Вопросы теоретической экономики

Литература

1. Капелюшников Р.И. (2018). О современном состоянии экономической науки: полусоциологические наблюдения [Kapelyushnikov, R.I. (2018). On the current state of economic science: semi-sociological observations] // Вопросы экономики. №5. С. 110-128. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2018-5-110-128
2. Курилла И.И. (2022). Битва за прошлое: Как политика меняет историю [Kurilla I.I. (2022). Battle for the Past: How Politics Changes History]. – М.: Альпина.
3. Либман А.М. (2013). Между новой политической экономией и политологией: сближение и расхождение дисциплин [Libman, A.M. (2013). Between the new political economy and political science: convergence and divergence of disciplines] // Журнал новой экономической ассоциации. №1. С. 166-169.
4. Полтерович В.М. (2011). Становление общего социального анализа [Polterovich V.M. (2011). The formation of general social analysis] // Общественные науки и современность. № 2. С. 101-111.
5. Тамбовцев В.Л. (2018). Какая экономическая методология может быть интересна экономистам? [Tambovtsev, V.L. (2018). What economic methodology may be of interest to economists?] // Экономическая теория: триумф или кризис. – СПб.: Леонтьевский центр. C. 104-116.
6. Abad L.A., Maurer N. (2021). History never really says goodbye: A critical review of the persistence literature // Journal of Historical Political Economy. V. 1. No1. Pp. 31-68. DOI: 10.1561/115.00000002.
7. Abramitzky R. (2015). Economics and the modern economic historian // Journal of Economic History. V.75. No.4. Pp. 1240-1251. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050715001667.
8. Angris, 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. V. 58. No.1. Pp. 3-52. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20181508.
9. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics // Journal of Economic Perspectives. V. 24. No.2. Pp. 3-30. DOI: 10.1257/jep.24.2.3.
10. Ashraf Q., Galor O. (2013). The «Out of Africa» hypothesis, human genetic diversity, and comparative economic development // American Economic Review. V. 103. No.1. Pp. 1-46. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.1.1.
11. Austin G. (2008). The «reversal of fortune» thesis and the compression of history: Perspectives from African and comparative economic history // Journal of International Development. V. 20. No.8. Pp.996-1027. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1510.
12. Bates R., Greif A., Levi M., Rosenthal J. L., Weingast B. (2000). Analytic narratives revisited // Social Science History. V. 24. No.4. Pp. 685-696. DOI: 10.1215/01455532-24-4-685.
13. Boldizzoni F. (2011). The poverty of Clio: Resurrecting economic history. – Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14. Camerer C., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics // Journal of Economic Literature. V. 43. No.1. Pp. 9-64. DOI: 10.1257/0022051053737843
15. Charney E., English W. (2013). Genopolitics and the science of genetics // American Political Science Review. V. 107. No.2. Pp.382-395. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055413000099
16. Charnysh V., Finkel E., Gehlbach S. (2023). Historical political economy: Past, present, and future // Annual Review of Political Science. V. 26. Pp. 175-191. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102440.
17. Cirone A., Pepinsky T. B. (2022). Historical persistence // Annual Review of Political Science. V. 25. Pp. 241-259. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-104325
18. d’Alpoim Guedes J., Bestor T.C., Carrasco D., Flad R., Fosse E., Herzfeld M., et al. (2013). Is Poverty in Our Genes? A Critique of Ashraf and Galor, «The “Out of Africa” Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development» // American Economic Review (Forthcoming). Current Anthropology. V. 54. No.1. Pp. 71-79. DOI: 10.1086/669034
19. Fourcade M., Ollion E., Algan Y. (2015). The superiority of economists // Journal of Economic Perspectives. V. 29. No.1. Pp. 89-114. DOI: 10.1257/jep.29.1.89.
20. Friedman M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Gallegati M., Keen S., Lux T., Ormerod P. (2006). Worrying trends in econophysics // Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. V. 370. No.1. Pp. 1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2006.04.029.
22. Gehlbach S. (2015). The fallacy of multiple methods // Comparative Politics Newsletter. V. 25. No.2. Pp. 11-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2006.04.029.
23. Gelman A. (2013). Ethics and statistics: They'd rather be rigorous than right // Chance. V. 26. No.2. Pp. 45-49. DOI: 10.1080/09332480.2013.794616.
24. Gerring J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? // Comparative Political Studies.V. 40. No.3. Pp. 231-253. DOI: 10.1177/00104140062907.
25. Greif A. (1997). Cliometrics after 40 years // American Economic Review. V. 87. No.2. Pp. 400-403.
26. Gunnell J. (2015). Pluralism and the Fate of Perestroika: A Historical Reflection // Perspectives on Politics. V. 13. No.2. Pp. 408-415. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592715000080.
27. Hedstrom P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511488801
28. Kenning P., Plassmann H. (2005). NeuroEconomics: An overview from an economic perspective // Brain Research Bulletin. V. 67. No.5. Pp. 343-354. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.07.006
29. King G., Keohane R. O., Verba S. (2021). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. – Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30. Laitin D.D. (2003). The Perestroika Challenge to Social Science // Politics and Society. V.31. No.1. Pp. 163-184. DOI: 10.1177/0032329202250167.
31. Landman T. (2002). Rebutting «Perestroika»: Method and Substance in Political Science. – Mimeo, Department of Government, Essex University.
32. Libman A. (2023). Interdisciplinarity in East European studies: A social science perspective // OSMIKON. URL: https://www.osmikon.de/themendossiers/crossing-disciplinary-boundaries/interdisciplinarity-in-east-european-studies-a-social-science-perspective (access date: 08.07.2023).
33. Lieberman E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research // American Political Science Review. V. 99. No.3. Pp.435-452. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055405051762.
34. Lustick I. S. (1996). History, historiography, and political science: Multiple historical records and the problem of selection bias // American Political Science Review. V. 90. No.3. Pp. 605-618. DOI: 10.2307/2082612.
35. Mahoney J. (2010). After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research // World Politics. V. 62. No.1. Pp. 120-147. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887109990220.
36. Mahoney J., Goertz G. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research // Political Analysis. V. 14. No.3. Pp. 227-249. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpj017.
37. Mitra S., Palmer M., Vuong V. (2020). Development and interdisciplinarity: A citation analysis // World Development, 135 p. [105076]. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105076.
38. Mueller D.C. (2015). Public choice, social choice, and political economy // Public Choice. V. 163. No.3-4. Pp. 379-387. DOI: 10.1007/S11127-015-0244-0.
39. Oleinik A. (2011). Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis: Triangulation at work // Quality and Quantity. V.45. No.4. Pp. 859-873. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-010-9399-4.
40. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Collins K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research // Qualitative report. V. 12. No.2. Pp. 281-316.
41. Oshchepkov A., Shirokanova A. (2022). Bridging the gap between multilevel modeling and economic methods // Social Science Research, 104, 102689. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102689.
42. Rohlfing I. (2008). What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research // Comparative Political Studies. V. 41. No.11. Pp. 1492-1514. DOI: 10.1177/0010414007308019.
43. Samii C. (2016). Causal empiricism in quantitative research // Journal of Politics. V. 78. No.3. Pp. 941-955. DOI: 10.1086/686690.
44. Schoonenboom J., Johnson R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design // Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie V. 69 (Suppl 2). 107-131. DOI: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1.
45. Seawright J., Gerring J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options // Political Research Quarterly. V. 61. No.2. Pp. 294-308. DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313.
46. Sinha S., Chatterjee A., Chakraborti A., Chakrabarti B. K. (2010). Econophysics: an introduction. – Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
47. Small M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature // Annual Review of Sociology. V. 37. Pp. 57-86. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657.
48. Sommer Harrits G. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research // Journal of Mixed Methods Research. V. 5. No.2. Pp. 150-166. DOI: 10.1177/1558689811402.
49. Strübing J. (2018). Zur Forderung nach Replizierbarkeit in der Forschung // Forschung & Lehre. URL: https://www.forschung-und-lehre.de/forschung/zur-forderung-nach-replizierbarkeit-in-der-forschung-328 (access date: 08.07.2023).
50. Truc A. (2023). Neuroeconomics: Hype or hope? An answer. SSRN Working Paper. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4328645.
51. Truc A., Santerre O., Gingras Y., Claveau F. (2020). The interdisciplinarity of economics // SSRN Working Paper. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3669335
52. Wajzer M. (2020). Genopolitics: introductory remarks // Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. V. 45. No.4. Pp. 508-524. DOI: 10.1177/147892992110537.