The article discusses the ways of creating unified economic theory describing the functioning and interaction of significant units of the national economy and the economy as a whole. The general construction of a unified economic theory, its connection with the system economic theory and its system components (object, process, project, environmental economic theories) is determined. Based on the example of institutional economic theory, it is shown that the expansion of its terminology and conceptual apparatus within the framework of the construction of a unified multi-level economic theory allows minimizing the contradictions between the “old” and “new” institutionalism, methodological individualism and methodological holism. This expansion is carried out following the principle of the maximum possible system community in two lines. The first line is expanding the subject area (along with organizations as systems of the object type, systems of the process, project, the environment types are also considered as the focal subject of study). The second line is the expanding the instrumental area (analysis of the influence on the behavior of agents from not only institutional subsystems but also information, infrastructural, network, mental, and other environmental subsystems). As a result, each system receives the compact and maximum volumetric internal systemic content and, at the same time, the minimum volumetric external systemic environment, which creates conditions for the effective application of the duality principle in the theory of economic systems. Thus, the system expansion of institutional theory should take place in two lines: content of the theory per se and creation of its immediate environment.

The constant adaptation of economic theory to changing practice at certain stages requires a theoretical synthesis, during which various (sometimes competing) research  programs are combined in order to develop a more adequate methodology. In orthodox economic theory the two most important syntheses were: the neoclassical synthesis of the 1940–1960s and the new neoclassical synthesis of the 1990s. Both were intradisciplinary in nature. However, the developed toolkit of neoclassical orthodoxy still does not allow the study of the “risks of the system as a whole” and making confident long-term forecasts of economic development. This current situation determines the relevance of research within the framework of the system paradigm, with the help of which such problems can be solved. This paper discusses the characteristics of the system paradigm and analyzes why this paradigm is poorly represented in neoclassical orthodoxy. The paper considers barriers to the spread of the system paradigm, associated with the  worldview of modern economists-theoreticians The paper also analyses the methodological prerequisites of neoclassical orthodoxy, the specifics of which also act as a barrier to the development of the system paradigm in economic research.  This paper outlines, for the first time, the general shape of the interdisciplinary institutional synthesis, the formation of which has been observed in Russia since the beginning of the 2010s. Its distinctive features are as follows. First, it develops outside economic orthodoxy, in the course of research cooperation between heterodox economists and representatives of social, humanitarian and natural disciplines – that is, it is an interdisciplinary (polydisciplinary) synthesis. Second, the main subject of research within its framework are institutions or, more broadly, meso-level structures that ensure the integrity, reproduction, and development of socio-economic systems. Third, the methodological basis of interdisciplinary cooperation within the framework of the institutional synthesis is provided by a system paradigm and holistic approach which are different from the neoclassical orthodoxy. Some examples of the institutional synthesis presented in Russian economic literature and its practical  results are shown. The prospects for the further development of the theoretical interdisciplinary institutional synthesis are outlined.

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.

The development of institutionalism was not limited to the transition from the old theory to the new one: time is changing, the behavior of economic agents – ​carriers, voluntary or involuntary, of the institutions, whether formal or informal, is changing, – ​institutions that, in turn, are themselves the object of changes. This nature of the object under study poses a difficult task for researchers: to identify, with the help of changing (developing, adapting) tools, the essence of the modern institutions and the ones that can take place in the future, which is in a state of permanent development (evolution). The article describes the system logic of institutions, the reasons for institutional changes, especially caused by the current pandemic, highlights the problems and prospects for the development of the institutional economics from an ecosystem perspective. The latter circumstance presupposes going beyond the purely systemic approach to the study of the institutional system by including the features of the interaction of the system under study with the relevant metasystem, which forms a functional unity with the system and, therefore, is interpreted in aggregate as an ecosystem.

The main characteristics of approaches to the discussion of the sufficiency of grounds for the introduction / cancellation of state regulation due to the identification of failures in the price mechanism are revealed. The comparison of approaches is presented on the basis of the problem of externalities. In this regard, the provisions from the theory of externalities have been clarified in terms of their definition and correlation with the conditions for optimal allocation of resources, and certain types of external effects are presented. The key types of correction of price mechanism failures are considered, including regulatory intervention, setting up the price mechanism (including the creation of missing markets), maintaining the status quo with externalities. On this basis, the main properties of the Pigouvian and Coasian approaches in economics are determined in relation to the problems of this form of market failure. The features of Coasianism as a functionalist approach to research in contrast to fundamental liberalism are revealed. Taking into account the importance of values, the opportunities for designing of compensatory transactions and the supply and demand of economic knowledge, assessments of the prospects of functionalism and fundamentalisms are presented as a guide to action in the field of discussion and political decision-making. The comparative advantages of functionalism and fundamentalisms in the intellectual traditions of discussing the role of the state in the economy are shown.

Post-institutionalism is a promising direction in the study of institutions, developing the methodological ideas of critical institutionalism to build an extended institutional approach (in G. Hodgson's terminology). The mission of post-institutionalism is the development of interdisciplinary, complexity-centered methodologies for the analysis of institutions, allowing the development of institutional research beyond the framework of both new and original institutional theories. The article briefly outlines the logic of the creation and origins of the post-institutional theory, provides its methodological features, philosophical foundations, and guidelines for the research program. Post-institutionalists proceed from the fact that the methodological tools of both the new institutional economics and the traditional (“old”) institutionalism are inadequate to the tasks of understanding and explaining the qualitatively complicated institutions of late capitalism. Such institutions are internally heterogeneous, highly fluid, combine different coordinating principles (logics), their functions and boundaries are difficult to identify. The focus of special attention in post-institutional economics is assemblages – ​institutional systems that combine heterogeneous institutions with irreducible logics. Institutional assemblages are highly adaptive but also functionally redundant and conflict-prone. Bricolage is considered as the main type of institutional change in post-institutionalism, which is understood as the recombinant creation of institutions by a multitude of actors from the elements available in the access to solve current institutional problems. Institutional change agents are not only institutional entrepreneurs, but also institutional “workers”, i. e. ordinary actors in their daily routine. The main function of institutions from the point of view of post-institutionalism is not the minimization of transaction costs, but the creation of transaction value.

The article analyses the influence of the philosophy of metamodernism on the institutional economic theory. The author considered the philosophy of metamodernism as a complex of ideas that form the “spirit of the times” – ​the “era of metamodernity”, which is an external environment in relation to institutional economic theory. Having analyzed the key characteristics of modernity and postmodernity, the author proved that metamodernity is not only a synthesis of the philosophical ideas of modernity and postmodernity, but also a new worldview that embraces the entire socio-economic reality. The author formulated the features of the era of metamodernity in the context of economics-society-institutions. The author found that under the influence of the ideas of metamodernity, there have been changes in the motivation of economic agents: from the satisfaction of subjective preferences to the search for new emotional reactions. This, in turn, led to changes in collective (social) economic behavior: rejection of traditional values in favor of values of self-expression, rejection of long-term relationships in favor of long-term ones. According to the author, changes in individual and collective economic behavior occur in parallel with institutional changes at the micro, meso and macro levels: hierarchical institutional structures are being replaced by socio-economic and business ecosystems. Exploring the evolution of economic science in the context of evolution from modern philosophy to postmodern and metamodern philosophy, the author revealed the influence of the ideas of metamodernity on modern economic theory in general and institutional economic theory in particular. The author found that under the influence of the ideas of metamodernity, changes occur in the object and subject of economic research, which requires the improvement of the methodology of institutional economic theory based on an interdisciplinary approach.

The article substantiates the thesis that any policy is always based on a certain set of ideas and views. This set of ideas is guided by people working in government bodies, and first of all, the heads of these bodies. It is shown that the authorities take steps to develop the parameters of economic development and ensure compliance with these parameters by all elements of the system on the basis of the existing ideology. It is noted that from the point of view of the system approach, the basic elements of the system of economic relations are households. Therefore, the parameters of the “economic relations” system development should characterize the improvement of the condition of each household. It is proved that the existing de facto ideology of enrichment and the corresponding economic policy does not and will not be able to ensure sustainable economic growth, since they are not aimed at ensuring the growth of the well-being of all households. The vector of changes in economic policy is indicated in the case of legislative and institutional consolidation of a new ideology – ​“improving the welfare of all households”. It is shown that such a change in ideology will necessarily entail a demand for scientific justification of the nomenclature and assortment of household needs and the necessary ways to ensure them. On the basis of a systematic approach, a forecast is given of what may happen in the country if these ideological changes are not made.

The process of free formation and development of the creative potential of corporations in the context of the expansion of the digital economy is associated with the emergence of specific obstacles, which in economic theory are called development traps. Verifying this position, the article analyzes the institutional pitfalls of the development of creative potential caused by modern transformations. The concept of the institutional trap, first formulated in the works of P. David and D. North, and further developed in the works of A. Auzan, E. Balatsky, G. Kleiner, V. Polterovich seems to have been known and developed for a long time, but this is the trap of the trap itself. Despite all the banality and familiarity of the category of institutional trap in the Russian economy associated with the establishment of an inefficient norm, in recent years it has again attracted the attention of participants in various areas of scientific research, since it has significant hidden opportunities in the study of the formation and development of the creative potential of the corporation in the era of modern transformations. The creative potential, represented as a powerful creative force, endowed with special intellectual capital and competencies, is actively involved in accelerating transformations, the results of which are not always predictable, expected, accompanied by certain obligations and very unpredictable inertial results. Effective implementation of the creative potential of the corporation and its intellectual core involves expanding the opportunities for free generation of the creative potential of the corporation and overcoming specific obstacles to this formation associated with the processes of large-scale economic transformations, network development, corporate standardization and nationalization. We present the creative potential of the corporation as a kind of intellectual core, consisting of professional intellectuals who are able to generate new business development ideas and offer capital combinations of resources that do not fit into the standards, claiming to be the main ones. Through the prism of the pitfalls of developing the creative potential of the corporation, the author examines the main problems and contradictions of the transformations taking place in the Russian economy at the present stage. The research was conducted using the resources of the system economy, creative economy, knowledge economy, institutional economy, dialectics method, comparative analysis method, and empirical method.

The article examines the population explosion and its consequences for developing countries in the 21 century. As a result of compulsory vaccination of the entire adult and child population in Asia, Africa and Latin America, a sharp reduction in mortality and an increase in overall life expectancy were achieved. As a result, although fertility in these countries was still governed by the laws of pre-industrial society, mortality began to be governed by the laws of post-industrial society. In the second half of the twentieth century, a rapid population growth began, which will continue throughout this century. This led to significant changes in the structure of the world's population: the share of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America has increased sharply. As a result, by 2100, of the 20 largest countries in the world by population, 19 will be countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Demographic growth has exacerbated the problem of catching-up development and forced these countries to look more energetically for solutions to the problem of social inequality. In this regard, the recommendations of institutionalists, starting with G. Myrdal, turned out to be extremely in demand.