Вопросы теоретической экономики

Литература

1. Бирюков В. (2018). Культурологическая парадигма видения экономической деятельности // Общество и экономика. № 9. С. 91–101.
2. Бьюкенен Дж. (1997). Сочинения. Конституция экономической политики. Расчет согласия. Границы свободы. — М.: Таурус Альфа,
3. Гофман А.Б. (2005). Существует ли общество? От психологического редукционизма к эпифеноменализму в интерпретации социальной реальности // Социологические исследования. № 1. С. 18-25.
4. Елисеев А. Н., Макарова Н. Н., Тамбовцев В. Л. (1997). Институциональный анализ науки. — М.: ТЕИС.
5. Канарш Г. Ю. (2015). Идея органицизма в современных исследованиях человека и общества // Философия и современность. №2. С. 50–60.
6. Кирдина С. Г. (2013). К переосмыслению принципа методологического индивидуализма. — М.: Институт экономики РАН.
7. Кирдина С. Г. (2014). Междисциплинарные исследования в экономике и социологии: проблемы методологии // Общественные науки и современность. №5. С. 60–75.
8. Кирдина С. Г. (2013). Методологический индивидуализм и методологический институционализм // Вопросы экономики. №10. С. 66–89.
9. Кирдина С. Г. (2013). Преодолевая ограничения методологического индивидуализма. // Журнал экономической теории. № 4. С. 100–110.
10. Князев Ю.К. (2019). Индивидуализм и коллективизм в современной экономике. — М.: Институт экономики РАН.
11. Кузьминов Я.И., Юдкевич М.М. (2002). Институциональная экономика: Курс лекций. М.: МФТИ. (http://window.edu.ru/resource/070/39070/files/mipt017.pdf). Дата обращения 11.06.2020
12. Лихтер П. Л. (2017). Холизм Древней Греции и редукционизм современного мира: правовые аспекты // Философия права. № 3. (82). С. 158–165.
13. Мизес Л. фон (2005). Человеческая деятельность. Трактат по экономической теории. —Челябинск: Социум.
14. Моргунова А. Г., Носков Э. Г. (2012). Университет: опыт институционального анализа // Основы экономики, управления и права. № 5. С. 13–15.
15. Нестеренко А. Н. (2002). Экономика и институциональная теория. — М.: Эдиториал УРСС.
16. Рогожникова В.Н. (2015). Экономический человек в XХ1 веке // Проблемы современной экономики. № 4 (56). С. 70–74.
17. Стрижак Е. О. (2013). Онтологические и методологические основы направлений институциональной экономической теории // Journal of Institutional Studies №5.С. 48–63.
18. Фролов Д. П. (2016). Методологический институционализм 2.0: от институтов — к институциональным конфигурациям // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С.147–160.
19. Abrams B. A., Lewis K. A. (1995). Cultural and institutional determinants of economic growth: a cross-section analysis // Public Choice/ Vol. 83. No.3–4. Pp. 273–289.
20. Agassi J. (1975). Institutional individualism // British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 26. No.2. Pp. 144–155.
21. Agassi J. (1960). Methodological Individualism // British Journal of Sociology. Vol.11. No.3. Pp. 244–270.
22. Ali A. M. (2003). Institutional differences as sources of growth differences // Atlantic Economic Journal. Vol.3. No4. Pp. 348–362.
23. Bekoff M. (1972). The Development of Social Interaction, Play, and Metacommunication in Mammals: An Ethological Perspective // Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 47. No.4. Pp. 412–434.
24. Braybrooke D. (1987). Philosophy of Social Science. — Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
25. Bubandt N., Otto T. (2010). Anthropology and the Predicaments of Holism. / T. Otto and N. Bubandt (Eds.). // Experiments in Holism: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Anthropology. — Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Pр. 1–15.
26. Bulle N. (2019). Methodological individualism as anti-reductionism // Journal of Classical Sociology. Vol. 19. No.2. Pp. 161–184.
27. Bunge M. (2000). Systemism: the alternative to individualism and holism // Journal of Socio-Economics. Vol. 29. No. 2. Pp. 147–157.
28. Coker F. W. (1910). Organismic Theories of the State: Nineteenth Century Interpretations of the State as Organism or as Person. New York: Columbia University; Longmans; Green & Co. http://archive.org/stream/organismictheori00cokeuoft/organismictheori00cokeuoft_djvu.txt.
29. Colin J.-P., Losch B. (1994). "But Where on Earth Has Mamadou Hidden His Production Function?" French Africanist Rural Economics and Institutionalism. / J. M. Acheson (Ed.). // Anthropology and institutional economics. — Lanham: University Press of America. Pp. 332–363.
30. Denzau A. T., North D. (1994). Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions // Kyklos. Vol. 47. No.1. Pp. 3–31.
31. Douglas M. (1987). How Institutions Think. — London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
32. Dove G. (2016). Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Vol. 23. No.4. Pp. 1109–1121.
33. Durkheim E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method (8th ed.). — Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Elster J. (2003 [1982]), Marxism, functionalism, and game theory: The case for methodological individualism. / D. Matravers and J. Pike (Eds.). // Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Antology. — New York: Routledge – Open University. Pp. 22–40.
35. Epstein B. (2009). Ontological Individualism Reconsidered // Synthese. Vol. 166. No.1. Pp.187-213.
36. Flew A. (1985). Thinking about Social Thinking: The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Basil Blackwell.
37. Goldinger S. D., Papesh M. H., Barnhart A. S., Hansen W. A., Hout M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Vol. 23. No.4. Pp. 959–978.
38. Goldstein L. J. (1956). The inadequacy of the principle of methodological individualism // Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 53 No.25. Pp. 801–813.
39. Gordon S. (2003). The History and Philosophy of Social Science. — London and New York: Routledge.
40. Granovetter M. (2007). Introduction for the French Reader // Sociologica. No. 2. Pp.1-9.
41. Groenewegen J. (2002). Toward a Teaching of Pluralistic Economics in the Netherland: Some experience from the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Colloque “Enseigner l’économie”, les 3 et 4 avril. — Clermont-Ferrand.
42. Hamilton W. H. (1919). The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory // American Economic Review. Vol. 9. No.1. Pp. 309–318.
43. Ho D. Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism // Asian Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 1–16.
44. Ho D. Y. F., Peng S., Cheng Lai A., Chan S. F. (2001). Indigenization and beyond: Methodological relationalism in the study of personality across cultural traditions // Journal of Personality. Vol. 69. No.6. Pp. 925–953.
45. Hodgson G. M. (1999). A brief response to Jürgen Lange-von Kulessa // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 6. No.3. Pp. 439–441.
46. Hodgson G. M. (2003). How Veblenian Evolutionary Thinking Transcends Methodological Individualism and Methodological Collectivism // Economie et Institutions. No. 3. Pp. 5–28.
47. Hodgson G. M. 2006. Institutional Economics, the Individual Actor and Institutional Change. For the Alexander von Humboldt Lecture at the University of Nijmegen, December the 5th.
48. Hodgson G. M. (2000). What is the Essence of Institutionalism?// Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 34/ No.2. 317–329.
49. Jackson W. A. (2002). Functional explanation in economics: a qualified defence // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 9. No.2. Pp. 169–189.
50. Joronen M., Häkli J. (2017). Politicizing ontology // Progress in Human Geography. Vol. 41. No.5. Pp. 561–579.
51. Kincaid H. (2004). Methodological individualism and economics. / J.B. Davis, A. Marciano and J. Runde (Eds). // Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy. — Aldershot: Elgar. Pp. 299–314.
52. Kivinen O., Piiroinen T. (2006). Toward Pragmatist Methodological Relationalism: From Philosophizing Sociology to Sociologizing Philosophy // Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Vol.36. No.3. Pp. 303–329.
53. Lange-von Kulessa J. (1999). A brief reaction to a brief response // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol.6. No.3. Pp. 443-444.
54. Lange-von Kulessa J. (1997). Searching for a methodological synthesis - Hayek's individualism in the light of recent holistic criticism // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 4. No.2. Pp. 267-287.
55. Lemke J., Kroencke J. (2020). Methodological confusions and the science wars in economics // Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 33. No.1-2. Pp. 87–106.
56. Lewis O. A., Steinmo S. (2012). How institutions evolve: Evolutionary theory and institutional change // Polity. Vol. 44. No.3. Pp. 314–339.
57. Lukes S. (1968). Methodological individualism reconsidered // British Journal of Sociology. Vol 19. No.2. Pp. 119–129.
58. McCloskey H. J. (1963). The State as an Organism, as a Person, and as an End in Itself // Philosophical Review. Vol. 72. No.3. Pp. 306-326.
59. Meramveliotakis G. (2018). New Institutional Economics: A Critique of Fundamentals & Broad Strokes Towards an Alternative Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Institutions // Asian Journal of Social Science Studies. Vol. 3. No.2. Pp. 50–64.
60. Merton R. K. (1973 [1942]). The normative structure of science. / Merton R. K. // The sociology of science. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 267–280.
61. Nooteboom B. (2007). Methodological interactionism: Theory and application to the firm and to the building of trust // Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 20.. No.2. Pp.137-153.
62. North D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Oliveira T. D., Suprinyak C. E. (2018). The nature and significance of Lionel Robbins’ methodological individualism // Economia. Vol. 19. Pp. 24–37.
64. Olivier de Sardan J.-P. (2005). Anthropology and Development: Understanding Contemporary Social Change. — London & New York: Zed Books.
65. Pettit P. (1993). The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics. — New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Phillips D.C. (1976). Holistic Thought in Social Science. — Stanford: Stanford University Press.
67. Ritzer G., Gindoff P. (1992). Methodological Relationism: Lessons for and from Social Psychology // Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 55. No.2. Pp. 128–140.
68. Sawyer R. K. (2005). Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. — New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. Schatzki T. R. (2003). A New Societist Social Ontology // Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Vol. 33. No.2. Pp. 174–202.
70. Schumpeter J. (1909). On the Concept of Social Value // Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 23. No.2. Pp. 213–232.
71. Snow C. P. (1959). The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. — London: Oxford University Press.
72. Stefanović Z., Petrovic D. P. (2016). The ‘Institutions-Individual’ Conceptual Nexus as a Basis of Alternative Economic Methodologies // Economic Themes. Vol. 54. No.1. Pp. 1–20
73. Stein J. (1997). How Institutions Learn: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective // Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 31. No.3. Pp. 729–740.
74. Stogiannos A. (2019). Fr. Ratzel’s State as a “Social Organism”. / A. Stogiannos // The Genesis of Geopolitics and Friedrich Ratzel: Dismissing the Myth of the Ratzelian Geodeterminism. — Cham: Springer. Pp. 29–55.
75. Tabellini G. (2010). Culture and institutions: economic development in the regions of Europe // Journal of the European Economic Association. Vol. 8. No.4. Pp. 677–716.
76. Thompson M. (2018). How banks and other financial institutions think // British Actuarial Journal/ Vol. 23 . No.5. Pp. 1–16.
77. Toboso F. (1995). Explaining the Process of Change Taking Place in Legal Rules and Social Norms: The Cases of Institutional Economics and New Institutional Economics // European Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 2. No.1. Pp. 63-84.
78. Toboso F. (2001). Institutional individualism and institutional change: the search for a middle way mode of explanation // Cambridge Journal of Economics. Vol. 25. No.6. Pp. 765–783.
79. Tunander O. (2001). Swedish-German geopolitics for a new century: Rudolf Kjellén's “The State as a Living Organism” // Review of International Studies. Vol. 27. No.3. Pp. 451–463.
80. Udehn L. (2002). The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism // Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 28. Pp. 479–507.
81. Veblen T. B. (1909). The Limitations of Marginal Utility // Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 17. No.9. 620–636.
82. Veblen T. B. (1898). Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science? // Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 12. No.3. Pp. 373-397.
83. Vilber C. K., Harrison R. S. (1978). The Methodological Basis of Institutional Economics: Pattern Model, Storytelling, and Holism // Journal of Economic Issues. Vol. 12. No.1. Pp. 61–89.
84. Wagner R. E. (2007). Value and exchange: Two windows for economic theorizing // Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 20. No.2. Pp. 97–103.
85. Walliser B. (2003). Organizational levels and time scales in economics. / D. Courgeau (Ed.). // Methodology and Epistemology of Multilevel Analysis: Approaches from Different Social Sciences. — Paris: Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques. Pр. 160–176.
86. Weber M. (1968 [1921]). Basic Sociological Terms. / M. Weber // Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. — Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 3–62.
87. Weller J. (2019). Critical reflection through personal pronoun analysis (critical analysis) to identify and individualise teacher professional development // Teacher Developments. Vol.23. No.1. Pp. 139–154.
88. Williamson O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. Analysis and Antitrust Implications. — New York: Free Press.
89. Wilson M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Vol. 9. No.4. Pp. 625–636.
90. Young O. R. (1989). International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment. — Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
91. Zaharna R. S. (2016). Beyond the Individualism–Collectivism Divide to Relationalism: Explicating Cultural Assumptions in the Concept of “Relationships” // Communication Theory. Vol. 26. No.2. Pp. 190–211.
92. Zahle J. (2016). Methodological Holism in the Social Sciences. / Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition). URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/holism-social/>.
93. Zouboulakis M.S. (2002). John Stuart Mill’s institutional individualism // History of Economic Ideas. Vol.10. No.3. Pp. 29–45.