Print
№4 (29) / 2025  

Release Date 10.11.2025

 METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE

 

 

Levin Sergey

Doctor of Science (Econ.), Professor

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow), This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3881-3579

 

Sablin Kirill

Cand. of Science (Econ.), Associate Professor

Russian State Institute of Performing Arts (Saint-Petersburg), This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5478-7481

 

COMPETING PARADIGMS WITHIN MODERN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Размер файла53-67 Размер файла  193 K Размер файла Text of the Article   License Creative Commons 4.0 

The article is devoted to the comparative characteristics of classical and neoclassical paradigms within the framework of modern political economy, which is not an integrated concept based on uniform foundations, but it is a set of partially competing concepts. The authors identify their advantages and limitations. Classical paradigm characterizes political economy as a science of accumulation and distribution of national wealth. The economic behavior of individuals is analyzed in the context of their belonging to classes. State is considered as a structure whose utility functions reflect the economic interests of classes as well as a relatively independent arbiter of their coordination. On the other hand, neoclassical paradigm characterizes political economy as a science of utility maximization by individuals not only in economic markets but also in the political sphere, characterized by the presence of such resource as "power" in the form of legitimate violence. Their economic behavior is analyzed in the context of belonging to group interests, and state acts as a sphere in which individuals and interest groups realize their preferences through competition for access to resources that are not available within the framework of voluntary market exchange. In general, modern political economy includes both reactualized classical political economy and new political economy developing within the expanded mainstream. At the same time, one can say not only of competition, but also of the complementarity of these areas. It is noted that the protective belts of their research programs contain identical or similar components: overcoming the "gap" between the study of economics and politics; using sociological tools and econometric models; practice-oriented approach within the framework of elaborating normative proposals for the formation of effective options for organizing political and economic interaction.

 

Keywords: paradigm, research program, scientific revolution, classical political economy, heterodox economic theories, expanded mainstream, new political economy

 

JEL: P51; P52

UDC:330.88

DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2025_4_53_67

 

© S. Levin, K. Sablin, 2025

© Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences «Issues of Theoretical Economics», 2025

Source of funding: The article is prepared according to the research results carried out at the expense of budgetary funds under the governmental assignment of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

 

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

  1. Allen W.R. (2004). Mercantilism.
  2. Arrighi G. (2006). The Long Twentieth Century. Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times.
  3. Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A. (2015). Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.
  4. Blaug M. (2004). The Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain.
  5. Boyer (1997). Regulation Theory: A Critical Analysis.

complete reference list

close list

  1. Buzgalin A., Kolganov A. (2005). Political Economy of Post-Soviet Marxism (Theses for the Formation of a Scientific School). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2005-9-36-55
  2. Buchanan J. (2004). Constitutional Economics.
  3. Wallerstein (1998). World-system analysis.
  4. Wallerstein (2001). Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world.
  5. Dementyev V.V. (2004). Economic power and institutional theory].
  6. Dementyev V.V. (2003). Economy as a system of power.
  7. Klistorin V.I. (2014). Classical political economy and modern times.
  8. Kuhn T. (2003). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  9. Lakatos (2008). History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions.
  10. North D., Wallis J., Weingast B. (2011). Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History.
  11. Olson M. (2012). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships.
  12. Polanyi K. (2002). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
  13. Smith A. (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
  14. Tolkachev A. (2024). Cyclical patterns of transformation of economic orthodoxy // Terra Economicus. Vol. 22. No. 3. Pp. 6–20. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-3-6-20
  15. Schumpeter J.A. (2001). The History of Economic Analysis.
  16. Eggertsson (2001). Economic behavior and institutions.
  17. Yadgarov Ya.S. (2018). Classical political economy through the prism of the research paradigm of K. Marx in his book «Capital» (on the 200th anniversary of K. Marx's birth. DOI: 10.26794/2226-7867-2018-7-1-57-64
  18. Acemoglu D., Johnson S. (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. - New York: PublicAffairs.
  19. Becchetti L., Bruni , Zamagni S. (2020). Economics: What it studies, with what methods, and how it evolved // The Microeconomics of Wellbeing and Sustainability: Recasting the Economic Process. London: Academic Press. Pp. 1-49. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816027-5.00001-X
  20. Besley T. (2007). The New Political Economy // The Economic Journal. 117. Pp. F570-F587. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02097.x
  21. Buchanan J.M., Tollison R.D., Tullock G. (1980). Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. - College Station: Texas A&M Press.
  22. Burkitt B., Spiers M. (1983). The Economic Theory of Politics: A Re-appraisal // International Journal of Social Economics. Vol. 10. 2. Pp.12–21. DOI: 10.1108/eb013930
  23. Clarke S. (1991). The Marginalist Revolution in Economics // Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology. – London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 182-206. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-21808-0_6
  24. Conybeare J. (1982). The Rent-Seeking State and Revenue Diversification // World Politics. 35. No. 1. Pp. 25-42. DOI: 10.2307/2010278
  25. Demsetz H. (1969). Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint // The Journal of Law & Economics. 12. No. 1. Pp. 1–22. DOI: 10.1086/466657
  26. Friedman F. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. – Chicago: The University of Chicago
  27. Gamble A. (1995). The New Political Economy // Political Studies. Vol. 43 No. 3. Pp. 516–530. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467 9248.1995.tb00320.x
  28. Hirshleifer J. (1985). The Expanding Domain of Economics // American Economic Review. 75. No. 6. Pp. 53-68.
  29. King E. (2013). A case for pluralism in economics // Economics and Labour Relations Review. Vol. 24. № 1. Pp. 17-31. DOI: 10.1177/1035304612474219
  30. Lydall H. (1998). A Critique of Orthodox Economics: An Alternative Model. - London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 1057/9780230379879_10
  31. Milonakis D., Fine B. (2009). From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory. – London: Routledge.
  32. Mulligan C.B., Tsui K.K. (2015). Political entry, public policies, and the economy // Research in Economics. 69. № 3. Pp. 377-397. DOI: 10.1016/j.rie.2015.06.004
  33. North D. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. – New York: WW Norton & Co.
  34. Olson M. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. – New Haven, CT: Yale University
  35. Robbins L. (1932). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. – London: Macmillan and Co.
  36. Stilwell (2016). Heterodox economics or political economy? // World Economics Association Newsletter. Vol. 6. № 1. Pp. 2-6.
  37. Viner J. (1948). Power Versus Plenty as Objectives of Foreign Policy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries // World Politics. Vol. 1. № 1. Pp. 1-29.
  38. Walras L. (1954). Elements of Theoretical Economics: Or, The Theory of Social Wealth. – Cambridge: Cambridge University
  39. Ward B. (1972). What's Wrong with Economics? – New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Manuscript submission date  05.09.2025

Manuscript acceptance date: 27.09.2025

 

For citation:

Levin S., Sablin K. Competing Paradigms Within Modern Political Economy // Voprosy teoreticheskoy ekonomiki. 2025. No. 4. Pp. 53–67. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2025_4_53_67.