Российская традиция экономического анализа конца XIX - первой трети XX в.: системно-аналитический подход
The chapter explores the tradition of economic analysis that existed in Russia from 1890 to 1935, and provided the names of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, V.K. Dmitriev, G.A. Charasoff, E.E. Slutsky et al.
In the last decade Russia has searched for new alternative policies to compensate for its political deficiencies and to balance its rivals in one of the key areas of the approaching geopolitical rivalry, the sea. The Russian assertiveness seen in the Black Sea-Mediterranean basin has recently been a real concern for the international community. In the six chapters of this book, contributors explain Moscow’s newly perceived assertive foreign and security behavior in the Black Sea and Mediterranean basin from their own perspectives, and reach a conclusion about the limits and validity of this new Russian ascendance in the region.
The tradition of circuit-flow (der Kreislauf) models from Quesnay up to Sraffa belongs to so called thematic traditions, by terminology of G. Holton. It requires perpetual historical and analytical reconstruction for continuous development. In this article new circular-flow scheme is proposed and analyzed.
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).
This chapter deals with the problems of author's implementation of "reversal tradition" method (via intellectual biography of N.D. Kondratieff)
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.