For citation:
Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (2023). On Synthesis and Interdisciplinarity in Economics: Сomparison of Russian and English Discourses. AlterEconomics, 20(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.20-1.4
Abstract:
Synthesis and interdisciplinarity in economic theory are considered promising directions for resolving the contradictions that have accumulated in the theory. The paper analyzes one of the extreme variants of interdisciplinary synthesis as presented in the work of Evgeny V. Balatsky, «New Imperatives of Economic Knowledge: On the Way to Socionomics» (2022. In Russian). The creation of a synthesised science of socionomics is proposed by Balatsky as an alternative to modern economics which is no longer able to get out of the “global methodological impasse” and give adequate answers to the challenges of practice. Socionomics should unite and streamline the principles, rules, effects, models and facts about the functioning of social systems “scattered over different sources”. We use the methodology of scientific critical discourse to analyze Balatsky’s proposals about the new science in this paper. At the same time, other forms of interdisciplinary interactions are also considered. First, we talk about the creation of ‘joint’ sciences with economics for more in-depth answers to questions posed by practice (among them are neuroeconomics, econophysics, social economics, and complexity economics, etc.). Second, in addition to replacing economics with a new science and creating ‘joint’ sciences, relations of economics with other social disciplines on the basis of ‘soft’ interdisciplinary convergence are considered. In this case, there is a co-tuning of the general conceptual framework, as well as an exchange of models and methods of analysis between disciplines. However, despite this exchange, the disciplines do not become integrated with each other and retain their independence. Finally, the development of pluralism in economics is also considered as an additional prospect for the development of economic discipline. The use of the methodology of scientific critical discourse, a structured literature review and bibliometric analysis in our research made it possible to formulate the following conclusions. The first conclusion is that Russian-speaking and English-speaking economists assess the need for interdisciplinary synthesis in economic theory differently — the former consider it more necessary, especially in the face of modern global challenges. English-speaking economists are less radical in this regard and see the development of economics mostly as just an increase in interdisciplinary interactions. Another conclusion is that in English-language economic literature pluralism is a more pronounced trend in the development of modern economic science rather than the focus on synthesis.
Ananyin, O. I. (2009). Za “ekonomicheskiy imperialism” bez imperskikh ambitsiy, ili o formakh mezhdistsiplinarnykh vzaimodeystviy [Economic imperialism without imperial ambitions]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World], 6, 130–139 (In Russ.)
Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Retrieved from: https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ (Date of access: 14.11.2022).
Angner, E. (2019). We’re all behavioral economists now. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26 (3), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1625210
Angrist, J., Azoulay, P., Ellison, G., Hill, R. & Lu, S. F. (2020). Inside job or deep impact? Extramural citations and the influence of economic scholarship. Journal of Economic Literature, 58 (1), 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20181508
Balatskiy, E. V. & Yurevich, M. A. (2018). Ispol’zovanie neyronnykh setey dlya prognozirovaniya inflyatsii: novye vozmozhnosti [Application of neutral networks for forecasting inflation: new opportunities]. Vestnik UrFU. Ser.: Ekonomika i upravlenie [Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management], 17 (5), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2018.17.5.037 (In Russ.)
Balatsky, E. V. & Ekimova, N. A. (2021). Instrumenty gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: prognozirovanie vs proektirovanie [Public administration tools: forecasting VS designing]. Upravlenets [The Manager], 12 (1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-1-2 (In Russ.)
Balatsky, E. V. (2022). Novye imperativy ekonomicheskogo znaniya: na puti k sotsionomike [The new imperatives of economic knowledge: on the way to socionomics]. Sotsial’noe Prostranstvo [Social Area], 8 (4). https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2022.4.36.2 (In Russ.)
Balland, P.-A., Broekel, T. et al. (2022). The new paradigm of economic complexity. Research Policy, 51 (3), 104450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104450
Blanchard, O. (2017). The need for different classes of macroeconomic models. Blog post, Peterson Institute for International Economics. Retrieved from: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/need-different-classes-macroeconomic-models (Date of access: 14.09.2022).
Ciobanu, G., Cretu, R. F., Dinu, M. & Dobre, F. (2021). Interdisciplinary approaches to the new paradigm of the global financial and monetary architecture after the Covid 19 pandemic crisis in correlation with the social problems in the EU countries. The 21st International Scientific Conference Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences. SHS Web Conf., 129. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112901008
Fourcade, M., Ollion, E. & Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.89
Fox, J. (2009). The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street. New York: Harper Collins, 382.
Goldgar, A. (1995). Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750. Hew Haven & London: Yale University Press, 395.
Gräbner, C. & Strunk, B. (2020). Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons. Journal of Economic Methodology, 27 (4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1824076
Grüne-Yanoff, T. & Mäki, U. (2014). Introduction: Interdisciplinary model exchanges. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 48, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.08.001
Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 263. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752032
Heilbroner, R. (1991). Economics as universal science. Social Research, 58 (2), 457–474.
Hirshleifer, J. (1985). The expanding domain of economics. The American Economic Review, 75 (6), 53–68.
Hoover, K. D. (2016). The crisis in economic theory: A review essay. Journal of Economic Literature, 54 (4), 1350–1361. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20151338.
Ilyin, I. A. (2006). Put’ Dukhovnogo Obnovleniya [The Path of Spiritual Renewal]. Moscow, Russia: “Russkaya kniga XXI vek”, 336. (In Russ.)
Jacobs, G. (2015). The need for a new paradigm in economics. Review of Keynesian Economics, 3 (1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2015.01.01
Kaneko, M. & Kline, J. J. (2008). Inductive game theory: A basic scenario. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 44 (12), 1332–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2008.07.009
Kaneko, M. & Kline, J. J. (2015). Understanding the other through social roles. International Game Theory Review, 17 (1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219198915400058
Karamova, O. V. (2013). Osobennosti razvitiya rossiyskoy ekonomicheskoy nauki: voprosy metodologii [Features of the development of Russian economic science: questions of methodology]. Abstract of the PhD thesis on the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation 08.00.01. URL: https://www.dissercat.com/content/osobennosti-razvitiya-rossiiskoi-ekonomicheskoi-nauki-voprosy-metodologii (Date of access: 12.11.2022) (In Russ.)
Khubiev, K. A. & Rassadina, A. K. (2020) Mezhdistsiplinarnyy metod v ekonomicheskoy teorii: istoricheskiy opyt i perspektivy [Interdisciplinary method in economic theory: historical experience and prospects]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 6. Ekonomika [Moscow University Economics Bulletin], 2, 198–214. https://doi.org/10.38050/013001052020211 (In Russ.)
Kirdina, S. G. (2016). O nekotorykh problemakh nashego sotsiologicheskogo diskursa [Some problems of contemporary Russian sociological discourse]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 3, 148–153. (In Russ.)
Kirdina, S. G. (2014). Institutsional’nyye Matritsy i Razvitiye Rossii. Vvedeniye v X-Y-teoriyu [Institutional Matrices and Development of Russia. Introduction to the X-Y theory]. 3rd edition. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Russia: Nestor-Istoriya, 468. (In Russ.)
Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (2021). Sistemnaya paradigma i perspektivy «institutsional’nogo sinteza» v ekonomike [The System Paradigm and the Prospects for “Institutional Synthesis” in Economic Theory]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka v sovremennoy Rossii [Economics of Contemporary Russia], 3, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.33293/1609-1442-2021-3(94)-17-32 (In Russ.)
Kleiner, G. B. (2021). Sistemnaya ekonomika: Shagi Razvitiya [System Economics: Development Steps]. Moscow, Russia: Nauchnaya biblioteka, 746. (In Russ.)
Krugman, P. R. (2009). How did economics get it so wrong? New York Times Magazine. 9, 36–44. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html (Date of access: 14.09.2022).
Leamer, E. & Shinde, S. (2021). Theory and evidence as drivers of economists’ opinions regarding the impact of fiscal stimulus. A Modern Guide to Philosophy of Economics. In H. Kincaid, D. Ross (Eds.). Cheltenham, UK-Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 312–342.
Leamer, E. (2009). Macroeconomic Patterns and Stories. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 360.
Levenchuk, A. (2016). Inzheneriya i Nauka: Inzheneriya Ne Nauchna [Engineering and Science: Engineering is Not Scientific]. URL: https://ailev.livejournal.com/1247245.html (Date of access: 12.08.2022) (In Russ.)
Mayevsky, V. I. & Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (Eds.) (2020). Mezoekonomika: elementy novoy paradigmy [Mesoeconomics: elements of a new paradigm]. Monograph. Moscow, Russia: Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 392. (In Russ.)
Mayevsky, V. I. & Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (Eds.) (2022). Sintez v ekonomicheskoy teorii i ekonomicheskoy politike [Synthesis in Economic Theory and Economic Policy]. Moscow: Institute of Economics of Russian Academy of Sciences, 444. (In Russ.)
Mayevsky, V. I. (2010). Krugooborot osnovnogo kapitala i ekonomicheskaya teoriya [Reproduction of Fixed Capital and Economic Theory]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 3, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2010-3-65-85 (In Russ.)
Nekipelov, A. D. (2019). Krizis v ekonomicheskoy nauke — priroda i puti preodoleniya [The crisis in Economics — nature and ways to overcome it]. Vestnik Rossiyskoj Akademii Nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 89 (1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869-587389124-37 (In Russ.)
Norris, S. P. & Philips, L. M. (1994). The relevance of a reader’s knowledge within a perspectival view of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26 (4), 391–412.
Ogorodnikov, V. P. (2015). Monizm ili pluralizm? [Monism or Pluralism?]. Rossiyskiy gumanitarnyy zhurnal [Liberal Arts in Russia], 4 (1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.15643/libartrus-2015.1.7 (In Russ.)
Oleinik, A. N., Kirdina, S. G., Popova, I. P. & Shatalova, T. Yu. (2013). Kak uchenie chitayut drug druga: osnovy teorii akademicheskogo chtenia i eye empiricheskaya proverka [How do scholars read each other: foundations of academic reading theory and its empirical testing]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovania [Sociological Studies], 8 (352), 30–41. (In Russ.)
Oleinik, A., Kirdina-Chandler, S., Popova, I. et al. (2017). On academic reading: citation patterns and beyond. Scientometrics, 113 (1), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2466-z
Orekhov, A. M. (2018). Mezhdistsiplinarnyy sintez i sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki: k voprosu o proyasnenii nekotorykh kontseptov i vektorov issledovaniya [Interdisciplinary synthesis and social-humanitarian sciences: on the question of clearing some concepts and vectors of research]. Sotsium i Vlast’ [Society and Power], 71 (3), 91–97. (In Russ.)
Pieters, R. & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40 (2), 483–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161348
Polterovich, V. M. (2011). Stanovleniye obshchego sotsial’nogo analiza [Formation of the general social analysis]. Obshchestvennyye Nauki i Sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World], 2, 101–111. (In Russ.)
Polterovich, V. M. (2013). Obshchiy sotsial’nyy analiz i proyektirovaniye reform [General social analysis and reform design]. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii [Journal of the New Economic Association], 1 (17), 185–188. (In Russ.)
Provolovich, T. O. (2021). Noveyshiye primery mezhdistsiplinarnogo sinteza v ekonomike [Interdisciplinary synthesis in economic]. Zhurnal economicheskoj teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory], 18 (4), 512–525. https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2021.18-4.3 (In Russ.)
Ross, D. (2022). Economics is converging with sociology but not with psychology. Journal of Economic Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854
Ross, D. (2014). Philosophy of Economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 341.
Rozov, N. S. (2009). Ot distsiplinarnogo imperializma — k obshchestvoznaniyu bez granits! («Shengenskiy» proekt integratsii sotsial’nykh nauk) [From disciplinary imperialism to social sciences without frontiers]. Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World], 3, 132–142. (In Russ.)
Salanti, A. & Screpanti, E. (Eds.) (1997). Pluralism in Economics. New Perspectives in History and Methodology. Cheltenham, UK-Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 328.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World’s Most Prosperous Decade. New York: W. W. Norton, 448.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34 (1–2), 70–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx057
Strizhkova, L. A. & Kuranov, G. O. (2020). Kachestvo ekonomicheskogo rosta kak predposylka povysheniya effektivnosti upravleniya sotsial’no-ekonomicheskim razvitiyem Rossii [Quality of economic growth as a prerequisite for improving the efficiency of management of socio-economic development in Russia]. Mir Novoy ekonomiki [The World of New Economy], 14 (3), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2020-14-3-83-96 (In Russ.)
Truc, A. (2021). Mapping behavioral economics and its interdisciplinary practices. Working Paper. UQAM. SSRN. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3788167 (Date of access: 12.11.2022).
Truc, A., Santerre, O., Gingras, Y. & Claveau, F. (2020). The Interdisciplinarity of Economics. URL: https://francoisclaveau.openum.ca/files/sites/69/2020/12/SSRN-id3669335.pdf (Date of access: 16.11.2022).
Volchik, V. V. (2015). Mezhdistsiplinarnost’ v ekonomicheskoy nauke: mezhdu imperializmom i plyuralizmom [Interdisciplinarity in economic science: Between imperialism and pluralism]. Теrrа Economicus, 13 (4), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2015-4-52-64 (In Russ.)