Comment intégret l’économie comparative dans l’économie?
The paper provides comparative analysis of leading research programmes in the field of comparative economics, as well as assessment of their actual and potential role in an economist’s tool kit. Analysis covers research programmes, which are either explicitly or implicitly comparative. The first group includes both traditional Comparative Economic Systems approach (especially in versions of T.Koopmans - J.Montias and E.Neuberger - W.Duffy), and recent Comparative Institutional Analysis of A.Greif and M.Aoki. The second group is presented by German Ordo-liberalism initiated by W.Eucken and by more recent French Theorie de la regulation research programme. Comparative economics is analysed from the perspective of Eucken’s Great Antinomy with underlying controversies over the nature of economic knowledge. The challenge comes back to the Methodenstreit of the late XIX century, while adequate response to it is still on the agenda. Most of modern economic theory is highly dependent on ceteris paribus clause. It is argued that to relax this dependence, economics should take comparative research strategy quite seriously. Methodological analysis of the field of comparative economics indicates some neglected, but crucial epistemological grounds of economic inquiry (especially heuristic role of ideal-typical constructs) and points out at comparative economics as an indispensable tool for bridging gaps between theoretical and empirical inquiry, as well as between the science and the art of economics.
The thirty second issue of the collection includes two sections: «Theoretical problems of economics and institutional reforms» and «Applied problems and practice of institutional reforms in Russia
The book is dedicated to the great German sociologist Max Weber. This volume contains eleven papers originating from a symposium organized by Aleksanteri Institute in 2007. The scholars from Russia, Finland and other countries discuss various aspects of Weber's heritage and its relationship to Russia.
The article discusses several approaches to the study of Soviet society drawing on Max Weber’s theoretical models or following a broadly-understood Weberian tradition in historical sociology. Weberian perspectives have been used for the analysis of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its aftermath. The early Bolshevik Party has been characterized as a community of “ideological virtuosi” while its further development has been described either as “incomplete rationalization” or as a re-traditionalization. In the article, it is argued that employing the post-Weberian multiple modernities approach allows us to overcome some of the difficulties that have emerged in this case. In particular, the article focuses on Johann Arnason’s analysis of the Soviet model of modernity. For Arnason, the Soviet model incorporated both the legacy of imperial transformation from above and the revolutionary vision of a new society. He claims that communism represented a distinctive version of modernity rather than a deviation from the modernizing mainstream. In recent historical studies of the Soviet period, two approaches have been formed stressing the modernity of the Soviet regime or its neo-traditionalist aspects. The distinction between these approaches has been discussed by Michael David-Fox. The article considers the parallels between the new historical studies of Soviet society, on the one hand, and both Weberian and post-Weberian sociological perspectives, on the other.
Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber on value neutrality of university research The problem of value neutrality of science is considered on the basis of works by Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber. In the first part of the article, the statements on the value neutrality of scientific knowledge and university teaching by Weber and Tolstoy are made explicit and analyzed in a comparative perspective. In the second part, the central problem of Tolstoy and Weber, that is, a rational choice of the value paradigm, is studied systematically. Differences in their assumptions and conclusions are shown. In the third part, a historical commentary to the context of Tolstoys and Webers works is given. The works are treated as episodes in a wider modern history of the value neutralization of the scientific knowledge and university teaching. The specifics of this process are tightly connected with the fundamental principles of the modern research university (the Humboldtian model of university).
The article considers the principles of the legal state and rule of law, the position of the regulatory impact on the Russian economic system
It is argued that Weberian concepts such as 'charisma of reason' and 'patrimonial bureaucracy' can be applied to the Soviet system at different stages of its evolution. Neo-Weberian theories which are not based directly on Weber's ideas can also be relevant for the study of Soviet society. But theoretical approaches of historical sociology should be complemented with more empirically oriented social history of the Soviet period.
This review discusses the latest textbook on economic methodology. It shows that its authors think of the philosophy of science as primarily the philosophy of “hard”, natural sciences and have not tried to interpret economic theory as a social science. At the same time the book is characterized by its attention towards more recent methodological approaches, in particular, to the rhetoric of economics, and this direction might be considered as promising.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.