About some problems of trends’ classification in modern economic theory

The ideas of the impossibility of a universal economic theory are criticized: based on the principle of the unity of the world. If the world is united, then particular theories describing some of its fragments (aspects) should, in principle, be reducible to a general theory. Many critics of universal theories themselves are their bearers, and statements in the style of «the flow of data makes the scientific method obsolete» are nothing more than a methodological regression to naive empiricism, in the spirit of positivism of the late 19th century. It is shown that works classifications are found in many economic with the allocation of classes on multiple grounds, which is logically unacceptable. Economic theory as a scientific discipline should deal with the analysis of the internal structure of economic theories. The problem is: the explication of the list of principles accepted in the construction of the theory is the exception rather than the rule. The thesis is criticized in many cases the methodology determines the choice of axiomatics, and not vice versa. The axiomatic of a theory cannot depend on methods, because tasks define methods, and not vice versa. It is shown that the primary basis of the neoclassical revolution was not the ultimate analysis, but the adoption of the ontological principle of subjectivism. The meaning of the concept of «paradigm» was clarified. If we interpret the concept of a paradigm in the spirit of T. Kuhn, then different paradigms are not just any two theories that differ in some principles (even if the theories are fundamental). Two different paradigms are two belief systems (a priori principles and basic models) regarding the subject area of a scientific discipline that are incompatible with each other. With this understanding, only two paradigms stand out in economic theory: classical and neoclassical. The issue of integrating two economic paradigms is, in the essence, the synthesis of micro- and macroeconomics. It is shown that two principal strategies are possible: (A) considering the equilibrium situation as a general case, and striving to include non-equilibrium macroeconomics in this general description as a special case. (B) Considering the situation of lack of equilibrium as a general case, and including microeconomic equilibrium in the macrotheory as a special case (and also to complete the micro-­foundations for a non-equilibrium macrotheory). The thesis is substantiated that the basis of paradigmatic synthesis in economics should be strategy (B).

1. Avtonomov V.S. (1993). Man in the Mirror of Economic Theory. Moscow: Nauka (in Russ.)

2. Аvtonomov V.С. (2013). Abstractions in Economics. Journal of the New Economic Association, no. 4, pp. 160–162 (in Russ.)

3. Avtonomov V.S. (2024). The Fate of «Grand Theories» in Economic Science. Issues of Economic Theory, no. 1, pp. 96–105 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2024_1_96_105

4. Avtonomov V.S., Avtonomov Yu.V. (2016). The general theory of «disputes about methods» in economics. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, no. 4, pp. 5–20 (in Russ.) EDN: WHRXUP

5. Bazhenov G., Maltsev A. (2018). Modern heterodox directions of economic theory in the context of mainstream transformation. Society and Economy, no. 1, pp. 5–21 (in Russ.) EDN: YMCMFP

6. Blaug M. (2004). The Methodology of economics, or How economists explain. Moscow: Zhurnal «Voprosy Ekonomiki» (in Russ.)

7. Bacon F. (1972). New Organon. New Atlantis. In: Essays. In 2 vols. V. 2. Moscow: Mysl (in Russ.)

8. Egorov D.G. (2016). Neoclassics vs Classics: whether there is in the Economic Theory the Third Way? World Economy and International Relations, no. 6, pp. 35–41 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-6-35-41

9. Egorov D. (2021). How Many Paradigms There are in Economic Theory – ​and Can It Become a One-­Paradigm Science. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, no. 5, pp. 129–142 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.31857/S086904990017287-7

10. Egorov D.G. (2022). Where the Principles Come From. Philosophy of Science, no. 1, pp. 21–31 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.15372/PS20220102

11. Egorov D.G., Egorova A.V. (2020). On the Construction of a Non-­Equilibrium Microtheory. Society and Economy, no. 2, pp. 18–33 (in Russ.) EDN: EDZKFA

12. Egorov D.G., Egorova A.V. (2021). How many paradigms are there in economics? Society and Economy, no. 2, pp. 31–42 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.31857/S020736760013635-7

13. Egorov D.G., Egorova A.V. (2022). On the methodology of the modern mainstream economic theory. Age of Globalization, no. 1, pp. 111–125 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.30884/vglob/2022.01.08

14. Efimov V.M. (2016) Economic science in question: other methodology, history and research practices. Moscow, INFRA-M (in Russ.)

15. Kapelyushnikov R.I. (2018). On the current state of economic science: semi-sociological observations. Where is modern economic science moving? Moscow: Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, pp. 8–33 (in Russ.)

16. Keynes J.M. (1993). General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Collected works. Moscow: Ekonomika, pp. 224–518 (in Russ.)

17. Kirdina-­Chandler S.G. (2023). On Synthesis and Interdisciplinarity in Economics: Сomparison of Russian and English Discourses. AlterEconomics, no. 1, pp. 59–78 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.20-1.4

18. Klain M. (1984). Mathematics. Loss of certainty. Moscow, Mir (in Russ.)

19. Clarke J.B. (2000). The distribution of wealth. A theory of wages, interest and profits. Moscow: Gelios ARV (in Russ.)

20. Kleiner G.B. (2024). Economic paradigms, public ethics, socio-­economic institutions: dynamics and relationships. Economics of Contemporary Russia, no. 2, pp. 7–16 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.33293/1609-1442-2024-2(105)-7-16

21. Kornai J. (1999). System Paradigm. Society and Economy, no. 3–4, pp. 85–96 (in Russ.)

22. Koshovets O.B. (2019). «Horizontal Progress» of Economic Science: Between Constructed Reality and Technoscience. Moscow: Institute of Economics, RAS (in Russ.)

23. Koshovets O.B., Frolov I.E. (2020). Is science in danger or is (techno)science becoming? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, no. 1, pp. 51–58 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.5840/eps20205716

24. Crouch С. (2012). The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Moscow: Delo (in Russ.)

25. Libman A. (2007). Modern economic theory: the main trends. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 3, pp. 36–54 (in Russ.) DOI: 32609/0042-8736-2007-3-35-54

26. Majevsky V.I. (1999). Evolutionary Theory and Nonequilibrium Processes. Economics of Contemporary Russia, no. 4, pp. 45–62 (in Russ.)

27. Parkhimenko V.A. (2024). The second Leontief Paradox: Economic theory or economic engineering? Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 2, pp. 84–102 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2024-2-84-102

28. Popper K. (1983). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pp. 33–235. In: Popper K. The Logic and Growth of Scientific Discovery. Moscow: Progress (in Russ.)

29. Stepin V.М. (2000). Theoretical knowledge. Moscow: Progress-­Traditio (in Russ.)

30. Stiglitz J. (1997). Alternative approaches to macroeconomic: Methodological problems and New Keynesianism. World Economy and International Relations, no. 5, p. 64–72 (in Russ.)

31. Stiglitz J. (2011). A Steep Dive: America and New Economic Order after the Global Crisis. Moscow: EKSMO (in Russ.)

32. Tambovtsev V.L. (2020). The Unproductiveness of Attempts at Methodological Synthesis. Issues of Economic Theory, no. 3, pp. 7–31 (in Russ.) DOI: 10.24411/2587-7666-2020-10301

33. Hayek F. (1992) The Fatal Conceit. The Errors of Socialism. Moscow: Novosti (in Russ.)

34. Anderson C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. URL: https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ (access: 19.11.2024).

35. Colander D., Holt R., Rosser B. (2003). The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics. Middlebury College Economics Discussion. Paper no. 03–27. URL: http://community.middlebury.edu/~colander/articles/Changing%20Face%20of%20Mainstream%20Economics.pdf (access: 19.11.2024).

36. Kuhn T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

37. Pareto V. (1909). Manuel d’Économie Politique. Paris: Giard & Briere.

38. Popper K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Vol. 1–2. London: Routledge.

39. Popper K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. London: Oxford University Press.

40. Rodrik D. (2015). Economic Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science. New York: W.W. Norton.

41. Woodford M. (2009). Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, no. 1, pp. 267–279.