The Problem of the Philosophical Content of Economic Concepts

The philosophical content in the structure of scientific concepts is connected with the scientific picture of the world, through it – with the worldview paradigm. Taking into account this circumstance has a positive effect on the quality of scientific research. The relevance of the problem is confirmed by the example of the analysis of one of the fundamental concepts of economic science – the concept of “economic activity”. To analyze the transformation of this concept, the methods of sociophilosophical analysis are used: the comparative method, the system and dialectical approaches, the hermeneutic method, the method. The connection of the change in the philosophical content of the concept of “economic activity” with the change of scientific pictures of the world from antiquity to the present is revealed. The negative side of the accumulation of the meanings of the concept of “economic activity” in the course of its historical development is shown. The productive vector of economic theory development is indicated by clarifying the philosophical content in the structure of its concepts. The indicated principles can be used in the development of a universal method of studying the language of science in various fields of social and humanitarian knowledge.

Математическое моделирование трехстороннего рынка: медиа, производство и потребители

В работе формулируется общая методология построения моделей трехстороннего рынка, возникающего при неразделимом влиянии друг на друга медиа, производства и потребления, а также рассматриваются два примера таких моделей: модель рынка двусторонней монополии, на котором имеется один потребитель, одна фирма-производитель товара и одна медиафирма, и модель рынка горизонтально дифференцированного товара и контента. Для этих примеров исследуются свойства рыночных равновесий и их качественных особенностей. Кроме того, формулируются основные направления дальнейшего развития моделей трехсторонних рынков как отдельного раздела математической экономики. The article considers the issue of mathematical modelling of the media intersectoral influence on the other branches of economy. There are some ways of this influence, one of the most promi-nent among them is the advertising. There are plenty of works relating to the influence of advertising on the stated economic subjects and on the market balance in general. Although there are a lot of studies on these issues, the unified theory based on the synthesis of advertising and production models, as well as consumer choice models, does not yet exist. This leads to the second objective of the this paper: to analyze the white spots in the modern theories and to determine the most promising direc-tions for the economic theory development taking due account of advertising and its place in the structure of the economy, as well as to raise the question of constructing a new class of eco-nomic models considering the media economic segment as an integral part of each market. Some examples of these three-sided market models are considered in this paper.

Neoliberalism as Spectacle: Economic Theory, Development and Corporate Exploitation

Neoclassical economics has been thought to be in some way separated from actually existing capitalism. This is true, as well, for neoliberalism, the current policy framework based on neoclassical economics. Some perspectives argue that neoliberalism is a global colonizer implanted in, and taking over, actually existing capitalism through institutions or imaginations. I argue instead that neoliberalism is spectacle (“the birth-to-presence of a form of being that pre-exists”) requiring continual expert intervention to bring to fruition. I first lay out some recent notions of neoliberalism as colonizer through institutions and imaginations. I argue that these approaches break down as the focus moves away from academic departments and research and high-level policy departments of international financial institutions (IFIs), to the practice of development, especially corporate exploitation. “Neoliberalism as spectacle” more effectively accounts for corporate strategies that are often at cross purposes with neoliberal representations, for example privileging instability and barely controlled violence as strategy. Second, neoliberalism as spectacle brings appropriate focus onto what Latour terms the “small networks” masked by “big explanations.” Third, neoliberalism as spectacle re-focuses attention on the backstage maneuvers that accompany neoliberal onstage representations. If neoliberalism is a spectacle, then transformation must concentrate not only on challenging neoliberal policies and rationales, but also the myriad other ways, distinct from neoliberalism, that exploitation is accomplished (perceptions, coercive and non-coercive compulsion, legal/lobbying, strategic organizational changes, etc.).