ЮФУ
ул. М. Горького, 88, к. 211
г.Ростов-на-Дону, Россия
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.
Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.

TERRA ECONOMICUS

ИДЕИ, НАРРАТИВЫ И ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В ЭКОНОМИКЕ

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Том 17 (номер 1),

Цитирование: Тамбовцев, В. Л. (2019). Идеи, нарративы и изменения в экономике // Terra Economicus, 17(1), 24–40. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-1-24-40

Статья посвящена критическому анализу идейного и нарративного «поворотов» в экономических исследованиях. Опираясь на широкий круг исследований в информационных науках, социальной психологии, теории принятия решений, антропологии и других, автор показывает, что представления о «власти идей» сильно преувеличивают их роль в изменениях экономической политики. Прежде всего, не принимается во внимание, что воспринимаются и становятся убеждениями те идеи, которые отвечают интересам экономических и политических акторов. Далее, для того чтобы идея воплотилась в действие, у индивида должен быть необходимый ресурсный потенциал, включая достаточный уровень самодейственности и внутренний локус контроля. Наконец, у индивида должны быть стимулы к действию: его ожидаемые выгоды должны превышать ожидаемые издержки. По этим причинам знание новой идеи вследствие ее диффузии вовсе не тождественно ее принятию (трансформации в убеждение) и преобразованию в действие. Нарративы в процессах диффузии идей выступают как действенная форма представления содержания идеи. Структура нарратива отражает причинные связи действий и последствий, в силу чего схожа со структурой ситуации принятия решения. Человеческий мозг эволюционно приспособлен к восприятию нарративов, так что передача информации в форме нарратива обладает высокой способностью убеждать других, независимо от того, является ли его содержание информацией или дезинформацией. Названные моменты не означают, что изучение нарративов в экономике не представляет большого интереса. Нарративы – часть экономической культуры, поэтому изучение всех ее составляющих поможет избегать ошибок при принятии решений в области экономической политики.


Ключевые слова: идеи; интересы; информация; нарративы; экономическая культура; решения; действия; изменения

Список литературы:
  • Вольчик, В. В., Маслюкова, Е. В. (2018). Нарративы, идеи и институты // Тerrа Eco-nomicus, 16(2), 150–168. [Volchik, V. V. and Maslyukova, E. V. (2018). Narratives, Ideas and Institutions // Теrrа Economicus, 16(2), 150–168. (InRussian.)]
  • Салтыков, Б. Г., Тамбовцев, В. Л. (1973). К проблеме построения дерева целей со-циально-экономической системы // Экономика и математические методы, 9(6), 1029–1038. [Saltykov, B. G. and Tambovtsev, V. L. (1973). Toward the Problem of Social-Economic System Objectives Tree Formation // Economics and Mathematical Methods, 9(6), 1029–1038. (In Russian.)]
  • Ясин, Е. Г. (1974). Экономическая информация. М.: Статистика. [Yassin, E.G. (1974). Economic Information. Moscow: Statistics. (In Russian.)]
  • Adams, F. (2003). The Informational Turn in Philosophy // Minds and Machines, 13(4), 471–501.
  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior // Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior // Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
  • Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L. and Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory // American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636–655.
  • Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226. 
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change // Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
  • Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics // International Orga-nization, 59(4), 39–75.
  • Basu, K. (2018). Markets and Manipulation: Time for a Paradigm Shift? // Journal of Economic Literature, 56(1), 185–205.
  • Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J. and Vohs, K. D. (2011). Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? // Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 331–361.
  • Benham, L. and Keefer, P. (1991). Voting in firms: The role of agenda control, size and voter homogeneity // Economic Inquiry, 29(4), 706–719.
  • Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades // Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026.
  • Blyth, M. M. (1997). “Any more bright ideas?” The ideational turn in comparative po-litical economy // Comparative Politics, 29(2), 229–50.
  • Bourgine, P. and Nadal, J.-P. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive Economics: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Boyer, P.and Petersen, M. B. (2018). Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model // Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e158. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X17001960.
  • Bozatzis, N. and Dragonas, T. (Eds.) (2014). The Discursive Turn in Social Psychology. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Taos Institute Publications.
  • Braddock, K. and Dillard, J. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive ef-fect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors // Communication Mono-graphs, 83(4), 446–467.
  • Braun, D. and Gilardi, F. (2006). Taking ‘Galton’s Problem’ Seriously: Towards a Theory of Policy Diffusion // Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(3), 298–322.
  • Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics // Sociological Review, 46(1_suppl), 1–57.
  • Callon, M. (2010). Performativity, Misfires and Politics // Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2), 163–169.
  • Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy // Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.
  • Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy // Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.
  • Carbonell, E. and Vaquero, M.(1998). Behavioral Complexity and Biocultural Change in Europe around Forty Thousand Years Ago // Journal of Anthropological Research, 54(3), 373–398.
  • Carnes, T., Nagarajan, R., Wild, S. M. and Zuylen, A. V. (2007). Maximizing influence in a competitive social network: A follower’s perspective, pр. 351–360 / In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 19–22 August.
  • Carstensen, M. B. and Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: con-ceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism // Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337.
  • Chow, H. M., Mar, R. A., Xu, Y., Liu, S., Wagage, S. and Braun, A. R. (2014). Embodied Comprehension of Stories: Interactions between Language Regions and Modality-specific Neural Systems // Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(2), 279–295.
  • Clark, R. E. (2009). Resistance to Change: Unconscious Knowledge and the Challenge of Unlearning, рр. 75–94 / In: D. C. Berliner and H. Kupermintz (eds.) Changing Institutions, Environments and People. New York: Routledge.
  • Cooper, D. J. and Kagel, J. H. (2016). Other-Regarding Preferences: A Selective Survey of Experimental Results, pp. 217–289 / In: J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, 2.Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Research. London: Sage.
  • Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power // Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
  • Darriet, E. and Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2015). Why lay social representations of the economy should count in economics // Mind & Society, 14(2), 245–258.
  • Dautenhahn, K. (2002). The origins of narrative: In search of the transactional format of narratives in humans and other social animals // International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 97–123.
  • Dole, J. A. and Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing Change in the Cognitive Con-struction of Knowledge // Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109–128.
  • Evans, P. (2005). The Challenges of the Institutional Turn: New Interdisciplinary Op-portunities in Development Theory, рp. 90–116 / In: V. Nee and R. Swedberg (eds.) The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
  • Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (Eds). (2002). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press.
  • Fischer, R. (2017). From values to behavior and from behavior to values, pp. 219–235 / In: S. Roccas and L. Sagiv (eds.) Values and Behavior. Taking a cross-cultural perspective. Berlin: Springer.
  • Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S. and Lorenz, J. (2017). Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers // JASSS – Journal of Artifi-cial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4), [2]. DOI: 10.18564/jasss.3521.
  • Fried, I., Haggard, P., He, B. J. and Schurger, A. (2017). Volition and Action in the Human Brain: Processes, Pathologies, and Reasons // Journal of Neuroscience, 37(45), 10842–10847.
  • Goldenberg, J., Libai, B. and Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth // Marketing Letters, 12(3), 211–223.
  • Granovetter, M. S. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior // American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.
  • Groeber, P., Lorenz, J. and Schweitzer, F. (2014). Dissonance minimization as a micro-foundation of social influence in models of opinion formation // Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 38(3), 147–174.
  • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982). An Experimental Analysis of Ulti-matum Bargaining // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388.
  • Haas, M. R., Criscuolo, P. and George, G. (2015). Which problems to solve? Online knowl-edge sharing and attention allocation in organizations // Academy of Management Jour-nal, 58(3), 680–711.
  • Homans, G. C. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
  • Hornikx, J. (2018). Combining Anecdotal and Statistical Evidence in Real-Life Dis-course: Comprehension and Persuasiveness // Discourse Processes, 55(3), 324–336.
  • Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J. and Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 55(2), 244–252.
  • Hsu, J. (2008). The Secrets of Storytelling: Our love for telling tales reveals the work-ings of the mind // Scientific American: Mind, 19(4), 46–51.
  • Huffman, A. H., Van Der Werff, B. R., Henning, J. B. and Watrous-Rodriguez, K. (2014). When do recycling attitudes predict recycling? An investigation of self-reported versus observed behavior // Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 262–270.
  • Jager, W. and Amblard, F. (2005). Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change // Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(4), 295–303.
  • Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S. and Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situ-ational interest as factors influencing conceptual change // International Journal of Envi-ronmental & Science Education, 5(4), 383–405.
  • Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R. and O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating During Reading Compre-hension: Why Causality Matters // Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 854–865.
  • Kermack, W. O. and McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical the-ory of epidemics // Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 115(772), 700–721.
  • Kim, O. and Walker, M. (1984). The Free Rider Problem: Experimental Evidence // Public Choice, 43(1), 3–24.
  • Leung, K. and Bond, M. H. (2004). Social Axioms: A model for social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197.
  • Levy, D. J. and Glimcher, P. W. (2012). The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice // Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 1027–1038.
  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. and Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Under-standing and coping with the post-truth era // Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
  • Lindvall, J. (2009). The real but limited influence of expert ideas // World Politics, 61(4), 703–730.
  • Littlefield, M. M. and Johnson, J. (eds.) (2012). The Neuroscientific Turn: Transdiscipli-narity in the Age of the Brain. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Low, J. and Perner, J. (2012). Implicit and explicit theory of mind: State of the art // British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–13.
  • MacKenzie, D. (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge–London: MIT Press.
  • Marangunić, N. and Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature re-view from 1986 to 2013 // Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.
  • Margolis, H. (1981). A New Model of Rational Choice // Ethics, 91(2), 265–279.
  • Mukand, S. W. and Rodrik, D. (2018). The Political Economy of Ideas: On Ideas versus Interests in Policymaking // University of Warwick, Department of Economics. WP-370.
  • Myers, D. G. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction, pp. 125–161 / In: H. Brand-statter, J. H. Davis and G. Stocher-Kreichgauer (eds.) Contemporary problems in group decision-making. New York: Academic Press.
  • Nabi, R. L. and Green, M. C. (2015). The Role of a Narrative’s Emotional Flow in Promot-ing Persuasive Outcomes // Media Psychology, 18(2), 137–162.
  • Nash, K. (2001). The ‘Cultural Turn’ in Social Theory: Towards a Theory of Cultural Poli-tics // Sociology, 35(1), 77–92.
  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises // Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
  • Oatley, K. (2008). The mind’s flight simulator // Psychologist, 21(12), 1030–1031.
  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm // Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 18(7), 187–206.
  • Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics // American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–302.
  • Raichle, M. E. (2015). The Brain’s Default Mode Network // Annual Review of Neurosci-ence, 38, 433–447.
  • Rashotte, L. S. (2007). Social Influence, pp. 4426–4429 / In: G. Ritzer and J. M. Ryan (eds.). Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. IX. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Reason, P. and Torbert, W. R. (2001). The action turn: Toward a transformational social science // Concepts and Transformation, 6(1), 1–37.
  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
  • Rubin, P. H. (2003). Folk Economics // Southern Economic Journal, 70(1), 157–171.
  • Schreiner, C., Appel, M., Isberner, M.-B. and Richter, T. (2018). Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories // Discourse Processes, 55(4), 371–386.
  • Schroeder, T. (2010). Desire: philosophical issues // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 1(3), 363–370.
  • Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006). The Role of Espoused National Cultural Values in Technology Acceptance // MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.
  • Sugiyama, M. S. (1996). On the origins of narrative: Storyteller bias as a fitness-en-hancing strategy // Human Nature, 7(4), 403–425.
  • Sussman, S. W. and Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption // Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65.
  • Taffesse, A. and Tadesse, F. (2017). Pathways Less Explored – Locus of Control and Tech-nology Adoption // Journal of African Economies, 26 (suppl_1), i36–i72.
  • Takács, K., Flache, A. and Mäs, M. (2016). Discrepancy and disliking do not induce nega-tive opinion shifts // PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157948.
  • Tost, L. P., Gino, F. and Larrick, R. P. (2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 53–65.
  • Treagust, D. F. and Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education // Cultural Studies of Sci-ence Education, 3(2), 297–328.
  • Urry, J. (2005). The Complexity Turn // Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 1–14.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of in-formation technology: toward a unified view // MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  • Vosselman, E. (2014). The ‘performativity thesis’ and its critics: Towards a relational ontology of management accounting // Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 181–203.
  • Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research // Organiza-tion Studies, 27(5), 613–634.
  • Wobker, I., Lehmann-Waffenschmidt, M., Kenning, P. and Gigerenzer, G. (2012). What do people know about the economy? A test of minimal economic knowledge in Germany // Discus-sion Paper Series in Economics, 03/12, Techn. Univ., Fac. of Business and Economics, Dresden.
  • Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence // Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 539–570.
  • Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., Neijens, P. and de Graaf A. (2015). The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis // Health Communication, 30(3), 282–289.

Издатель: Южный Федеральный Университет
Учредитель: Южный федеральный университет
ISSN: 2073-6606