Индустриализм и линии раскола в политической экономии
This article reveals the changes in meaning that the concept of the “classical school in political economy” experienced in the course of nineteenth-century industrialization. The development of liberal Anglo-French political economy is traced in its “optimistic” (Smith, Say) and “pessimistic” (Ricardo, Malthus) versions. An account is provided of the transformation of the liberal school into “orthodoxy”, which provided a theoretical justification for economic rivalry accompanied by indifference to the fate of the poor classes (laissez faire, apologetic Ricardianism, “Manchesterism”). Also provided is an account of the split within “orthodoxy”, a rift associated with the emergence of the concepts of the inevitability of crises of overproduction (Sismondi) and of the appropriation by capitalists of surplus value (Thompson). Particular attention is devoted to the fundamental difference between Marx’s interpretation of “classical political economy” and the concepts of the “classical school” in the bourgeois university tradition, including in Russia. Also noted is the influence exerted by the Saint Simon School on Marxian political economy at its formative stage.
The article is devoted to the influence of Giambattista Vico on Edward Said. It claims, first, that Vico inspired Said to engage in the intellectual-political project of Postcolonial Studies, and second, that Saidian reading of Vico is the most sophisticated, detailed and fresh left interpretation of the great Neapolitan philosopher in the twentieth century.
Written on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Piero Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, the papers selected and contained in this book accounts for the work completed around the two central aspects of his contribution to economic analysis, namely the criticism of the neoclassical (or 'marginalist') theory of value and distribution, and the reconstruction of economic theory along the lines of the Classical approach. Divided into three volumes, the book debates the most fruitful routes for advancements in this field and their implications for applied and policy analysis. The third volume collects papers concerning the interpretation of Sraffa's contribution, its relation with other streams in economic thinking, methodological debates and the history of economic thought or the evolution of his views both in general and on specific themes.
The paper analyzes the classical and neoclassical assumptions concerning the effect of the natural and the institutional environments on the comparative welfare of various countries. The distinction is considered between the preindustrial and industrial societies as to their natural and institutional conditions.
The M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky’s view on the national factor role of economic development is considered in the article. His relevant works on political economy and the unknown article on anti-Semitism are analyzed. His public activities and memoirs are considered. The contrast between nationalistic ideas and Tugan-Baranovsky’s ethical principles based on Kantianism is shown. The distinctions between his theoretical position on the national aspects of economics and positions of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Sombart and P.B. Struve are shown. The author came to conclusion, that M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky’s social views do not include nationalistic elements.
In the article the author looks into the theoretical prospects of socialist utopia rebirth as the so called horizon line that is impossible to cross, but easy to see as if it were reachable. The author shows that post-Fordism capitalizing and alienating nonmaterial labor has become a real problem for the radical negation in the framework of neo-Marxist utopia since under such conditions any social alternative is in danger of becoming a part of the capitalist reality. Such disciplinary power of the modern capitalist logic generates rejection of the political action as it is rather than a protest. In this situation radical Marxist utopia comes down to the affective negation that cannot become a subject to reflection. Its creators and proponents do not want to find themselves in the capitalist present, aspiring in their expectations into the future that will not grow out of the modern capitalism and will never be capitalism in principle.
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.