The influence of classical philosophy on the transformation of economics and economic institutions
https://doi.org/10.24182/2073-9885-2020-13-4-268-278
Abstract
The author reveals the connection between philosophical and economic thought in the classical period. The influence of philosophy on political and economic aspects of national economy development in the pre–scientific and scientific periods is revealed. The features of philosophical and worldview concepts of classicism that reflect the specifics of the era are indicated. The analysis of the relationship between classical philosophy and Economics has shown the influence of spiritual and moral aspects of the epoch, transcendentalism, rationalism, and a apriorism on economic theories based on the mechanistic paradigm, the logic of economic laws, and clear and unambiguous provisions for the formation and development of economic institutions. A model is presented that reveals the interaction of economic institutions from the position of classical philosophy in terms of the individualistic concept of behavior of classical economic agents, the Institute of labor resources as the basis of value and wealth, balance as a key element of the self–regulating order and distribution of economic benefits, and other aspects.
Keywords
classicism,
philosophy of classicism,
philosophical and worldview concepts,
rationalism,
mechanistic paradigm,
economic ethics,
economic institutions,
transformation of economic science
Supporting agencies: The study was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Federal Property Fund in the framework of the scientific project No. 19–010–00905 «Improving the methodology of the economic theory of organizations based on a system of value–based approach».
About the Author
G. Ryazanova
State University of Management
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Econ.)
Moscow
References
1. Anan’in O.I. Filosofiya i metodologiya e’konomicheskoj nauki. [Philosophy and methodology of economic science.] Filosofiya e’konomicheskoj nauki. – M.: FGAOUVO NIU VShE’. 2010. 71 S.
2. Gibadullin A.A., Ery’gin Yu.V. [Assessing the potential and determining prospects for the development of national economic activities within the framework of the Eurasian economic Union]. Ocenka potenciala i opredelenie perspektiv razvitiya nacional’ny’x vidov e’konomicheskoj deyatel’nosti v ramkax Evrazijskogo e’konomicheskogo soyuza. Vestnik SurGU. 2018. № 2(20). S. 52–57.
3. Dikix V.A. [Forecasting based on the results of different/time market opportunities of the resource base for investment and construction projects]. Prognozirovanie na osnove rezul’tatov raznovremenny’x ry’nochny’x vozmozhnostej resursnoj bazy’ dlya investicionno/stroitel’ny’x proektov. IGUPIT, Naukovedenie. № 2. Mart (2014).
4. Kamchatova E.Yu. [Intensity of the innovation field of dominant companies]. Napryazhennost’ innovacionnogo polya dominiruyushhix kompanij. Innovacii i investicii. 2014. № 6. S. 8–10.
5. Krotenko T.Yu., Brodov Yu.A. [Competitive potential of the organization]. Konkurentny’j potencial organizacii. V sbornike: Upravlenie social’no/ e’konomicheskim razvitiem regionov: problemy’ i puti ix resheniya. Sbornik nauchny’x statej 9/oj Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno/prakticheskoj konferencii. V 3/x tomax. 2019. S. 356–360.
6. Makeeva V.G. [Leasing and sharing economy: an era of digital transformation of the economy]. Lizing i sharing economy: e’poxa cifrovoj transformacii e’konomiki. V sbornike: Shag v budushhee: iskusstvenny’j intellekt i cifrovaya e’konomika. Revolyuciya v upravlenii: novaya cifrovaya e’konomika ili novy’j mir mashin Materialy’ II Mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo foruma. Pod obshhej redakciej P.V. Terelyanskogo. 2018. S. 136–141.
7. Mill’ D.St. [A system of syllogistic and inductive logic]. Sistema logiki sillogisticheskoj i induktivnoj. Perevod s anglijskogo V.N. Ivanovskogo. 2/e izd. – M.: Izdanie G.A.Lemana. 1914. S. 861.
8. Sazanova S.L. [Modern behavioral paradigm and management decision/ making]. Sovremennaya povedencheskaya paradigma i prinyatie upravlencheskix reshenij. V sbornike: Institucional’naya e’konomika: razvitie, prepodavanie, prilozheniya sbornik nauchny’x statej V Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii. 2017. S. 276–280.
9. Sharipov F.F., D’yakonova M.A. [Russia and the world]. Rossiya i mir. Aktual’ny’e problemy’ upravleniya – 2015 Materialy’ 20/j Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno/prakticheskoj konferencii. 2015. S. 261–264.
10. Ardalan, K. Paradigms in Political Economy, London: Routledge. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666846 214 P.
11. Baloglou CP. Comparing and Contrasting the Philosophy of Economics in Ancient Greece and in the New Testament. Towards a Fair Distribution of Wealth: From the Ancient Greek Syssitia to the Christian Common Meals of Love. Business and Economics Journal. November 17, 2014. Pp. 1–9. doi: 10.4172/2151/6219.1000117.
12. Davies J., Hands W. (eds). The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 2011.
13. Finzi R. 1982. The theory of historical stages in Turgot and Quesnay. Kenzei, Kenkyu 33 (2): Pp. 109–118.
14. Gordon S. The History und Philosophy of social science. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.2003. 690 P. ISBN 0/203/42322/4
15. Heinz D. Kurz, Neri Salvadori Understanding «Classical» Economics: Studies in Long/Period Theory. Routledge. 1998. 292 P. 15.
Review
For citations:
Ryazanova G. The influence of classical philosophy on the transformation of economics and economic institutions. Entrepreneur’s Guide. 2020;13(4):268-278. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24182/2073-9885-2020-13-4-268-278
Views:
581
Email this article 