Русский
EnglishCite this article as:
Maksimov V. A. Reverse of Culture in Economic Science in Modern Research: Political Economic Aspect. Izv. Saratov Univ., Economics. Management. Law, 2018, vol. 18, iss. 4, pp. 366-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2018-18-4-366-370
Reverse of Culture in Economic Science in Modern Research: Political Economic Aspect
Introduction. The article deals with the problems of interaction between economic culture and economic science.
Theoretical analysis. The evolution of the paradigm of studying the interaction of culture and economy is analyzed, the demarcation of these concepts is carried out, the reversion of economic science to culture is theoretically investigated, and individual and collective behavior is understood within the framework of universalism and uniqueness, which finds practical application in modern comparative studies. The importance of the socio-economic culture as a factor of sustainable development is underlined.
Results. If preferences and subjective values become exogenous values, then a convenient channel for cultural penetration into the classical model of economic behavior appears, which undoubtedly enriches the orthodox economic theory. If exogenous variables are not included in the analysis, then culture cannot be imagined as a source of constraints in the rational choice model, since individuals do not have perfect information and are forced to avoid uncertainty, they “invent” (evolutionally adapt) institutions: social rules and norms of behavior; that make the surrounding reality more predictable, institutions take root in society and contribute to the sustainability of development.
1. Avtonomov, V. Guidebook on Culture for Economists. In: Begelsdajk Sh., Maseland R. Kulʹtura v ėkonomicheskoĭ nauke [Culture in Economic Science]. Moscow, St. Petersburg, 2016. 446 p. (in Russian).
2. Kulʹtura imeet znachenie. Kakim obrazom tsennosti sposobstvuiut obschestvennomu progressu [Culture is important. How values contribute to social progress. Ed. by L. Harrison, S. Huntington]. Moscow, 2002. 320 p. (in Russian).
3. Inglehart R. Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton, NY, 1997. 464 p.
4. Girts K. Interpretatsiya kulʹtur [Interpretation of cultures]. Moscow, 2004. 560 p. (in Russian).
5. Huntington S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy [The Clash of Civilizations]. Moscow, 2003. 604 p. (in Russian).
6. Throsby D. Ekonomika i kul’tura [Economics and culture]. Moscow, 2018. 256 p. (in Russian).
7. Harrison L. Evrei, konfutsiantsy i protestanty. Kulʹturnyi kapital i konets mulʹtikulʹturalizma [Jews, Confucians and Protestants. Cultural capital and the end of multiculturalism]. Moscow, 2016. 286 p. (in Russian).
8. Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, 1991. 280 p.
9. Robbins L. Subject of Economic Science. THESIS, 1993, iss. 1, pp. 10–23 (in Russian).
10. Begelsdijk Sh., Maseland R. Kulʹtura v ėkonomicheskoĭ nauke [Culture in Economic Science]. Moscow, St. Petersburg, 2016. 446 p. (in Russian).
11. Veblen T. Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? In: Istoki: iz opyta izucheniya ekonomiki kak struktury i protsessa [Origins: from the experience of studying the economy as a structure and process. Almanac. Iss. 6]. Moscow, 2006, pp.10–32 (in Russian).
12. Orekhovsky P. A “Actor-Network Approach” of B. Latur and “Factor of Culture” in the Analysis of Economic Processes. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennostʹ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World], 2017, no. 3, pp. 157–167 (in Russian).
13. Asemoglu D., Robinson J. A. Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye. Proiskhozhdenie vlasti, protsvetaniya i nishety [Why some countries are rich, and others are poor. Origin of the power, prosperity and poverty]. Moscow, 2015. 720 p. (in Russian).
