О.Yu. MAMEDOV
Coordinator of the CIS’s and the Baltic States’ Association for Political Economy, Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 143-148

On May, 13–14 2015 the Second Congress of the CIS’s and the Baltic States’ International Association for Political Economy was held in Moscow, with its focus on the key issues on a renaissance of the political economy. The article below, by a Coordinator of the Association Prof. Oktaj Mamedov, illustrates sophisticated processes related to political situations in modern Russia. Today’s Russia, as it was in the pre-Revolutionary period of a century ago, is, according to a figure of speech used by the classics of Marxism-Leninism, «a collection of contradictions», presented by conflicting trends in terms of politics and economics, opposing ideologies of all shades, interregional rivalry, as well as the painful choice between the resuscitating «imperial ambitions» and constraints on the production «ammunition». In this struggle, a numerous group of political economist has adopted a notorious position – namely, one of the chief social science which has already lost its status of the basic element of ideocratic Soviet society, but it has not yet acquired a function of a recognized form of scientific economic knowledge. The Congress highlighted the importance of the fact that education in the postSoviet period had rightly turned away from the dogmatically distorted «quasi political economy», but in terms of a real political economy, such denials have resulted in systemic “epistemological costs” for all social sciences in Russia.

V.V. VOLCHIK
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

D.D. KRIVOSHEEVA-MEDYANTSEVA
Bachelor of Economics, Master Student, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 131-142

This paper examines a variety of theoretical concepts and approaches to understanding institutional structures and institutional change. Based on the concepts of original institutionalism and new institutional economics of «late» Douglass North, we attempt to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing the institutional structure of Russian higher education. Institutions and institutional structures in the field of higher education are changing rapidly in the course of reforms. This process determines actors’ behavioral patterns, incentives and values. Actors tend to adjust the effects of institutional change to prevailing values and their own interests by developing alternative behavioral patterns. Although new institutions can be inefficient and problematic, actors often accept them because they are not able to resist, or they just do not understand new institutional structures clearly. Meanwhile, such institutions often lead to hybrid organizations. If a university becomes a hybrid organization, it may fail to overcome the selection barriers created by the government. Therefore, university students, lecturers and staff at all levels need to conform to constantly changing institutional conditions. This article aims at providing a theoretical framework for identifying working rules, incentives and values that influence actors’ behavior in the field.

M.N. BARYSHNIKOV
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, S.-Petersburg, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 106-130

Transport business was a significant factor in the economic development of the Russian Empire. This study reveals the importance and problems associated with the efficiency of the major transport corporation as an example of empirical data Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company (in 1856–1864). Particular attention is paid to the analysis of institutional and organizational innovations affecting the efficiency of the company in the social and political conditions of the Russian Empire. The central part of the research is an analysis of the historical evolution of the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company as a mechanism of the organizational coordination of the private, public and state interests which is used for attracting the necessary resources (intellectual, financial, informational, productive, etc.) for the implementation of the outlook of accelerated development of the regional economy of the Black Sea region. The article contains a number of new approaches to the explanation of the institutional aspects of the company. It shows the structure of ownership and control, orientation relationships among managers and shareholders, the process of development and implementation of strategic and operational plans.

O.O. KOMOLOV
Junior Research Scientist, Center of Macroeconomic Research, PhD Candidate, Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 95-105

The article analyses the problem of monopolization from the Marxist point of view which is worked out by the representatives of Marxist school – from the founders to the Soviet school of Marxism. Monopolization is considered an objective phenomenon for the modern economy which naturally originates from free market. It is proved by statistics. This process has dual nature. On the one hand, it promotes labor productivity, and on the other hand – it holds some risks which are connected with taking economic and political power by monopoly capital. The way out from this dilemma is seen in socialization of monopolies which will put them under supervision of the whole society because it is determined by the evolution of the economy, influenced by aggressive concentration.

S.M. PYASTOLOV
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAS), Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 84-94

The paper presents an illustration of the thesis that economic science cannot exist without the political/ideological background, with reference to liberally focused direction of economic thought an example of the development of the Russian national innovative system in a context of the European research space. The author asserts that conflicts of interests between the households, state and enterprises are often caused by distinctions in the paradigms of technological civilization, tradition, shaping ecotechnological civilization and arising biological civilization. The solution can be found by developing the bases for ecotechnological civilization, first of all methodological foundations, using methodological individualism, accompanied by alternative concepts.

EZRA DAVAR
PhD in Economics, Independent Researcher, Netanya, Israel

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 73-83

The paper shows that modern economic science is in deep crisis. Also, it was shown that one of crucial causes of contemporary financial-economic crisis is an abandonment of the classic and Walras’s theories, in particular the monetary theory; in turn, these theories are close to the economic reality as possible. Modern economic theory does not always respect and often violates this principle. Therefore, in order to go out from the crisis, it is necessary to restore mutual feedback between theory and the real economy.

E.V. MIKHALKINA
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

N.A. KOSOLAPOVA
Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

O.Y. SENKIV
post-graduate student, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 57-72

In the article, regression analysis is used to describethe model and provide an assessment of factors of the socio-economic development of Russian regions in 2012 that are most influentialin building human potential. According to the model, among the most important factors are: the number of students enrolled in the programs in initialvocational education per 10 000 population, the expenses of consolidated budgets of subjects of the Russian Federation for education, life expectancy, library stock per 1000 population, the total living area per 1 inhabitant, the expenses of consolidated budgets of subjects of the Russian Federation for social policy. Assessment of the factors confirms that to achieve the competitive advantage, investments are required in all the components of human capital. Development of an integrated strategy tobuild human potential will ensure the efficiency of investment in human capital.

G.I. KHANIN
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Siberian Institute of Management, Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 46-56

On the basis of alternative macroeconomic estimations, the development of the Russian economy in the post-Soviet period is analyzed. It is argued that, if the existing economic policy remains unchanged, the economic crisis of 2013–2014 is expected to be deep and lasting, and would have farreaching social and political implications. The article contains an in-depth analysis of the moderate liberal course of action to change the route of the history of Russia, as well as the way of Russia’s modernization, revealing their advantages and disadvantages.

V.L. TAMBOVTSEV
Doctor of Economics, Senior Staff Scientist, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Economics, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 38-45

The paper is devoted to the critical analysis of two topics that are often noticed in the teaching and learning aids on institutional economics: qualification of institutions as public goods, and principle of methodological individualism content. It is shown that some part of teaching and learning aids includes irrelevant representations of these topics. Accordingly the correct treatments of the named topics are suggested. Institutions are not public goods because both attributes of the last one are violated: institutions are excludable since the access to the actions that institution presumes can be easy restricted (for example, persons that are not citizens of a country cannot participate in elections); institutions are rivalrous since the limited capacity of the enforcer. So strictly speaking institutions are congested club goods. Methodological individualism is frequently confused with selfishness and «atomization», i.e. agents’ independency from social environment. Direct citation of M. Weber, L. von Mises, J. Buchanan et al. clearly shows that it is not the case. Methodological individualism is the principle that asserts that only actor in economy is individual; only individual can have goals and interests, and be subject of action.

W. BRIAN ARTHUR
Intelligent Systems Lab, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), External Professor, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, USA

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2015, Vol. 13 (no. 2),

p. 15-37

This paper provides a logical framework for complexity economics. Complexity economics builds from the proposition that the economy is not necessarily in equilibrium: economic agents (firms, consumers, investors) constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. This further changes the outcome, which requires them to adjust afresh. Agents thus live in a world where their beliefs and strategies are constantly being «tested» for survival within an outcome or «ecology» these beliefs and strategies together create. Economics has largely avoided this nonequilibrium view in the past, but if we allow it, we see patterns or phenomena not visible to equilibrium analysis. These emerge probabilistically, last for some time and dissipate, and they correspond to complex structures in other fields. We also see the economy not as something given and existing but forming from a constantly developing set of technological innovations, institutions, and arrangements that draw forth further innovations, institutions and arrangements. Complexity economics sees the economy as in motion, perpetually «computing» itself – perpetually constructing itself anew. Where equilibrium economics emphasizes order, determinacy, deduction, and stasis, complexity economics emphasizes contingency, indeterminacy, sense-making, and openness to change. In this framework time, in the sense of real historical time, becomes important, and a solution is no longer necessarily a set of mathematical conditions but a pattern, a set of emergent phenomena, a set of changes that may induce further changes, a set of existing entities creating novel entities. Equilibrium economics is a special case of nonequilibrium and hence complexity economics, therefore complexity economics is economics done in a more general way. It shows us an economy perpetually inventing itself, creating novel structures and possibilities for exploitation, and perpetually open to response.