TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 16 (no. 3),

The article deals with the necessity of focusing the attention of theoretical economists on the problem of determining the «elementary particle» of the economy. The author asserts that in natural science the elementary particles of complex structured research objects form a special class of objectively existing (albeit not always fixed) reality. The main distinguishing feature of elementary particles seen as the research objects is impossibility of decomposing them into constituent parts. This feature is an intrinsic epistemic for the natural science research. In other words, having an elementary particle broken up, the researcher shifts to a different – «non-economic» – level of being of social phenomena. This different – non-economic – cognitive level requires a different interpretation and methodologies. This impossibility (if we follow traditional, or classic, interpretation of the subject of economics) of further decomposition allows the researcher identification of the elementary (epistemologically-indivisible) particles of economic relations, and hence economic knowledge. The problem statement is formulated in the article, showing the epistemological importance of detecting the «elementary particle» for the social science. The author’s approach to an elementary particle of the economy is emphasized, the consequences of this approach for economics’ development are outlined.

Keywords: methodology of economic analysis; epistemological significance of detecting the «elementary particle» of the economy; humanities as a kind of natural science knowledge and natural science

  • Ayres, C. E. (1918). The Function and Problems of Economic Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 26(1), 69–90 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820787).
  • Boettke, P. (1997). Where Did Economics Go Wrong? Modern economics as a flight from Reality. Critical Review, 11(1), 11–64.
  • Caldwell, B. (1982). Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London: Unwin, Hyman.
  • Delenyan, A. A. (2015). Propensity to methodology. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 6: Economics, 2, 66–88. (In Russian.)
  • Gallyamova, R. Z. (2014). Economic consciousness as a phenomenon of modern society. Antro, 1, 29–39. (In Russian.)
  • Hands, D. (2001). Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hendry, D. (1980). Econometrics – Alchemy or Science? New Series, 47(188), 387–406.
  • Hessin, N. V. (2017). The concept of an «economic cell» and its methodological significance for the political economy of socialism. Issues of Political Economy, 3, 115–131. (In Russian.)
  • Kochubei, E. I. (2006). Modern economic processes: content and features of cognition: Dissertation submitter in fulfillment for the requirements for Cand. Sci. (Philosophy) degree. Irkutsk. (In Russian.)
  • Lawson, T. (1992). Methodology: non-optional and consequential (letter to the editor). Royal Economic Society Newsletter, 79, October.
  • Lawson, T. (1994). Why are so many economists so opposed to methodology? Journal of Economic Methodology, 1(1), 105–134.
  • Lenin, V. I. (1958). Materialism and empirio-criticism (Vol. 18) / In V. I. Lenin. The Complete Works: In 55 vols. (In Russian.)
  • Lobodin, P. V. (2018). Why K. Marx started the study of «Capital» from the analysis of the category of a «good»? (pp. 47–50) / In Scientific studies of higher education in priority areas of science and technology. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. (In Russian.)
  • Luybimtseva, S. V. (2018). Marxism and the dialectical-materialistic method of studying economic systems (pp. 107–120) / In A. V. Zhukotskaya, B. N. Bessonov and S. V. Chernenykaya (eds.) Marxism in the Modern Intellectual Space. Moscow. (In Russian.)
  • Moran, C. (2018). Why the problem is economics, not economists Open Democracy, April, 19 (https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/).
  • Nekrasov, S. N. (2017). The political economy of the sign against the economy of the text in the culture of postmodernity (pp. 202–207) / In Collection of articles of the XI International Scientific and Practical Conference European Research. (In Russian.)
  • Nelson, R. (2004). What is «Economic Theology»? The Princeton Seminary. Bulletin, 25(1), 58–79.
  • Nikolaeva, E. M. (2000). Synergetic paradigm (from natural science to social science, philosophical analysis): Dissertation submitter in fulfillment for the requirements for Cand. Sci. (Philosophy) degree. Kazan: Kazan Federal University. (In Russian.)
  • Shkarupa, V. M. (2017). On one imaginary controversy in the philosophy of science: natural science versus socio-humanitarian knowledge (pp. 1152–1153) / In Omsk scientific readings. Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. (In Russian.)
  • Shulevskiy, N. B. (2010). Historical types of interaction between natural science and social science. Science and education: production and economy; entrepreneurship; law and administration, 6(6), 56–78. (In Russian.)
  • Weintraub, E. R. (1990). Methodology doesnʼt matter, but history of thought might (pp. 263–279) / In S. Honkapohja (ed.) The State of Macroeconomics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Weintraub, E. R. (1991). Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zhivitsa, V. I. and Burilina, M. A. (2012). State enterprise as a new elementary economic cell of society and the problem of competition. Regional problems of economic transformation, 4, 210–227. (In Russian.)
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606