Aleksandr I. Moskovskiy: on institutionalism

The article provides an overview and assessment of the legacy of most significant Russian researcher of the past decades in the field of theory and methodology of classical institutionalism — candidate of science in economics, associate professor Alexander Ivanovich Moskovskiy, who worked for many years at the Department of Political Economy at Lomonosov MSU Faculty of Economics. The article shows the original ideas of A. I. Moskovskiy on the correlation of classical political economy, other schools of the heterodox branch of economic theory and neoclassical, methodology and theory of classical institutionalism. Special attention is paid to the research of A. I. Moskovskiy on the relationship between the technological progress, socio-economic processes, as well as the content and role of labor. The article reveals that A. I. Moskovskiy is among the first and most profound researchers who not only criticized the processes of deindustrialization but showed the importance of focusing on rendustrialization of the economy, showing (based on classical institutionalism and modern Marxism methodology) that strategic planning and active industrial policy can become the most important means to solve this problem. The industrial era, during which huge enterprises were the main institutions for maintaining social order, is not coming to an end; that affects employment and the nature of work. At the same time, the scolar did not deny that postindustrial society is now increasingly characterized as a “knowledge society”, in which knowledge and information become a key resource for technological, economic, and social development. An important point relates to the analysis of A. I. Moskovskiy changes in the methods and forms of managing skilled workers in conditions of increasing complexity and knowledge-intensive labor.

1. Altshuller, G. S. (2013). Find an idea: Introduction to TRIZ — the theory of inventive problems solving. Moscow: Alpina Publisher.

2. Batishchev, G. S. (1997). Introduction to the dialectic of creativity. St. Petersburg: RKHI Publishing House.

3. Bakhtin, M. (1962). Problems of Dostoevsky poetics. Moscow.

4. Bybler, V. S. (1975). Thinking as creativity. Moscow: Politizdat.

5. Bodrunov, S. D. (2016).The coming of New industrial society: reboot. 2nd ed., supplemented. St. Petersburg: INIR named after S.Yu. Witte.

6. Bodrunov, S. D. (ed.) (2017). Galbraith: the Return. Moscow: Cultural revolution.

7. Borisovsky, A. (1985). Sukhomlinsky V. A. Series “People of Science”. Moscow: Enlightenment.

8. Buzgalin, A. V., Kolganov, A. I., & Moskovskiy A. I. (2012). Marxism and institutionalism: a comparative study. Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 6. Economics, 5, 3–18.

9. Buzgalin, A. V. (2018). Late capitalism and its limits: the dialectics of productive forces and industrial relations (on the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx). Problems in political economy, 2, 10–38.

10. Glazyev, S. Yu. (2014).Strategic prerequisites for modernization and innovative development of the Russian economy. Moscow: GUU.

11. Glazyev, S. Yu. (1990). Economic theory of technical development. Moscow: Science.

12. Greenberg, R. S., & Rubinstein, A. Ya. (2013). Individual & State: economic dilemma. Moscow: The whole world.

13. Galbraith, J. (1969). New Industrial Society. Moscow: Progress.

14. Galbraith, J. C. (2008). New Industrial Society. Selected works. Scientifi c editor and compiler Filatov, I. V. Moscow: Eksmo.

15. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1984). Dialectical logic. Essays on history and theory. Moscow: Politizdat.

16. Drucker, P. (1992).Market: how to lead. Practices and principles. Moscow: Beech Chamber International.

17. Dewey, J. (2000). Democracy and Education. Moscow: Pedagogy-Press.

18. Inshakov, O. V. et al. (2005). Homo institutius: an institutional man. Edit. Volgograd: Publishing House of the Volga State University.

19. Castels, M. (2000). Information Age: Economics, Society and Culture. Translation from English. Scientifi c edit. O. I. Shkaratan. Moscow: HSE GU.

20. Lvov, D. S. (1990). Effective management of technical development. Moscow: Economy.

21. Moskovskiy, A. I. (1975). Distribution by labor in the system of socialism political economy categories: thesis … Candidate of Economics. Moscow.

22. Moskovskiy, A. I. (1998). On the synthesis of economic theory by K. Marx and economics. “Capital” and Economics. Moscow: TEIS.

23. Moskovskiy, A. I. (1999). Dialogue and synthesis of the main directions of modern theory are the necessary forms of development of economic science. Content, logic and structure of modern economic theory. Moscow: TEIS.

24. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2002). Institutional economy. Moscow: TEIS.

25. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2005). Limits of Institutionalism. Economist, 6, 74–81.

26. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2006). From neoclassical myth to neo-institutional myth. “Capital” and economics. Vol. 2. Moscow: TEIS.

27. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2010). Innovations: nature, sources, motivation. Manuscript.

28. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2012). Modern economic institutions. Moscow: TEIS.

29. Moskovskiy, A. I. (2018). Method and theory of Marxist political economy. Problems in political economy, 2, 136–143.

30. Nureyev, R. M. (ed.) (2001). Economic subjects of post-Soviet Russia. M.: MONF.

31. Pavlov, M. Yu. (2021). On the methodological aspects of determining the creative class based on the content of labor. Philosophy of economy, 3, 65–73.

32. Pavlov, M. Yu. (2020). Noonomy, post-industrial economy and industry 4.0: what is common and what are different? Economic revival of Russia, 2, 152–162.

33. Pavlov, M. Yu. (2019). Creative potential of human: A challenge for modern economic theory. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Economics and Management, 1, 11–16.

34. Popper, K. (1983). Conceptual framework myth. Popper K. Logic and growth of scientifi c knowledge. Moscow: Progress.

35. Ryazanov, V. T. (2017). “Capital” by K. Marx and modern capitalism: the possibilities and advantages of political economic synthesis. Problems in political economy, 4, 10–29.

36. Filatov, I. V. (2014). Homo faber in its history. Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 6. Economics, 1, 37–56.

37. Florida, R. (2005). Creative Class: People Who Change the Future. Moscow: Classic-XXI.

38. Hodgson, J. (2001). Socio-economic implications of knowledge progress and increasing complexity. Voprosy ekonomiki, 8, 32–45.

39. Tsagolov, N. A. (ed.) (1973). Course of political economy. In 2 vols. 3rd ed. Moscow: Economy.

40. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Enterpreunership: Practice and Principles. NY: Harper & Row.