Classification of the trends in modern economic theory: paradigmatic aspects of the problem analysis

The article considers the problem of classifying the directions of economic theory related to understanding the historical logic and prospects for the development of mainstream and unorthodox research. In line with the theory of T. Kun and the concept of I. Lakatos, the author shows that these studies are mainly developed within the framework of the general paradigm. Its nucleus acts in the form of “homo economicus”, and the periphery in the form of various institutional interpretations. In the mainstream program society is not considered by a real actor, therefore, an institutionalinstrumental approach is applied, within the framework of which economic descriptions are created on the basis of the liberal concept of a bunch of property rights, which ensures the priority of private interests. In unorthodox program society acts as a real actor and uses a valueinstitutional approach, according to which the economy is analyzed from the standpoint of the social concept of a bunch of property rights and understanding of society as a supreme owner. The author substantiates the statement that the classics of political economy proposed a cognitive paradigm, which, unlike the traditional paradigm, allows us to study the endogenous processes of economic development based on the dual nature of the economic interests of subjects and the classical concept of property. In the classical paradigm, taking into account the ideas of Aristotle and medieval thinkers, public property is understood as a complex-structure phenomenon, acting as a historical and logical basis for the analysis of various forms of property and economic systems of traditional and modern societies. The classical perspective focuses on creating the adequate realities of the sovereign model of the Russian economy based on a change in the outdated architecture of property relations and economic relations in accordance with the priority of the interests of society.

1. Aristotle (1983). Works: in 4 vols. V. 4. Moscow: Misl’. (In Russ.)

2. Biryukov V.V. (2023). The economic model of man in the context of a systematic approach to the study of the economy. Economics of Contemporary Russia, no. 3 (102), pp.155–165. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.33293/1609-1442-2023-3(102)-155-165; EDN: PNCTLA

3. Vai S. (2023). The use of the political and economic theory of Marx for the analysis of the modern world. AlterEconomics, no. 1(20), pp. 152–165. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.20-1.8

4. Hegel G.V.F. (1990). Philosophy of law. Moscow: Misl’. (In Russ.)

5. Glazyev S.Yu. (2024). On the place of socialism in the new world system. Russian Economic Journal, no. 5, pp. 4–31. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.52210/ 01309757_2024_5_4

6. Kleiner G.B. (2024). Systems Economy, Justice Society, Effective Competition: The Imperatives of the Next Day. Journal of Modern Competition, no. 18(4), pp. 6–20.(In Russ.) DOI: 10.37791/2687-0657-2024-18-4-6-20

7. Locke J. (1988). Works: in 3 vol. V. 3. Moscow: Misl’. (In Russ.)

8. Marx K. (1962). Capital. V. 3. Part 2. Marx K., Engels F. Collected Works. 2nd ed. Vol. 25. Part 2. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russ.)

9. Momjyan K.Kh. (2023). Society as an institutional form of the existence of social reality. Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy), no. 4, pp. 18–28. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2023-4-18-28

10. North D., Wallis J., Wallis B. (2011). Violence and social orders: Conceptual framework for interpretation of the written history of mankind. Moscow: Publ. Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy. (In Russ.)

11. O’Hara F. (2009). Modern principles of an unorthodox political economy. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 12, pp. 38–57. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2009-12-38-57

12. Razuvaev N.V. (2013). Legal prerequisites for the emergence and evolution of the state: outline of legal anthropology. Izvestia of Universities. Jurisprudence (Pravovedenie), no. 4, pp. 64–84. (In Russ.)

13. Frolov D.P. (2022). The future of pluralistic institutional theory. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 4, pp. 45–69. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2022-4-45-69

14. Alexander G. (2018). Property and Human Flourishing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/ 9780190860745.001. 0001

15. Ambrosino A., Cedrin M., Davis J.B. (2024). Today’s Economics: One, No One and One Hundred Thousand. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 59–76. DOI: 10.1080/ 09672567.2023.2238857

16. Brown A., Spencer D.A. (2012). The Nature of Economics and the Failings of the Mainstream: Lessons from Lionel Robbins’s Essay. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 781–798. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bes018

17. Deakin S., Gindis D. et al. (2017). Legal Institutionalism: Capitalism and the Constitutive Role of Law. Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 188–200. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jce. 2016.04.005

18. Di Robilant A. (2023). The Making of Modern Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ 9781108859844

19. Domènech A., Bertomeu M.J. (2016). Property, Freedom and Money: Modern Capitalism Reassessed. European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 245–263. DOI: 10.1177/1368431015600022

20. Heisse C. (2025) Whither economics imperialism? Debating Ambrosino, Cedrini and Davis. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 32, no. 1,

21. pp. 136–156. DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2024.2433980

22. Hodgson G.M. (2021a). Debating the Future of Heterodox Economics. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 603–614. DOI: 10.1080/ 00213624.2021.1945874

23. Hodgson G.M. (2021b). Financial Institutions and the British Industrial Revolution: Did Financial Underdevelopment Hold Back Growth? Journal of Institutional Economics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 429–448. DOI: 10.1017/ S174413742000065X

24. Jefferies W. (2021). Marx’s Forgotten Transformation Solution: The Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in Marx’s Grundrisse and Maksakovsky’s The Capitalist Cycle. History of Economics Review. Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 18–37. DOI: 10.1080/ 10370196.2021.1952004

25. Kurz H. (2016). German and Austrian schools. In: H. Kurz, G. Faccarello (eds.). Handbook on the history of economic analysis, vol. II. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 252–273.

26. Laín B., Manjarín E. (2022). Private, Public and Common. Republican and Socialist Blueprints. Theoria, vol. 69, no. 171, pp. 49–73. DOI:10.3167/th.2022.6917104

27. Lawson T. (2013). What is this ‘School’ Called Neoclassical Economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 947–983. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bet027

28. Mayer C. (2021). The future of the Corporation and the economics of purpose. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 887–901. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12660

29. Nili S. (2023). Philosophizing the indefensible: Strategic political theory. New York (NY): Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/ 9780198872160.001.0001

30. Olsen E.J. (2022). The early modern «creation» of property and its enduring influence. European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 21, no1, pp. 111–133. DOI: 10.1177/1474885119882146

31. Stiglitz J.E. (2019). People, power, and profits: Progressive capitalism for an age of discontent. New York; London: W.W. Norton.

32. Walsh R. (2021). Property rights and social justice: Progressive property in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ 9781108551373