У истоков российской экономической мысли (К 290-летию "Книги о скудости и богатстве" И. Т. Посошкова)
The peasant-entrepreneur Ivan Pososhkov (1652–1726) is considered the first Russian economist, as his «Book of Poverty and Wealth» is the earliest works of Russian social thought, especially on the integrated coverage of socio-economic problems – the role of the state in the economy, tax collection, trade, serfdom, regulation of monetary circulation, «rule of law», etc. Analysis of the «Book of Poverty and Wealth» displays on the general discussion of the Russian economic model, because the idea of IT Pososhkov reflects contradictions and problems not only the era of Peter’s reforms, but also throughout almost 400 years of tragic history of modernization of Russian society. The collective monograph presents the work of the conference participants «At the dawn of Russian economic thought», which took place February 27, 2014 at the Moscow Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and was dedicated to the 290th anniversary of the «Book of Poverty and Wealth» IT Pososhkov. The first section of the book examines how the views of Pososhkov relate to the basic paradigm of economic thought of modern times. The second section is devoted to a comparison of views of Pososhkov with the views of other Russian philosophers – economists in XVII–XIX centuries. This publication is intended not only for specialists in economic history and the history of economic thought, but also for all those interested in the history of the national economy and economics..
The chapter deals with the problem of demarcation of Russian economic thought. The point of demarcation is 1890 - the year of publication of the M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky' article on the marginal utility of economic goods.
This book explores the application of field theory (patterns of interaction) to Russian economic history, and how social and political fields mediate the influences of institutions, structures, discourses and ideologies in the creation and dissemination of economic thinking, theory and practice. Using focused cases on Russia's economy from the mid-nineteenth century to the present, Hass and co-authors expand the empirical basis of field studies to provide new material on Russian economic history. The cases are divided into two complementary halves: i) The role of fields of institutions, discourses, and structures in the development of Russian economic thought, especially economic theories and discourses; and ii) The role of fields in the real adoption and implementation of policies in Soviet and Russian economic history.
With developed discussion of fields and field theory, this book moves beyond sociology to demonstrate to other disciplines the relation of fields and field theory to other frameworks and methodological considerations for field analysis, as well as providing new empirical insights and narratives not as well-known abroad.
The article studies the important (for resurrection of Russian tradition of economic analysis) problem of relationship between the ideas of N.D. Kondratieff and E.E. Slutsky during the period 1910-1930s. The problem is considered in the frames of statistical method used by both scientists. The attention is focused on two features of method's application, namely the correlation theory and interpretations of the large numbers law. Instead of widely-known summative approach to the intellectual heritage of the scientists, genetic approach is used. Historical context related with A.A. Tchouprow and his adepts - N.S. Chetverikov and О.N. Anderson - is added. The article continues the series of research submitted in the previously published collections: Kondratieff 's Suzdal Letters, 1932-1938 (2004), Kondratieff 's Conjuncture Institute: Selected works (2010) and Slutsky's Selected economic and statistical works (2010).
Many liberal IR theorists argue that the spread of liberal capitalism has a civilizing influence on international relations because it decreases the role and importance of the state in the economy. Commercial relations between individuals and private enterprises based on market principles replace power based relations between states The pursuit of power advantage over other states, which has been the guiding principle of state policy for centuries, becomes an anachronism and is replaced by the pursuit of integration into the larger global economy. States are more willingness to participate in institutions because they establish rules of the game that make economic cooperation run more smoothly. The article questions the logic of this argument. Economic integration and global free trade are opening up new areas of competition between states, as Russia and other rising powers compete with the developed states of the West to attain the most profitable parts of the global marketplace. As a result, rising states are adopting neo-mercantalist policies that seek to increase their power advantages over other states. Like the 17th and 18th Century mercantilists described by Jacob Viner decades ago in his seminal essay “Power and Plenty”, they do not see a tradeoff between the pursuit of state power and economic prosperity but see these as mutually reinforcing goals. Economic integration and global free trade are opening up new areas of competition between states, as Russia and other rising powers compete with the developed states of the West to attain the most profitable parts of the global marketplace. States adopt a range of neo-mercantilist strategies in order to ensure that they are the ones that benefit most from the open world economy. Economic concerns may be taking priority over security concerns, as the prospects of military confrontation between states may have greatly diminished because economic integration makes it prohibitively costly. But states continue to be preoccupied with improving their power relative to other states because they see the pursuit of relative power advantages as being key to advancing their economic goals and securing prosperity for their countries.
Chapter 6, by Denis Melnik, reviews the three periods in the development of economic science in Russia during the last two centuries. As is shown, these periods, for different reasons, provided an unfavorable context for the reception of Ricardo’s economics. For about a half of the nineteenth century the name of Ricardo was not unknown but his theory did not attract attention (Sections 2). During the period that started at the 1860s and ended with the Russian Revolution the consensus towards Ricardo among the majority of Russian economists was based on a respectful distance. Still, there were the attempts to actualize Ricardo’s economics. Nikolai Ivanovich Sieber, the first translator of Ricardo into Russian, regarded his theory as a preceding stage to Marx’s, while Yuli Galaktionovich Zhukovsky, who rejected Marxism from the very beginning, made an attempt to reformulate the Ricardo’s theory in terms not dissimilar to the later neoclassical interpretation. The subsequent rise of marginalist theory and the heated debates among the Marxists at the turn of the twentieth century resulted in a strive to ‘synthesize’ classical and marginalist approaches to value and distribution characteristic for a part of Russian economists. It was a background for Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev’s original interpretation (Section 3). During the Soviet period the canonical version of the history of economic thought placed Ricardo as an immediate predecessor to Marx. A comparison between the approaches to Ricardo’s economics proposed by Issak Illich Rubin and Piero Sraffa (Section 4) allows to outline the difference between two lines in development of the classical approach in the twentieth century.
Collection is based on the extraordinary Kondratieff Readings conducted under II Russian Economic Congress, with the addition of new archival data about N.D. Kondratieff' family.
The chapter presents an overview of the development of economics in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia by focusing on the different interpretations of Ricardo’s theory prevailing over this period. The choice of the reference point will make the overview somewhat selective, but still it is not an arbitrary one. Ricardian theory entered Russia relatively late, in the 1870s. By that time it was considered already a part of the history of economics. However the debates between the different approaches in economics led to the confrontation of the corresponding versions of its history. Due to the rigorous style of Ricardo’s writings, their interpretation allowed less space for ideological or political connotations, comparing to the interpretations of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Hence, the study of the different interpretations of Ricardian theory in the competing theoretical approaches allows to grasp the analytical difference between them.
The chapter is concentrated mainly on the history of pre-revolutionary Russian economics.
A creative heritage of the Russian economist S.A. Pervushin (1888-1966) is considered.
The article analyzes and classifies the major historical-economic works written by economists from St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, and shows their role for the development of the national economic doctrine.
Smoking is a problem, bringing signifi cant social and economic costs to Russiansociety. However, ratifi cation of the World health organization Framework conventionon tobacco control makes it possible to improve Russian legislation accordingto the international standards. So, I describe some measures that should be taken bythe Russian authorities in the nearest future, and I examine their effi ciency. By studyingthe international evidence I analyze the impact of the smoke-free areas, advertisementand sponsorship bans, tax increases, etc. on the prevalence of smoking, cigaretteconsumption and some other indicators. I also investigate the obstacles confrontingthe Russian authorities when they introduce new policy measures and the public attitudetowards these measures. I conclude that there is a number of easy-to-implementanti-smoking activities that need no fi nancial resources but only a political will.
One of the most important indicators of company's success is the increase of its value. The article investigates traditional methods of company's value assessment and the evidence that the application of these methods is incorrect in the new stage of economy. So it is necessary to create a new method of valuation based on the new main sources of company's success that is its intellectual capital.