Peter the Great and interdisciplinary synthesis
https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-58-2-1
Abstract
This paper examines the specifics of interdisciplinary synthesis in modern social sciences. The author argues that currently economists do not “intervene” on to the “territory” of adjacent social sciences but rather export concepts from their disciplines into economics. The article reveals the reasons for the decline in the interest of social scientists in “grand theories” and highlights the factors that conditioned the rise of the so-called quantitative turn in social sciences. The author demonstrates the correlation between the empirical turn in social sciences and the promotion of interdisciplinarity. The analysis allows to state that the main driver enhancing the dialogue between representatives of various scientific fields is the growing unity of the analytical toolkit used by scholars. As a result, more and more researchers identify themselves through the analytical methods they use. Drawing on the papers prepared by the participants of the conference “Paradoxes of Peter the Great’s reforms: lessons for the economy of modern Russia”, held at the Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University on September 21, 2022 and formed this issue of Lomonosov Economics Journal, the author examines the manifestations of interdisciplinary approach in Russian social sciences. It has been identified that, unlike their international colleagues, Russian social scientists are united not so much by common analytical toolkit, but by the desire to fit their research into a broad theoretical framework, which over the past decades is represented by diverse types of institutionalism
About the Author
A. A. MaltsevRussian Federation
Moscow
Ekaterinburg
Amiens, France
References
1. Anisimov, E.V. (2023). Industrialization as envisioned by Peter the Great. Moscow University Economics Bulletin, 2
2. Avtonomov, V. (2013). Abstraction as a Mother of Order? Voprosy Ekonomiki, 4, 4–23. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-4-4-23
3. Balatsky, E.V. (2022). New imperatives of economic knowledge: on the way to socionomics. Social Space, 4, 1–19. DOI: 10.15838/sa.2022.4.36.2
4. Kamensky, A.B. (2023). The lessons of Peter's reforms through the eyes of a historian Moscow University Economics Bulletin, 2
5. Kapelyushnikov, R.I. (2018). On the current state of economic science: Semi-sociological observations. Working Paper 3/2018/03. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishing House.
6. Kapelyushnikov, R.I. (2022). Randomists: New development economics. Working Paper 3/2022/07 Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publishing House.
7. Kirdina, S.G. (2015). Institutionalism in Russia in the 1930s-2010s: An inversion cycle? Journal of Institutional Studies Journal of Institutional Studies, 7(2), 6–37. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2015.7.2.006-037
8. Koshovets, O.B. (2022). The economic agent in your brain: neuroeconomic discourse and the limits of the rational. Questions of Theoretical Economics, 2, 7–21. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2022_2_7_21
9. Makasheva, N.A. (2006). Economic science in Russia in the period of transformation (late 1980s-1990s): Revolution and growth of scientific knowledge. Economic and social problems of Russia, 1, 12–32.
10. Maltsev, A.A. (2016). Russian community of economists: Main features and perspectives. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 11, 135–158. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-11-135-158
11. Maltsev, A.A. (2020). Whither history of economic thought: A perspective from Russian and international scholars. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 9. 94–119. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-9-94-119
12. Maltsev, A.A. (2022). Cinderella or princess: Past and present of economic history. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 11. 24–56. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-24-56
13. Orekhovsky, P.A. (2023). The ambivalence of the myth of Peter I in the new Russian political theology. Moscow University Economics Bulletin, 2
14. Pliskevich, N.M. (2022). Institutional scars in “frontier” societies and the evolution of human potential (Part 1. Institutional scars). Issues in Theoretical Economics, 3. 130–143. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2022_3_130_143
15. Polterovich, V.M. (2011). The formation of general social analysis. Social Sciences and Modernity, 2. 101–111.
Review
For citations:
Maltsev A.A. Peter the Great and interdisciplinary synthesis. Moscow University Economics Bulletin. 2023;(2):3-19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-58-2-1