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

cubsEN (2)

The Socio-Economic Order and Economists

The Socio-Economic Order and Economists

Journal of Institutional Studies, , Vol. 10 (no. 1),

The author of the review analyses the new book of Vladimir Yefimov «Economic science in question: other methodology, history and research practice» (2016), in which the profession of economists is considered from the point of view, from one side of its immersion in a particular socio-economic order, and, on the other – its influence on the latter. This is done by analysing profession of university and academic economists as an institution, the rules of functioning of which throughout the history of this profession was determined largely from outside the community of economists. The birth of the profession of economists in the mid-nineteenth century was associated with the emergence of social question, caused by the appearance of industrial capitalism, and three currents of economic thought (classical political economy and later neo-classical economics, Marxist political economy and the original institutionalism offered three different explanations and, therefore, three different solutions to this question. The book outlines the twists and turns of the development of the first and third of these currents, and explains the disappearance, starting from 1950-ies, of the original institutionalism, while the economics in the West and Marxism in the Soviet Union began to serve the interests of the ruling elites and acted as the ideology, not as the science. Scientific economic discipline was presented then only by the original institutionalism, drawing the insights from the historical-ethical school headed by G. Smaller, the philosophy of pragmatism by C. S. Pierce and the concept of person by John. Dewey, was directly involved in the study of economic reality (economic institutions, rules, habits, beliefs and values that guide the behaviour of economic actors) with the help of qualitative research methods (interviews, participant observation, action research). This methodology assumes that actors are competent in specific problematic situations, which means that only they, in cooperation with experts, (not the experts alone, as is the case in elitist democracies) may be in a process of discussion (deliberation) to come to the solution of these problems. Hence V. Yefimov makes an attempt, on the one hand, to restore the original research practice of institutionalism in the form of a historical-discursive and constructivist institutionalism (which will serve as a framework social theory), and, on the other hand, to propose a project of socio-economic order based on deliberative democracy.

Keywords: pragmatism, constructivism, economic methodology, social question, economic discipline, the profession of the economists, German historical-ethical school, original American institutionalism, economic education, the welfare state, values of economists, deliberative democracy

  • Andrews T. (2012). What is Social Constructionism? // Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 39–46.
  • Becchio G. and Leghissa G. (2016). The Origins of Neoliberalism // Insights from economics and philosophy. New York, Routledge.
  • Berger, P. L. and Luckmann T. (1995). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Moscow, Academia-Center; Medium. (in Russian).
  • Bloor D. (2017). Anti-Latour // Logos, 27(1), 85–134. (in Russian).
  • Burr V. (2003). Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. London, Routledge.
  • Commons J. R. (1950). The Economics of Collective Action. New York, The Macmillan Co.
  • Dewey J. (1973). Lectures in China, 1919–1920. Honolulu, The University Press of Hawaii.
  • Dewey J. (2000). Liberalism and Social Action. Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books.
  • Garreta G. (2015). Science, ethics and society: Dewey and pragmatist researchinvestigation // Research Yearbook of the Institute of philosophy and law, Ural branch of the
  • Russian Academy of Sciences, 15(3), 5–30. (in Russian).
  • Glaser B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press.
  • Hay C. (2006). Constructivist Institutionalism // The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. New York: Oxford University Press, 56–74.
  • Latour B. (2003). When things strike back: a possible contribution of ´science studies to the social sciences // The Moscow University Herald, series 7. Philosophy, 3, 20–39. (in Russian).
  • Latour B. (2017). Visualization and Cognition: Drawing wings Together // Logos, 27(2), 95–156. (in Russian).
  • Linde A. N. (2015). Deliberative democracy as a direction in the modern theory of democracy: an analysis of the main approaches // The contours of global transformations: politics, economics, law, 8(1), 52–58. (in Russian).
  • McDermott J. J. (1981). The Philosophy of John Dewey. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press.
  • Mirowski Ph. (2012). Physics and the marginalist revolution // Terra Economicus, 10(1), 100–116. (in Russian).
  • Schmidt V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse // Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 302–326.
  • Skocpol T. (1999). Why I am a Historical Social Scientist. // Extensions: Journal of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, 16–19.
  • Steinmo S., Thelen K. and Longstreth F. (eds). (1992). Structuring Politics. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Thompson J. K. (2005). John Dewey and pragmatic economics. Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt University Press.
  • Weinberg D. (2014). Contemporary Social Constructionism: Key Themes. Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press.
  • Yefimov V. M. (2016). Economic Science in Question: Other Methodology, History, and Research Practice. Moscow, COURSE; INFRA-M. (in Russian).
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297