2021 (18) , №1

Objective and Subjective Factors in Modern Economy

For citation: 

Knyazev, Yu. K. (2021). Objective and Subjective Factors in Modern Economy. Zhurnal Economicheskoj Teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory], 18(1), 127-140, https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2021.18-1.9


The paper focuses on the public sphere in modern economy, which co-exists with the market and develops according to its own, non-market logic. The emphasis is made on the correlation between objective and subjective factors in economy. The author describes the evolution of research on these factors’ role in society, and explains the impact of subjective forces from the perspective of methodological dualism, which combines the principles of individualism and collectivism. The duality of human nature, combining individualist instincts with collectivist values acquired in society, explains substantial differences in people’s behaviour under market conditions and in the public sphere. Subjective and objective factors have different significance in the market and non-market spheres of economy: while the market is driven by objective tendencies, which bring people’s individual actions to a certain common denominator, in the public sphere, on the contrary, the main role is played is managed mainly by objective regularities, which reduce people’s subjective actions to a common denominator, whereas in the public sphere, on the contrary, the leading role is played by subjective understanding of public interests, benefit or harm of certain intentions, and the goals and strategies of further development. In the final part of the article, the key characteristics of the public sphere are described and it is shown that this sphere exists along with the market although it is affected by the market’s demands and, therefore, requires a more in-depth research, including the regulating role of the state in market economy.

PDF full

Yuriy K. Knyazev — Doctor of Economics, Chief Researcher, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russian Federation; e-mail: kyuk151@rambler.ru).

Arrighi, G. (2006).  Dolgiy dvadtsatyy vek: Den’gi, vlast’ i istoki nashego vremeni [The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times].  Moscow: Izd. dom «Territoriya budushchego», 472. (In Russ.)

Grinberg, R. S., & Rubinstein, A. Ya. (2000).  Ekonomicheskaya sotsiodinamika [Economic sociodynamics].  Moscow: Izd-vo IEP-ress. (In Russ.)

Knyazev, Yu. K. (2014).  Sovremennaya ekonomika — sintez rynka i sotsial’nogo regulirovaniya [Modern economy — synthesis of the market and social regulation].  Moscow: Infra-M, 176. (In Russ.)

Marx, K. (1969). Kapital. T. 1–3 [Capital. V. 1–3].  Marks K., Engel’s F. Soch. 2-e izd. T. 23- 25 [Marx, Engels. Papers, 2nd edition].  Moscow: Poli-tizdat. (In Russ.)

Musgrave, R., & Musgrave, P. (2009).  Gosudarstvennye finansy: teoriya i praktika [Public finance in theory and practice].  Moscow: Biznes- Atlas, 716. (In Russ.)

Rubinstein, A. Ya. (2011). K teorii opekaemykh blag. Neeffektivnye i effektivnye ravnovesiya [Theory of Patronized Goods: Inefficient and Efficient Equilibria].  Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy Ekonomiki], 3,  65–87. (In Russ.)

Rubinstein, A. Ya. (2018).  Teoriya opekaemykh blag: uchebnik [Theory of Patronized Goods].  SPb: Aleteyya, 304. (In Russ.)

Samuelson, P. (1992).  Ekonomika [Economics].  Moscow: NPO «Algon» VNIISI, Vol. 1, 334; Vol. 2, 416. (In Russ.)

Smith, A. (2016).  Issledovanie o prirode i prichinakh bogatstva narodov [An inquire into the nature and causes of the wealth nations].  Moscow: Eksmo, 1056. (In Russ.)

Tambovtsev, V. L. (2020). Narrativnyy analiz v ekonomicheskoy teorii kak voskhozhdenie k slozhnosti [Narrative analysis in economics as climbing complexity].  Voprosy ekonomiki [Voprosy Ekonomiki], 4,  5–30. (In Russ.)

Akerlof, O. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’. Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism.  Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3),  488–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics. How neuroscience can inform economics.  Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1),  9–64. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051053737843.

Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm.  Economica, New Series, 4(16),  386–405.

Denzau, A., & North, D. (1994). Shared mental models, ideologies and institutions.  Kyklos, 47(1),  3–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6435.1994.tb02246.x.

Hartley, J. E. (1996). Retrospectives: The origin of the representative agent.  Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2),  169–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.2.169.

Koppl, R. (2011). Against representative agent methodology.  The Review of Austrian Economics, 24(1),  43–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11138–010–0119-z.

North, M., & Macal, C. (2007).  Managing business complexity Discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation.  Oxford University Press.

Robbins, L. (1928). The representative firm.  Economic Journal, 38(151),  387–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2224316.

Schohl, F. (1999). The paradoxical fate of the representative firm.  Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21(1),  65–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837200002856.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics.  American Economic Review, 92(3),  460–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136363.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers.  Psychological Bulletin, 76(2),  105–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322.

Willamson, O. E. (1973). Markets and hierarchies. Some elementary considerations.  American Economic Review, 63(2),  316–325.