ecr-journalЭкономическая наука современной РоссииEconomics of Contemporary Russia1609-14422618-8996Regional Public Organization for Assistance to the Development of Institutions of the Department of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences10.33293/1609-1442-2021-3(94)-33-39ecr-journal-689Research ArticleАКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ ТЕОРИИACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICSПерспективы объединения экономических институционализмовPossibilities of the Economic Institutionalism’ IntegrationТамбовцевВиталий ЛеонидовичTambovtsevVitaly L.

д.э.н., профессор, главный научный сотрудник 

vitalytambovtsev@gmail.comМГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, МоскваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State University, MoscowRussian Federation202121092021033339Copyright © Тамбовцев В.Л., 20212021Тамбовцев В.Л.Tambovtsev V.L.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.ecr-journal.ru/jour/article/view/689

Статья посвящена поиску и обоснованию ответа на вопрос, возможно ли объединение оригинальной и новой институциональных экономических теорий. Для этого, во‑первых, сравниваются методологический холизм с методологическим индивидуализмом, которые разделяют упомянутые направления экономического институционализма. Делается вывод о том, что эти методологические принципы логически несовместимы в своих онтологических основаниях, однако близки в типах объяснений анализируемых процессов и явлений. Во-вторых, сопоставляются определения института, которые, как правило, используются в этих направлениях. Из их сопоставления делается вывод, что понимание института в новой институциональной экономической теории более продуктивно, чем то, которому следуют сторонники оригинального экономического институцио­нализма. В заключительной части статьи сделан вывод о том, что сближение двух институционализмов возможно через развертывание дискуссии по результатам эмпирических исследований, которые могут показать участникам преимущества и недостатки использованных научных методов. Проведение методологических дискуссий оценивается как непродуктивное.

The article is devoted to the search and substantiation of the answer to the question whether it is possible to combine the original and new institutional economics. For this, first, methodological holism and methodological individualism are compared, which share the aforementioned directions of economic institutionalism. It is concluded that these methodological principles are logically incompatible in their ontological foundations, but they are close in the types of the analyzed processes and phenomena explanations. Secondly, the definitions of the institution are compared, which are usually used in these areas. From their comparison, it is concluded that the understanding of the institution in the new institutional economics is more productive than that followed by the supporters of the original institutional economics. In the final part of the article, it is concluded that the convergence of the two institutionalisms is possible through the deployment of a discussion based on the results of empirical research, which can show the participants the advantages and disadvantages of the scientific methods used. Methodological discussions are considered unproductive.

методологический холизмметодологический индивидуализминститутпривычкамеханизм принуждения к исполнениюmethodological holismmethodological individualisminstitutionhabitenforcement mechanismReferencesАузан А. А. (ред.) (2011). Институциональная экономика: Новая институциональная экономическая теория. 2-е изд. М.: ИНФРА-М.Auzan A. A. (ed.) (2011). Institutional economics: New institutional economics. 2nd ed. Moscow: INFRA-M (in Russian).Бирюков В. (2018). Культурологическая парадигма видения экономической деятельности // Общество и экономика. № 9. С. 91–101.Biryu­kov V. (2018). Culturological paradigm of the perception of economic reality. Society and Economy, no. 9, pp. 91–101 (in Russian).Кузьминов Я. И., Юдкевич М. М. (2002). Институциональная экономика: Курс лекций. М.: МФТИ. URL: https://mipt.ru/dbmp/upload/3f2/NIElec-arphlf43tys.pdfKuzminov Ya.I., Yudkevich M. M. (2002). Ins­titutional economics: Lectures Course. Moscow: Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University (MIPT) (in Russian). URL: https://mipt.ru/dbmp/upload/3f2/NIElec-arphlf43tys.pdfПолтерович В. М. (2016). Позитивное сотрудничество: факторы и механизмы эволюции // Вопросы экономики. № 11. С. 5–23.Polterovich V. (2016). Positive collaboration: Factors and mechanisms of evolution. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 1, pp. 5–23 (in Russian).Тамбовцев В. Л. (2021). Возможна ли единая институциональная экономическая теория? // Вопросы экономики. № 1. C. 33–51.Tambovtsev V. L. (2021). Is Unified Institutional Economics Possible? Voprosy Economiki, no. 1, pp. 33–51 (in Russian).Тамбовцев В. Л. (2020). Непродуктивность попыток методологического синтеза // Вопросы теоретической экономики. № 3. C. 7–31.Tambovtsev V. L. (2020). Unproductivity of the methodological fusion’s attempts. Theoretical Economics, no. 3, pp. 7–31 (in Russian).Durkheim E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. 8th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Durkheim E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. 8th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Goldstein L. J. (1956). The inadequacy of the principle of methodological individualism. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 25, pp. 801–813.Goldstein L. J. (1956). The inadequacy of the principle of methodological individualism. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 25, pp. 801–813.Gordon S. (2003). The history and philosophy of social science. London, New York: Routledge.Gordon S. (2003). The history and philosophy of social science. London, New York: Routledge.Gräbner C., Ghorbani A. (2019). Defining institutions – ​A review and a synthesis. Johannes Kepler University. ICAE Working Paper Series, 89, February 2019.Gräbner C., Ghorbani A. (2019). Defining institutions – ​A review and a synthesis. Johannes Kepler University. ICAE Working Paper Series, 89, February 2019.Hirsch P.M., Lounsbury M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 406–418.Hirsch P.M., Lounsbury M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 406–418.Hodgson G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–25.Hodgson G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–25.Hodgson G. M. (2019). Prospects for institutional research. RAUSP Management Journal, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 112–120.Hodgson G. M. (2019). Prospects for institutional research. RAUSP Management Journal, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 112–120.Hodgson, G.M. (2007). Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–25.Hodgson, G.M. (2007). Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–25.North D. C. (1984). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic history. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 7–17.North D. C. (1984). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic history. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 7–17.North D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.North D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.North D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 359–368.North D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 359–368.Schumpeter J. (1909). On the concept of social value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 213–232.Schumpeter J. (1909). On the concept of social value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 213–232.Tabellini G. (2010). Culture and institutions: economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 677–716.Tabellini G. (2010). Culture and institutions: economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 677–716.Udehn L. (2001). Methodological individualism: Background, history and meaning. London, New York: Routledge.Udehn L. (2001). Methodological individualism: Background, history and meaning. London, New York: Routledge.Udehn L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, no. 28, pp. 479–507.Udehn L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, no. 28, pp. 479–507.Weber M. (1968 [1921]). Basic sociological terms. Weber M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 3–62.Weber M. (1968 [1921]). Basic sociological terms. Weber M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 3–62.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.