan, Y. (2015). The Superiority of Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 1, 89–114.
  • Frege, G. (1960). (Über Sinn und Bedeutung, 1892), On Sense and Reference, in Peter Geach and Max Black eds., Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell, 56–78.
  • Friedman, D. (1999). Evolutionary Economics Goes Mainstream: a Review of the Theory of Learning in Games, Santa Cruz, University of California, economics department.
  • Friedman, M. (1953). The Methodology of Positive Economics, in Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 3–43.
  • Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. K. (1998). The Theory of Learning in Games, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
  • Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. K. (2016). Whither Game Theory?, Cambridge MA, Harvard University, department of economics.
  • Galor, O. (2005). From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory, in Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth, 1A, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 171–293.
  • Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. eds. (2001). Bounded Rationality: the Adaptive Toolbox, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
  • Gómez, A., López-Rodríguez, L., Sheikh, H., Ginges, J., Wilson, L., Waziri, H., Vázquez, A., Davis, R. and Atran, S. (2017). The Devoted Actor’s Will to Fight and the Spiritual Dimension of Human Conflict, Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 673–679.
  • Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Hacking, I. (2014). Why Is There Philosophy of Mathematics at All?, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior. The American Naturalist, 97, 896, September-October, 354–356.
  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1, July, 1–52.
  • Hands, D. W. (2015). Orthodox and Heterodox Economics in Recent Economic Methodology. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 8, 1, Spring, 61–81.
  • Harris, J., Hunter, J., and Lewis, C. M. (1995). Introduction: Development and Significance of NIE, in John Harris, Janet Hunter and Colin M. Lewis eds., The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, London, Routledge.
  • Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Hausman, D. M. (2015). Much Ado about Models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 22, 2, 241–246.
  • Hausmann, R., Hwang, J. and Rodrik, D. (2007). What you Export Matters. Journal of Economic Growth, 12, 1, March, 1–25.
  • Hédoin, C. (2010). Towards a Paradigm Shift in Economics?. A Response to James K. Galbraith, Books and Ideas, 17 June. (http://www.booksandideas.net/Towards-a-Paradigm-Shift-in.html)
  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis, H. eds. (2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Hodgson, G. M. (2006). Characterizing Institutional and Heterodox Economics: a Reply to Tony Lawson. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2, 2, March, 213–223.
  • Hong, H. (2018). Towards a Critique of Neoclassical Economics: how to Neutralize and Radicalize our Understanding of the Postulate of Independence of Agents and Goods, Seoul, Yonsei University, Economic Research Institute, working paper 119.
  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaldor, N. (1981). The Role of Increasing Returns, Technical Progress and Cumulative Causation in the Theory of International Trade. Economie Appliquée, 24, 4, 593–617.
  • Kapeller, J. (2013). ‘Model-Platonism’ in Economics: on a Classical Epistemological Critique. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9, 2, 199–221.
  • Keen, S. (2015), Is Neoclassical Economics Mathematical? Is There a Non-Neoclassical Mathematical Economics?, in Jamie Morgan ed., What is Neoclassical Economics: Debating the Origins, Meaning and Significance, London, Routledge.
  • Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and Necessity, in Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, eds., Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, Reidel.
  • Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: an Elementary Exposition, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
  • La Ferrara, E. (2003). Kin Groups and Reciprocity: A Model of Credit Transactions in Ghana. American Economic Review, 93, 5, December, 1730–1751.
  • La Ferrara, E. (2007). Descent Rules and Strategic Transfers. Evidence from Matrilineal Groups in Ghana, Journal of Development Economics, 83, 2, 280–301.
  • Lang, D. and Setterfield, M. (2006–07). History versus equilibrium? On the Possibility and Realist Basis of a General Critique of Traditional Equilibrium Analysis. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 29, 2, Winter, 191–209
  • Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
  • Lavoie, M. (2015). Should Heterodox Economics Be Taught In Economics Departments, Or Is There Any Room For Backwater Economics?, Paris, INET Annual Conference, session ‘Teaching Economics’.
  • Lawson, T. (2005). The Nature of Institutional Economics. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2, 1, 7–20.
  • Lawson, T. (2013). What is this ‘School’ Called Neoclassical Economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37, 947–983.
  • Lazear, E. (1999). Economic Imperialism, Cambridge MA, NBER working paper 7300.
  • Lee, F. S. (2009). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century, London, Routledge.
  • Lee, F. S. (2012). Heterodox Economics and its Critics. Review of Political Economy, 24, 2, 337–351.
  • Lee, F. S. and Jo, T.-H. (2011). Social Surplus Approach and Heterodox Economics. Journal of Economic Issues, XLV, 4, December, 857–875.
  • Mäki, U. (2009). MISSing the World: Models as Isolations and Credible Surrogate Systems. Erkenntnis, 70, 1, 29–43.
  • Martins, N. O. (2013). Classical Surplus Theory and Heterodox Economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72, 5, November, 1205–1231.
  • Matsuyama, K. (2009). Poverty Traps, New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, online.
  • Mearman, A. and Archela, D. G. (2018). What do Heterodox Economists Say Heterodox Economics Is?, Leicester, De Montfort University, 20th Anniversary Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE), 5–7 July.
  • Mirowski, P. (1984). Physics and the ‘Marginalist Revolution’. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8, 4, 361–379.
  • Mirowski, P. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
  • Ostry, J. D., Loungani, P. and Furceri, D. (2016). Neoliberalism: Oversold? Finance and Development, 53, 2, June, 38–41.
  • Pech, W. and Milan, M. (2009). Behavioral Economics and the Economics of Keynes. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38, 6, 891–902.
  • Phelps, J. M. and White, C. M. (2018). Social Psychology and Neoliberalism: a Critical Commentary on McDonald, Gough, Wearing, and Deville (2017), Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, forthcoming.
  • Pignol, C. (2017). La théorie de l’équilibre général, Lille, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
  • Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern Western Europe, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Preston, S. D. and de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its Ultimate and Proximate Bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
  • Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Ragni, L. (2018). Applying Mathematics to Economics According to Cournot and Walras. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 25, 1, February, 73–105.
  • Romer, P. M. (2015). Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth. American Economic Review, 105, 5, 89–93.
  • Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time, London, Allen Lane Penguin.
  • Rutherford, M. (2001), Institutional Economics: Then and Now. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 3, Summer, 173–194.
  • Samuels, W. (1990). The Old versus the New Institutionalism. Review of Political Economy, 2, 1, 83–86.
  • Schettkat, R. (2018). Revision or Revolution? A Note on Behavioral vs. Neoclassical Economics, Wuppertal, University of Wuppertal, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, Schumpeter discussion paper 2018-5.
  • Setterfield, M. (2015). Path Dependency, New York, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics, working paper 1521.
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2013). Growth Divergences and Cumulative Causation: Economics as a Social Science, Bordeaux, Congress of the Association Française d’Economie Politique (AFEP), 3–5 July.
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2015). Whatever Inconsistencies and Effects? Explaining the Resilience of the Policy Reforms Applied to Developing Countries. Forum for Social Economics, 44,2, August, 159–178.
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2017a). Understanding the Concept of Gift in Economics: Contributions from Other Social Sciences. Eidos: A Journal for Philosophy of Culture (University of Warsaw, Institute of Philosophy), 2, 4–20 (special issue ‘Economy within Culture’).
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2017b). Conceptual Impossibilities in Mathematisation? The Example of ‘Institutions’, Budapest, Corvinus University, 29th Conference of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE), 19–21 October.
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2018a). Concept and Causation: Issues in the Modelling of Institutions, Forum for Social Economics, special issue ‘The Complexity of Institutions: Theory and Computational Methods’, forthcoming.
  • Sindzingre, A. N. (2018b). Experiments in Economics and their Ethical Dimensions: The Case of Developing Countries, Leicester, De Montfort University, 20th Anniversary Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE), 5–7 July.
  • Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: a Naturalistic Approach, Oxford, Cambridge MA, Blackwell.Steger, M. B. and Roy, R. K. (2010). Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Toner, Ph. (1999). Main Currents in Cumulative Causation: the Dynamics of Growth and Development, London, Macmillan and New York, St. Martin’s Press.
  • Veneroso, F. (2018). The Economics of Instability: An Abstract of an Excerpt, Annandaleon-Hudson, Bard College, Levy Economics Institute, working paper 903.
  • Weingast, B. R. (2018). The Many, Diverse “Main Points” of Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations, Stanford, Stanford University.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
  • Young, A. A. (1928). Increasing Returns and Economic Progress. Economic Journal, 38, 152, December, 527–542.
Издатель: ООО "Гуманитарные Перспективы"
Учредитель: ООО "Гуманитарные Перспективы"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039 ISSN: 2076-6297