Лицом к человеку: достижения и вызовы поведенческой экономики
The paper traces the historical roots of the concept “economic man”, and reveals the main methodological characteristics of the rational choice model, which traditionally constituted the “hard core” of the economic approach to human behavior. The phrase Homo oeconomicus was coined in Great Britain at the end of the 19th century by critics of political economy in order to fix at the terminological level the apparent unrealisticness of the ideas the latter had developed about human being and human behavior. However, economists quickly appropriated this concept, making it neutral and starting to use it for their own analytical purposes. At the same time, they understood from the very beginning that it was nothing more than an abstract conceptual scheme, incapable of claiming descriptive realism. Accordingly, its criticism by sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists most often turned out to be untenable due to their erroneous confusion of the concepts of “analytical construct” and “anthropological type”. Next, the paper highlights the transformation of modern economics from a mono-paradigmatic into a multi-paradigmatic discipline, and the emergence within it of numerous competing models of man. In this context, several incarnations of Homo oeconomicus are discussed: the traditional (“narrow”) version; the extended (Beckerian) version; behavioral economics; neuroeconomics; and genoeconomics. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of different perceptions of man intrinsic to economics and sister social sciences. The author concludes that, in its modified and truncated form, the conventional Homo oeconomicus remains a reference point even for the latest studies in economics and psychology, where it is subject to various deconstructions
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.