Skip to main content
SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

Changing Russian economic education in the context of ideology


TERRA ECONOMICUS, Vol. 24, No 3

Citation: Volchik V.V. (2026). Changing Russian economic education in the context of ideology. Terra Economicus 24(3), 6–19. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2026-24-3-6-19

Acknowledgment: This work was supported by the grant of Russian Science Foundation № 24-18-00665, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-18-00665/ “Ideological landscape of Russian economic science” at Southern Federal University.
This article examines the issue of ideological influence on economic education through the lens of the discourse of Russian economists. The formation of a specific mindset has become a key factor in how ideology influences economic science. Within the economic mainstream, ideological influence is denied based on the premise of separating ideology from “true science”. The influence of the mainstream’s latent ideology is most clearly manifested in economic education through the content of curricula and core textbooks. The study utilizes empirical data from transcripts of 35 in-depth interviews conducted in 2025 and three focus groups held in 2026, all involving Russian academic economists. Reflexive thematic analysis is employed as the data analysis method. The research identified five themes: ideology and scientific knowledge; rethinking the role of the state; the importance of sovereignty and patriotism; shifting from economic growth to well-being and social justice; and moving from the orthodox mainstream toward interdisciplinarity and analytical institutionalism. These themes reflect the impact of ideology on developments in economic science within the context of potential reforms related to Russian economic education. Revitalizing Russian economic education is possible through a deeper study of the history of economic thought and by explicitly addressing issues related to sovereignty and the institutional specificities of the Russian economic order. Formulating a constructive ideological agenda for Russian economic science appears feasible through a creative combination of various ideal ideological types, methodological pluralism, and interdisciplinarity. Russian analytical institutionalism has the potential to become a significant unifying movement within domestic economic science and education, as it reflects those domestic theoretical and methodological developments that are most relevant to addressing contemporary economic problems.

Keywords: economic ideology; economic education; institutional economics; Russian analytical institutionalism; reflexive thematic analysis; methodology of economic science
JEL codes: A14, A22, B41


References:
  • Agazzi, E. (2017). Scientific Objectivity and Its Contexts. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya Publ. (in Russian).
  • Balatsky, E. (2025). Evolution of colonial and neocolonial models in geopolitical dominance. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast 18(1), 46–65 (in Russian). DOI: 10.15838/esc.2025.1.97.2
  • Vanke, A., Polukhina, E., Strelnikova, A. (2025). How to Collect Data in Qualitative Field Research. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (in Russian).
  • Vernikov, A., Kurysheva, A. (2026). A scholar at the service of a banker? Household financialization rhetoric in academic publications. Terra Economicus 24(1), 37–52 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2026-24-1-37-52
  • Volchik, V., Maslyukova, E., Marian, P., Skryabin, M. (2024). An empirical study of the ideological component in Russian economic science. Journal of Institutional Studies 16(4), 42–59 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2024.16.4.042-059
  • Kvale, S. (2003). The Research Interview. Moscow: Smysl Publ. (in Russian).
  • Orekhovsky, P., Razumov V. (2025). Economic theory of the “classboard”: Between reality and simulacrum. AlterEconomics 22(1), 40–53 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31063/AlterEconomics/2025.22-1.4
  • Schumpeter, J. (2012). Science and ideology. In: Hausman, D. (ed.) Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology (pp. 247–264). Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press. (in Russian).
  • Ahmed, S., Mohammed, R., Nashwan, A. et al. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health 6, 100198.
  • Berman, E. (2022). Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy. Princeton University Press.
  • Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
  • Chaiechi, T., Eijdenberg, E. (2022). Entrepreneurship, knowledge-economy and economic success of cities: A scoping review and thematic analysis. In: Chaiechi, T., Wood, J. (ed.) Community Empowerment, Sustainable Cities, and Transformative Economies (pp. 73–94). Springer.
  • Colander, D. (2005). The making of an economist redux. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(1), 175–198. DOI: 10.1257/0895330053147976
  • Cyr, J. (2024). Focus groups. In: Cyr, J., Goodman, S. (eds.) Doing Good Qualitative Research (pp. 222–232). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197633137.003.0019
  • Drápal, J., Westermann, H., Savelka, J. (2023). Using large language models to support thematic analysis in empirical legal studies. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 379, 197–206. DOI: 10.3233/FAIA230965
  • Fife, S., Gossner, J. (2024). Deductive qualitative analysis: Evaluating, expanding, and refining theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 23, 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/16094069241244856
  • Garnett, R. (2009). Rethinking the pluralist agenda in economics education. International Review of Economics Education 8(2), 58–71. DOI: 10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30068-2
  • Heckathorn, D., Cameron, C. (2017). Network sampling: From snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annual Review of Sociology 43, 101–119.
  • Javdani, M., Chang, H.-J. (2025). Manufacturing “economics” minds: Ideology, authority, and economics education. Research report. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep70836
  • Joffe, H. (2011). Thematic analysis. In: Harper, D., Thompson, A. (eds.) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners (pp. 209–223). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Kamberelis, G., Dimitriadis, G. (2013). From Structured Interviews to Collective Conversations. N.Y.: Routledge.
  • Kiger, M., Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher 42(8), 846–854.
  • Kutsyuruba, B. (2023). Document analysis. In: Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods: Selected contextual perspectives (pp. 139–146). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  • Legard, R., Keegan, J., Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In: Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 138–169). L.: Sage Publications.
  • Lochmiller, C. (2021). Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report 26(6), 2029–2044.
  • Mahmood, A., Naveed, R., Ahmad, N. et al. (2021). Unleashing the barriers to CSR implementation in the SME sector of a developing economy: A thematic analysis approach. Sustainability 13(22), 12710.
  • Mankiw, G. (2020). Principles of Economics. Cengage.
  • Nelson, J., Carlson, K. (1981). Ideology and economic education. In: Symmes, S. (ed.) Economic Education: Links to the Social Studies (Bulletin No. 65) (pp. 83–96). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
  • North, D. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review 84(3), 359–368.
  • Riggs, D., Bartholomaeus, C., Due, C. (2016). Public and private families: A comparative thematic analysis of the intersections of social norms and scrutiny. Health Sociology Review 25(1), 1–17.
  • Rubinstein, A. (2006). A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. The Economic Journal 116(510), C1–C9. DOI: 0.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01071.x
  • Shiller, R. (2019). Narrative Economics. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvdf0jm5
  • Skidelsky, R. (2018). Money and Government: The Past and Future of Economics. New Haven and London.
  • Stigler, G. (1982). The ethics of competition: the unfriendly critics. In: The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays (pp. 27–37). Chicago University Press.
  • Strang, K., Che, F., Vajjhala, N. (2022). Thematic analysis of agricultural government policy and operational problems. Agricultural Research 11(3), 549–556.
  • Stueber, K. (2019). The ubiquity of understanding: Dimensions of understanding in the social and natural sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 49(4), 265–281. DOI: 10.1177/0048393119847103
  • Watts, M. (1987). Ideology, textbooks, and the teaching of economics. Theory Into Practice 26(3), 190–197. DOI: 10.1080/00405848709543273
  • Zuidhof, P. (2014). Thinking like an economist: The neoliberal politics of the economics textbook. Review of Social Economy 72(2), 157–185. DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2013.872952

Publisher: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606












  • Hits: 75