7 The emergence of evolutionaryinstitutional thought in Russia1 Svetlana Kirdina The evolutionary-institutional school of thought did not emerge in Russia, but in the United States and Western Europe and during the 1920s and 1930s. With this inquiry we shall investigate how selected Russian and Soviet scholars perceived DQGDOVRGHDOWZLWKWKHHPHUJHQFHRIWKLVFKDOOHQJLQJ¿HOGRIVWXG\DQGDOVRKRZ some key ideas were thwarted while others were selected for absorption into their social and economic sciences over the last century. 2XU LQTXLU\ FRQVLVWV RI IRXU VHFWLRQV IROORZHG E\ D FRQFOXVLRQ 7KH ¿UVW VHFWLRQLQWURGXFHVDQGVHHNVWRGH¿QHWKHQRWLRQRI³LQYHUVLRQF\FOHV´WKDWDUH thought to characterize and also limit Russian social development. Our second section deals with some of the critics of the evolutionary-institutional tradition in economicc thought advanced bby thinkers y Soviet thin ers in the 1930s through the 1980s. The third institutional thinking d section presents ins in tutional thin ng derived from selected selecte contributions of Soviet politi economists polit political oli l econom eecono ts and sociologists. The fourth four section sectio considers the spread tradition social d of this tra ition in so ial science thinking in Russia, starting starti with the early post-Soviet running to the present present. Finally Finally, the main conclusions are t Soviet era and nd runn runnin conc presented in summarized form. Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Inversion cycles and discontinuities in Russian social development At the beginning of the 1990s, Alexandr Akhiezer introduced the idea that Russia’s VRFLHW\FDQEHXQGHUVWRRGDV³VSOLW´,QWKHYLHZDGYDQFHGE\$NKLH]HU SZKDWDUHWHUPHG³LQYHUVLRQF\FOHV´FRQWULEXWHWRGLVFRQWLQXRXVSDWWHUQV for Russia, and can be visualized as rocking vibrations moving between two contrasting poles. These cycles are noted to emerge related to an outright rejection of a full set of societal values and practices that should be, but are not, preserved and relied upon as previously accumulated knowledge. $GGLQJ WR WKLV OLQH RI WKLQNLQJ 6XVDQQD 0DWYHHYD S VWUHVVHV WKDW inversion cycles tend to prove disruptive and thereby contribute to disorganization, reducing prospects for societal progress. Disruptions can occur when previously KHOGYDOXHVFRQWULEXWHWRZDUGVFRQÀLFWLQJYDOXHVDQGDUHODWHGVRFLHWDOGLVRUJDQLzation in a subsequent historical era. Akhiezer relates such inversion cycles to the ZHDNQHVVRIZKDWLVGH¿QHGDVD³PHGLDQXWLOLWDULDQFXOWXUH´LQ5XVVLDLQYHVWLJDWHG Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 101 LQZRUNVDXWKRUHGE\1LNRODL%HUG\DHYDQGWKDWUHIHUWRWKHFUHDWLRQRIQHZ elements of culture that cannot be reduced to the previous polar extremes. One way that inversion cycles manifest themselves and work themselves out is that, over a span of Russian history, each new historical turn in social development denies the hard-earned cultural practices and traditions that could be JDUQHUHGIURPWKHSUHYLRXVHUD,QWKLVVHQVHLQYHUVLRQF\FOHVFDQLQGHHGYLRODWH the unity and continuity of Russian society, rendering social development if not impossible, then extremely costly, as mistakes that are made tend to be irreversible. The long Soviet era, or even the shorter era known by the term Perestroika that arose and fell in the second half of the 1980s, offers vivid examples of inversion cycles, demonstrating that as a previous era is cast out, members of Russian society are faced with starting a new historical era that is plagued by opposing and HYHQFRQÀLFWLQJYDOXHVUHQGHULQJWKRVHVHHNLQJWRRIIHUOHDGHUVKLSLQWKHFXUUHQW era largely unable to synthesize values drawn from the previous era. For this inquiry, we think that Akhiezer’s notion of inversion cycles offers a fruitful framework for our efforts to understand the how evolutionary-institutional thought has been perceived and dealt with in Russia. While Akhiezer’s notion and application of inversion cycles serve to frame our inquiry, his thinking is also supSRUWHGE\RXU¿QGLQJVWKDWZHLQWURGXFHEHORZ Soviet political economy and institutional thought When formed med into a well-devel well-developed ped ed and com comprehensive rehensive approach, as w well as a GHVHUYLQJ¿HOGLQ(FRQRPLF6FLHQFH,QVWLWXWLRQDO(FRQRPLFVVSUHDGLQWHUQDWLRQ¿HOGLQ(FRQRPLF6FL HOGLQ(FRQRPLF6FL QFH,QVWLWXWLR QFH,QVWLWXWL DO(FRQRPLFVVSUHDGLQW ally during the Decade ad off the th 192 19 1920s. s.2 For some decades prior, and in th the United 6WDWHV 7KRUVWHLQ 9HEOHQ ± VHPLQDO DUWLFOHV UVWHLQ 9HEO Q ± JHQHUDWHG D VHOHFWLRQ RI VHPLQD DQG ERRNV WKDW WKDW HVWDEOLVKHG HVWDEOL KHG HG DQG DQG DGYDQFHG D YDQFHG WKLV WKLV ¿HOG ¿HOG RI RI LQTXLU\ LQTXLU\ ,Q ,Q WKH WK 8QLWHG .LQJGRP DQG )UDQFH QRWDEOH DXWKRUV VXFK DV -RKQ +REVRQ ± DQG )UDQoRLV6LPLDQG±RIIHUHGVRPHZKDWVLPLODUFRQWULEXWLRQV,Q5XVVLD GXULQJ WKH V DQG V WKHUH HPHUJHG ZKDW WUDQVODWHV DV D ³VRFLRLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVW´DSSURDFK,QFRQVLGHULQJWKLVDSSURDFKDXWKRU/0,SSROLWRY SQRWHGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRI3HWHU6WUXYHDVZHOODVVRPHRWKHUHFRQRPLVWV ZKRGHSDUWHGIURP5XVVLDDIWHUWKH%ROVKHYLN5HYROXWLRQRIDQGFRQWULEXWHG towards advancing Russian institutional thought from abroad. With the rise and later domination of bolshevism as a political ideology, that was also put to practice in the newly established Soviet Union, evolutionary-institutional thinking HQWHUHGLQWRZKDWZHGH¿QHDVDthwarted phaseDVWKLV¿HOGRILQTXLU\JHQHUated overseas met pointed and harsh criticisms from those in the nascent Soviet 8QLRQVHHNLQJLGHRORJLFDODQGVFLHQWL¿FSXULW\DORQJWKH0DU[LVW±/HQLQLVWOLQH that played such a central role in the development of economic thinking in that formative and also turbulent era of early, Soviet economic history. 2QHFRXOGYLHZWKH¿UVWSDUWRIWKHWKFHQWXU\DVFRPSRVHGRIGHFDGHVGXUing which those advancing ideas in Economic Science were engaged in competing QRWRQO\IRULQÀXHQFHEXWDOVRGRPLQDQFH%HIRUHWKHUHYROXWLRQ.DUO0DU[¶V writings were better known in Russia than anywhere else in the world, except for in Taylor and Francis Not for distribution 102 Kirdina *HUPDQ\DQG*UHDW%ULWDLQ7KH¿UVWWUDQVODWLRQRI0DU[¶VIDPRXVWRPHDas Kapital, Band I ZDVXQGHUWDNHQIURPWKHRULJLQDO*HUPDQWRWKH5XVVLDQODQJXDJHDQG SXEOLVKHGLQ5XVVLDLQ7KH¿UVW5XVVLDQHGLWLRQZLWKDSULQWUXQRIFRSLHV RXWUDQWKHFRSLHVWKDWZHUHSULQWHGDVWKH¿UVWHGLWLRQLQQHLJKERULQJ*HUPDQ\ Ten years later the Communist Manifesto, that Marx and Friedrich Engels had coauWKRUHGLQZDVWUDQVODWHGE\*HRUJL3OHNKDQRYDQGSXEOLVKHGLQ5XVVLD Up to the start of the 20th century, Marx’s thinking increased in popularity among Russian intellectuals and in this manner came to exert effects on public opinion and later on the course of Russian history. After the successes of WKH %ROVKHYLN 5HYROXWLRQ RI 0DU[¶V LGHDV ZHUH GUDZQ XSRQ WR IRUP WKH EDVLVRIWKHRI¿FLDOLGHRORJ\IRUWKHQDVFHQW6RYLHW8QLRQ:KDWFRQWULEXWHGWR widespread acceptance of his thinking within the Soviet context is that Marx not only advanced a critique of capitalism, but he also offered a vision, according to .LUGLQDRIDQLPSURYHGVRFLHW\WKDWUHVROYHGVRPHRIWKHNH\FRQWUDGLFtions of capitalism and in a manner that also proved congruent with a centralized society forged in Russia long before the start of the 20th century. The ascendency of the Bolsheviks to dominance with the October Revolution RIDQGWKHSRVWFLYLOZDUIRXQGLQJRIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQLQOHGWRDIXOO endorsement of Marx’s orientation, while simultaneously limiting the prospects for other economic approaches, including evolutionary-institutional thinking. )RU WKH GXUDWLRQ RI WKH \HDUORQJ 6RYLHW HUD WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO WUDGLWLRQ in economics advanced by Veblen and some others was regarded coolly, for this school and deemed a competitor to ool of thought was hheld d suspect an t the domiQDQW 0DU[LDQ DU[LDQ [LDQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ EDVHG DVHG XSRQ GGLDOHFWLFV DOHFWLFV ,Q KLV ERRN Foundations F of LeninismSXEOLVKHGLQ5XVVLDQLQ-RVHI6WDOLQRIIHUHGDQGGHOLQHDWHG ism smSXEOLVK sm SXEOLVKHG SXEOLV EOLV GLQ5XVV GLQ LQ 5X QLQ-RVHI6WDOLQRIIHUHGDQG Q-RVHI6WDOLQRII ³0DU[LVP±/HQLQLVP´ 6RYLHW P±/HQLQLVP DV WKH 6 YLHW 8QLRQ¶V RI¿FLDO LGHRORJ\ DQG DDSSURDFK WR HFRQRPLFJRYHUQDQFH6WDOLQS F JRYHUQDQF 6WDOLQ S HPSKDVL]HGLWVLPSRUWDQFHDV³WKHWKHHPSKDVL]HG LWV LPSRUWDQFH RU\DQGSUDFWLFHRIWKHGLFWDWRUVKLSRIWKHSUROHWDULDW´WKDWZRXOGDOVREH³VHUYLQJ WKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHZRUNLQJFODVV´$QGWKLVSDUWLFXODUUHTXLUHPHQWEHFDPHWKH main criterion for evaluation of other social and economic concepts. Therefore, LIDQHFRQRPLFWKHRU\ZDVMXGJHGWRVHUYH³WKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHERXUJHRLVLH´SHUceived as a reactionary class during those times, such an economic doctrine or FRQFHSWZDVPDUNHGDV³YXOJDU´DQGIRUOLPLWLQJLQTXLU\WRVXUIDFHSKHQRPHQD without penetrating into the deeper structures of social relations of production that clearly included class relations. ,QDGGLWLRQDQRI¿FLDOO\WHUPHG³SROLWLFDOHFRQRP\RIVRFLDOLVP´ZDVVSHOOHG out by the Soviet leadership, and for investigating and explaining developments taking place in the recently formed Soviet economic and social order. And curiRXVO\ ZLWKLQ WKLV HQYLURQPHQW RI RI¿FLDOO\ VDQFWLRQHG 0DU[LVP±/HQLQLVP critiques emerged and took form as competing schools. However, these competing VFKRROVZHUHUHOHJDWHGWRDSHULSKHU\DQGZHUHGHVLJQDWHGDVIRUPVRI³ERXUJHRLV YXOJDUSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\´DQGLQWKLVPDQQHUZHUHVDIHO\FDWHJRUL]HGDQGWKHQ SUHVHQWHG DV FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKH ³KLVWRU\ RI HFRQRPLF WKRXJKW´ 7KHVH DUH WKH FRQGLWLRQVXQGHUZKLFKHYROXWLRQDU\LQVWLWXWLRQDOLQFOXGLQJ9HEOHQ¶VWKLQNLQJ got started in the Soviet Union during the early years of the Grand Experiment. Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 103 2QH RI WKH ¿UVW UHIHUHQFHV WR $PHULFDQ LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP LQ JHQHUDO DQG WR Veblen’s contribution, in particular, can be found in The Subjective School in Political Economy DXWKRUHG E\ ,VUDHO %O\XPLQ $V D 6RYLHW HFRQRPLVW and historian of economic thought, Blyumin’s writings suggest that institutionalism offers a theoretical alternative to marginalism, in the tradition established by Alfred Marshall and that came to dominate in Great Britain and across the vast colonial and post-colonial empire. Towards the end of his book, entitled Sketches of Modern Bourgeois Theoretical Economics (On the Characterization of the Social School), %O\XPLQUHJLVWHUHGDVWKH¿UVWWRSUHVHQW9HEOHQ¶VVHPLQDO LGHDVLQH[SOLFLWGHWDLOWRWKHHFRQRPLVWVRIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQ+RZHYHUZH¿QGLW important to stress that with his book Blyumin also sought to characterize trends DQGWHQGHQFLHVLQERXUJHRLVHFRQRPLFWKHRU\$QGLQGRLQJVR%O\XPLQ SH[SOLFLWO\GHQRXQFHG9HEOHQDVD³ERXUJHRLVHFRQRPLVW´DQGIRUKLV³MXVWL¿FDWLRQRISULYDWHSURSHUW\DQGDSRORJ\IRUFDSLWDOLVP´,Q%O\XPLQ¶VYLHZ S$PHULFDQLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVPFDQEHGH¿QHGDVEHLQJFORVHWRDVFKRRO RI³VRFLDORULHQWDWLRQ´DQGWKLVVFKRRORIWKRXJKWLVQRWHGDVUHDFWLRQDU\³DVRWKHU DUHDVRIYXOJDUERXUJHRLVSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\´ ,QWKHVHFRQGYROXPHRIKLVWKUHHYROXPHVHWCriticism of Bourgeois Political Economy,%O\XPLQIXUWKHUFULWLFL]HGVHOHFWHGFRQWULEXWLRQVRI9HEOHQDQG DOVR -RKQ 5 &RPPRQV ,Q WKH YLHZ RI %O\XPLQ WKHVH $PHULFDQ LQVWLWXWLRQDOists failed in using appropriate Marxian analytical categories and in emphasizing WKHLPSRUWDQFHRIKLVWRULFDOPDWHULDOLVPFODVVVWUXJJOHDQGUHYROXWLRQ±DVWKHLU ZULWLQJV UHOLHG HYROXWLRQLVW FDWHJRULHV ,Q OLHG XSRQ ³QRQVFLHQWL¿F´ QRQVFLHQ ¿F HYROXWL HYROXW QLVW DQG LGHDOLVWLF FDWHJ FDWH DGGLWLRQ%O\XPLQODEHOHGLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWVDVDSRORJLVWVRSHUDWLQJXQGHUWKHÀDJ O\XPLQODEHOHGLQVWLW \XPLQODEHOHGLQVWLW WLRQDOLVWVDV RORJLVWVRSHUDWLQJXQGHU RI UHIRUPLVP LGHDV GHIHQGLQ GHIHQGLQJ PRQRSRO\ %O\XPLQ VP P ZLWK ZLWK LGHD LG LGH LGHDV GH GHIHQG RQRSRO\ FDSLWDOLVP ,Q DGGLWLRQ D SGLUHFWO\FULWLFL]HGWKHVH$PHULFDQLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWVIRUDFFHSWLQJDQG GLUHFWO\F LWLFL]HGWK WLFL]HGWK VH$PHULFDQLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWVIRUDFFHS DVVHUWLQJWKDWWKHUHLVLQGHHGD³SRVVLELOLW\RIUHVROYLQJSHDFHIXOO\WKHDQWDJRQLVWLF DW WKHUH LV LQ HHG HG D ³SRV ³S LELOLW\ ELOLW\ RI UHVROYLQJ SHDFHIXOO\ WKH DQW FRQWUDGLFWLRQVRIFDSLWDOLVP´DQGIRUDWWHPSWLQJWRPRGLI\$PHULFDQFDSLWDOLVP by introducing and integrating what John R. Commons refers to as the notion of ³UHDVRQDEOH´,QWKH3UHIDFHWRKLVERRNLegal Foundations of Capitalism &RPPRQV DSSOLHV WKLV WHUP ³UHDVRQDEOH´ DV DQ DGMHFWLYH GHVFULELQJ ³YDOXH´ ³VDIHW\´³WKHZDJH´DQGHYHQ³FRQGXFW´7KRXJK&RPPRQVQRWHVGLI¿FXOWLHVLQ RIIHULQJDFOHDUGH¿QLWLRQRIZKDWLVPHDQWE\reasonable, he connects its meaning with court rulings that interpret this term as what can be sustained over time. Though some of Blyumin’s critical points regarding institutionalism were clearly polemical in character, still many of his points proved accurate and have retained their importance and relevance until the present. Among these endurLQJFRQWULEXWLRQV%O\XPLQSODPHQWHGWKHYDJXHQHVVRIWKHFRQFHSW RI ³LQVWLWXWLRQ´ WKDW DOVR WHQGV WR EH GH¿QHG GLIIHUHQWO\ E\ VHOHFWHG FRQWULEXWRUV7KHVHYDU\LQJGH¿QLWLRQVUHQGHUWKHRUHWLFDOFODVVL¿FDWLRQGLI¿FXOWDVZHOO DV WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI HPSLULFDO GDWD ± ZKDW PLJKW DOVR EH DUJXHG ODWHU FUHDWHG URRPIRUWKHHPHUJHQFHRI1HZ,QVWLWXWLRQDOLVPLQWKHWUDGLWLRQVHVWDEOLVKHGE\ 5RQDOG &RDVH 2OLYHU :LOOLDPVRQ DQG 'RXJODVV 1RUWK LQ SDUWLFXODU ,Q DGGLtion, Blyumin wrote of some of the historical relationships between the changing conditions and the need for new theoretical understandings. He indicated that and Francis Not for distribution Kirdina American and European institutionalism could be viewed as an outgrowth of new tendencies in the development of capitalist economies; such as the increasing concentration of capital and, relatedly, the dominant roles assumed by monopolies, as well as the changing roles of the banking sector, the growth of the trade union PRYHPHQWDQGWKHUHODWLYHVWUHQJWKHQLQJRIWKHUROHRIFROOHFWLYHVRFLDORYHU individual interests. At the time that Blyumin leveled his critiques, seminal contributions of estabOLVKHGLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWVKDGQRWEHHQWUDQVODWHGLQWRWKH5XVVLDQODQJXDJH,QRXU interpretations, the pointed criticisms posed by Blyumin offered the service of spelling out comprehensive views advanced by the institutionalist thinkers that he considers. Because his critiques were not intended to enrich the new Soviet political economy of socialism with the importation of institutionalist ideas, this suggests to us a fairly clear example of what we interpret as a sign of the proclivity for inversion cycles, noted by Alexandr Akhiezer and introduced above, that are HYLGHQFHGE\DQDEVHQFHRID³PHGLDQXWLOLWDULDQFXOWXUH´7KLVWHQGHQF\VXJJHVWV WKDW LQVWHDG RI VSUHDGLQJ DQG EHQH¿WLQJ IURP QRYHO DQG SRVVLEO\ XVHIXO LGHDV such ideas were held at the long end of a broom. /LNHO\LQÀXHQFHGE\%O\XPLQ¶VFULWLTXHVQHJDWLYHSHUFHSWLRQVRILQVWLWXWLRQDO thought endured over the next decades. Appearing in the 1950s as an entry into The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, ³,QVWLWXWLRQDOLVWV´ ZHUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV ³WKH most vicious enemies of the working class among all of the representatives of YXOJDUSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\´%ROVKD\D6RYHWVND\D(QWVLNORSHGL\DS Russian scholars were prone too stress that institutionalists nstitutionalists offered a theoretical MXVWL¿FDWLRQ DQG PDQQHU WRZDUGV LWV IXUWKHU LRQ RQ IRU FDSLWDOLVP DDQ G LQ WKLV PD QHU FRQWULEXWHG WRZDUGV development. pointedly, ment More ment. ore ppointedly ointedly, int iinstitutionalists stitutionalists utionalists were thought to t be ³LQWKHVHUYLFH LQ RI LPSHULDOLVW UHDFWLRQ´ IRU H[DPSOH $OWHU LDOLVW UHDFWLR Q´ VHH IR 5HODWHGO\ in the subsequent edition S. Afanasyev bsequent ed on of the th The he Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia V. V S S VWUHVVHG WKDW LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP VKRXOG EH XQGHUVWRRG DV D ³YXOJDU WUHQGLQ$PHULFDQERXUJHRLVSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\´ As pointed and as harsh as these critiques appear, nevertheless, some Soviet UHVHDUFKHUVIROORZHGWKHGHYHORSPHQWRILQVWLWXWLRQDOLVPIURPZLWKLQWKHFRQ¿QHV RIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQ¶VDFDGHPLFDQGVFLHQWL¿FGLVFLSOLQHODEHOHGDV³FULWLTXHRI ERXUJHRLVSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\´,QFOXGHGDORQJZLWK%O\XPLQ$OWHUDQG$IDQDV\HY DUHWKLQNHUVDQGDXWKRUVVXFKDV.%.R]ORYD9'6LNRUDDQG 6R¿D6RURNLQD ,QIDFW6RURNLQDLVNQRZQIRUDXWKRULQJWKH¿UVWPRQRJUDSKDSSHDUing in the Russian language and that was exclusively devoted towards offering a clear analysis of institutionalism and its advances over time. Our research suggests that her book delivers the most complete statement of institutional concepts DQGWKHLUFULWLTXHVDQGZHFDQQRWHWKDWWKLVERRN¿UVWSXEOLVKHGLQZDV reprinted twice during the year 2011. Of special interest is that Sorokina emphaVL]HVWKDWVWDUWLQJZLWKWKHVLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWLGHDVVSUHDGDPRQJHFRQRPLVWV throughout the world, but not back home in the USSR. She is of the expressed opinion that the widespread renaissance in institutionalist thinking was further JRDGHGE\WKHHFRQRPLFUHFHVVLRQRI±DQGHIIRUWVUHODWHGWRPLWLJDWLQJWKH Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 105 downturn suggested a lack of effectiveness of Keynesian concepts and especially of a state’s ability to regulate an economy and implement policies that could UHYHUVH VXFK D GRZQWXUQ ,Q KHU RSLQLRQ WKH SRSXODULW\ RI WKHLGHDV DGYDQFHG by Keynes and his followers, along with exponents of the neoclassical school as a whole, fell into disfavor and institutional ideas attracted new supporters. 6RURNLQDSVWUHVVHGWKDW³LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVPHPHUJHGDVRQHRIWKHPDLQ WUHQGV LQ FRQWHPSRUDU\ ERXUJHRLV HFRQRPLFV´ ,Q DGGLWLRQ VKH VWUHVVHG WKDW institutional thinking went far beyond the United States and included widely acclaimed thinkers such as Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal, the French econRPLVW)UDQoRLV3HUU\DPRQJRWKHUV. ,QVSLWHRIWKHVHDFNQRZOHGJPHQWVE\6RURNLQDDQGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH SODWIRUPRIWKH;;9,&RQJUHVVRIWKH&RPPXQLVW3DUW\RIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQKHOG LQHIIRUWVLQWKHVRFLDOVFLHQFHGLVFLSOLQHVUHPDLQHGIRFXVHGRQ³FULWLFLVPV of anti-communism, the bourgeois, and revisionist concepts of social developPHQWDQGIRUH[SRVLQJWKHIDOVL¿HUVRI0DU[LVP/HQLQLVP´3URFHHGLQJVRIWKH ;;9,&RQJUHVVRIWKH&RPPXQLVW3DUW\RIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQ6XFKSRVLtions hampered the possibilities for fruitful exchanges of ideas between Soviet social scientists and those advancing institutional thought from outside of the Soviet Union. :KLOH HIIRUWV RQ WKH SDUW RI RI¿FLDOV LQGHHG KDPSHUHG DGYDQFHV LQ LQVWLWXtional thinking in the Soviet Union, still the battles fought to thwart its arrival DQGVSUHDGLQJLQÀXHQFHVOHVVHQHGLQLQWHQVLW\2QHRXWFRPHZRUWKQRWLQJLVWKH emergence of a better-balanced analysis nalysis alysis of th the views of institutionalists, institutionalists and that some of thee most important con contributions coming ributions com ng in from abroad were actually translated, published, distributed. published d aand d distribut ddistrib d. Thorstein n Veblen’s The he Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in Institutions UHJLVWHUV UHJLVWHUV DV DV RQH RQH RI RI WKH WWK ¿UVW ¿UVW FRQWULEXWLRQV FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WR DSSHDU DSSHDU LQ LQ WKLV WKLV PDQQHU ,QLWLDOO\SXEOLVKHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ9HEOHQ¶V¿UVWERRNZDV¿QDOO\ translated more than 80 years later and then disseminated in Russian in book form LQ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWWKH5XVVLDQWUDQVODWLRQRI9HEOHQ¶V¿UVWERRN UHJLVWHUVDVHVSHFLDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWDQGRQHPHDVXUHRILWVVLJQL¿FDQFHLVWKDWWKLV ERRN¶VORQJDQGFRPSOHWH³,QWURGXFWLRQ´VWUHWFKHGWRSDJHVRIIHULQJDELRJraphy of Veblen, as well as a comprehensive summary of the main ideas that he had contributed over the course of his productive career. Sorokina authored this FRPSUHKHQVLYH³,QWURGXFWLRQ´WRWKH5XVVLDQHGLWLRQDQGVKHDOVRXQGHUWRRNWKH WDVNRIWUDQVODWLRQ,PSRUWDQWWRQRWHLVWKDWWKHVXEWLWOHRIAn Economic Study in InstitutionsGLGQRWDSSHDULQWKH5XVVLDQHGLWLRQDVWKHZRUG³LQVWLWXWLRQ´ZDV still banned in the 1980s. The abstract for this book indicates that the views of Veblen were judged as VWLOO LQDSSURSULDWH LQ WKH 6RYLHW 8QLRQ +RZHYHU 6RURNLQD HPSKDVL]HG WKDW³>9HEOHQ@DFWHGZLWKVKDUSFULWLFLVPVRIFDSLWDOLVPWKH¿QDQFLDOROLJDUFK\DQGWKHOHLVXUHFODVV´7KLVVWDWHPHQWMXVWL¿HGWKHWUDQVODWLRQRIKLVZRUNLQWR 5XVVLDQZLWKDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWRUHDGLWQRWRQO\WKH³VSHFLDOLVWVLQWKH¿HOGRI ERXUJHRLV HFRQRPLF WKHRULHV´ EXW DOVR RWKHU 6RYLHW ³VFLHQWLVWV DQG WHDFKHUV RI VRFLDOVFLHQFHV´ Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Kirdina Institutionalist approaches of Soviet thinkers ,QWKH8665(FRQRPLF6FLHQFHZDVGLYLGHGLQWRVHOHFWHGUHVHDUFKDUHDVDQGWKHVH divisions were also affected by the importance of the respective areas relative to the ODUJHUZRUOG2XULQTXLULQJVXJJHVWVWKDWZKDWZHODEHODVD³ZLQGRZWRWKHRXWVLGH ZRUOG´ ZDV RSHQHG IRU VSHFLDOLVWV ZKR VWXGLHG WHQGHQFLHV LQ ERXUJHRLV SROLWLFDO HFRQRP\,PSRUWDQWWRFRQVLGHULVWKDWWKHEXONRI6RYLHWWKHRULVWVUHPDLQHGIRFXVHG RQWKH¿HOGRIWKHSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\RIVRFLDOLVPDQGEHFDXVHRIWKHLUVSHFLDOL]Dtions, members of this large community tended to remain unaware of tendencies in economic thought taking place outside of the Soviet Union’s borders. Notwithstanding and commencing during the 1980s, some Soviet research sciHQWLVWV EHJDQ WR TXLHWO\ DQG JHQWO\ LQWURGXFH QHZ FRQFHSWV WKDW GLG QRW ¿W LQWR the procrustean bedRIWKHRI¿FLDOLGHRORJ\ZLWKLWV0DU[LDQHPSKDVLVXSRQWKH productive forces, production relations, and class. A category of organizational and economic relations proposed by prominent Russian economist-academician /HRQLG$EDONLQLQKLVERRNVThe Dialectic of the Socialistic Economy VHUYHVDVRQHRIWKHDWWHPSWVWRLQWURGXFHLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWFDWHJRULHVLQWRRI¿FLDO thinking and is clearly found in the title Institutionalism in Russian Economic ThoughtDERRNFRDXWKRUHGE\2OHJ,QVKDNRYDQG'DQLLO)URORYYRO S,WZDV$EDONLQZKRVXJJHVWHGWKDWWKH5XVVLDQVGLIIHUHQWLDWHWKHLUVRFLDO DQGHFRQRPLFUHODWLRQVKLSVIURPRUJDQL]DWLRQV<HDUVODWHUDQGZLWKWKHEHQH¿WRI hindsight, we can note that this proposed division paralleled ideas also advanced in the writings North, advance in ritings of Douglass Dou North, and soo was as seen as an important import the orientation institutionalist framework post-Soviet Russia. ntation ation of the instituti nalist framew rk emerging in post-Sov +RZHYHU$EDONLQIDLOHGLQRIIHULQJDFOHDUO\GH¿QHGLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVWDSSURDFKLQ U $EDONLQ DONLQ IDLOHG HG LQ R L J O \ G ¿ G L L L OL HGLQRIIH his writings, although he active actively ngs, althoug y supported the development of institutionalist ins research as Russia em emerged era.3 erged rged ou out off the post-Soviet era While topics dealing with the political economy of socialism remained largely closed to those researchers interested in advancing institutionalist thinking, the GLVFLSOLQH RI VRFLRORJ\ EHQH¿WHG IURP JUHDWHU GHJUHHV RI PHWKRGRORJLFDO IUHHGRP $V HDUO\ DV WKH MRXUQDO Kommunist ZKLFK VHUYHG DV WKH RI¿FLDO RUJDQ RI WKH &HQWUDO &RPPLWWHH RI WKH &RPPXQLVW 3DUW\ SXEOLVKHG DQ DUWLFOH MRLQWO\ DXWKRUHG E\ *( *OH]HUPDQ 9= .HOO\ DQG 19 3LOLSHQNR HQWLWOHG ³+LVWRULFDO0DWHULDOLVP7KH7KHRU\DQG0HWKRGRORJ\RI6FLHQWL¿F.QRZOHGJH DQG 5HYROXWLRQDU\ $FWLRQ´ 7KH DSSHDUDQFH RI WKLV DUWLFOH DVVLVWHG LQ FUHDWLQJ an area of autonomy in sociological research through introducing an approach ZLWKWKUHHWLHUVWKDWZLWKWLPHFDPHWREHRI¿FLDOO\UHFRJQL]HG,QDFFRUGDQFH with this approach, the upper level of sociological knowledge should be recogQL]HGDV³VRFLRORJLFDOWKHRU\´LQJHQHUDODQGDV0DU[LDQSKLORVRSK\historical materialism LQ SDUWLFXODU 7KH VHFRQG WLHU LQFOXGHV VSHFL¿F VRFLRORJLFDO WKHRULHVGH¿QDEOHDVVHFWLRQVRIVRFDOOHG³VFLHQWL¿FFRPPXQLVP´7KHWKLUGWLHUZDV GH¿QHGDV³HPSLULFDO´DQGFRXOGEHEDVHGXSRQIRFXVHGVXUYH\VDQGFDVHVWXGLHV $V D SURPLQHQW DQG UHVSHFWHG 6RYLHW VRFLRORJLVW 9ODGLPLU <DGRY p. 3), later stressed that this article by Glezerman et al. emphasized that the discipline of Sociology does not stand in contradiction to either Marxist philosophy Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia or Marxist ideology and, in this manner, Yadov managed to create some room for sociological inquiry that included the use of approaches that had previously been VXSSUHVVHGE\RI¿FLDOVDQFWLRQV Our interpretation is that this article’s publication helped to facilitate a compromise that offered Soviet scholars an opportunity to carry out research at the level of the third tier, while freeing these scholars from having to peg their research to RI¿FLDO GRFWULQH :KDW JRW ODEHOHG DV ³(PSLULFDO 6RFLRORJ\´ FRXOG WKHQ IRFXV QRWRQO\RQWKHWKHRUHWLFDOGLVFXVVLRQVEXWDOVRRQ¿HOGVWXGLHVVWDWLVWLFDODQDO\sis, and sociological surveys that assisted in bringing this discipline further and IXUWKHUDZD\IURPRI¿FLDOGRFWULQHDQGFORVHUDQGFORVHUWRVRFLDOVFLHQFHUHDOLW\ This newly created space for sociology allowed for developing ways for summarizing collected empirical data of studies undertaken. :LWK WKLV QHZO\ FUHDWHG URRP IRU VFLHQWL¿F LQTXLU\ WKH 1RYRVLELUVN 6FKRRO RI (FRQRPLF 6RFLRORJ\ 16(6 ZDV IRUPHG DQG DV .LUGLQD HPSKDsizes, was also distinguished by its orientation towards a systemic analysis of social phenomena through insightful empirical research and interpretation. This school initially emerged as a department focused on societal problems within the ,QVWLWXWH RI (FRQRP\ DQG ,QGXVWULDO (QJLQHHULQJ RI WKH 6LEHULDQ %UDQFK RI WKH $FDGHP\RI6FLHQFHVRIWKH8665QRZWKH5XVVLDQ$FDGHP\RI6FLHQFHV$V WKH16(6GH¿QHGLWVHOIDQGLWVUHVHDUFKRULHQWDWLRQVLWVPHPEHUVGHFLGHGWRIRFXV on developments taking place at home in the USSR, and later in transitioning 5XVVLD(PSKDVLVZDVWKHQSODFHGXSRQ¿QGLQJRXWDQGHVWDEOLVKLQJWKHVWDEOH and enduring havee proved inte integral ng institutions that ha ral to Russian economic development over the school hee long run. This sch ol rejects the idea dea that the framework associated as with a market organizational model. ket economy econom om iss to be co cconsidered sidered ered as the universal organizationa orga Furthermore, Novosibirsk schooll stresses that economic relations are not to be e, the Novo birsk scho investigated atomistic fashion, but as integral to the entire social structure. d in an atom stic tic fash fashio s )XUWKHUPRUH WKLV RULHQWDWLRQ FDQ EH UHODWHG WR WKH PHDQLQJ RI DQ ³HPEHGGHG´ HFRQRP\LQWKHVHQVHDGYDQFHGE\.DUO3RODQ\LLQKLVFODVVLFThe Great Transformation. Members of the team of sociologists from Novosibirsk are often referred to DVWKH³VRFLDOHFRQRPLVWV´DQGWKLVLVQRWHGDQGHPSKDVL]HGLQWKHZULWLQJVRI ,ULQD'DY\GRYDDQG9LOHQ,YDQRY$VOHDGHURIWKH16(6LQWKH PLGV 7DW\DQD =DVODYVND\D LQWURGXFHG WKH WHUP DQG UHODWHG FRQcepts of a social mechanism of economic development. ,Q D VXEVHTXHQW DQG FRDXWKRUHG ZRUN =DVODYVND\D DQG 59 5\YNLQD IXUWKHU GHYHORSHG WKH meaning of this expression. We judge this as the key development that placed institutions at the core of social science inquiry in Russia in the late Soviet era, DVWKLVUHJLVWHUVDVWKH¿UVWDWWHPSWWRHPSOR\HOHPHQWVRILQVWLWXWLRQDODQDO\VLV in the USSR..H\HOHPHQWVRI=DVODYVND\D¶VWKLQNLQJZHUHRI¿FLDOO\SUHVHQWHG for the Western audience in 1990, although before then his ideas were known through a publication titled Novosibirsk Report, which we assess reads something OLNHDPDQLIHVWRLWVWH[WZDVSXEOLVKHGLQDERRNE\7DW\DQD=DVODYVND\D SS±,QDGGLWLRQWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIWKHVHLGHDVKHOSHGWRLQLWLDWHVKDUSFULWLFLVPVRIVRFLDOFRQGLWLRQVLQWKH6RYLHW8QLRQ,WLVUXPRUHGWKDWVRPHRQHOHDNHG Taylor and Francis Not for distribution 108 Kirdina a copy of this Report from the closed conference in Novosibirsk in April 1983, and then the Washington Post published this information in August of that year KWWSVHQZLNLSHGLDRUJZLNL1RYRVLELUVNB5HSRUW$MRXUQDOLVWWKHQUHIHUUHGWR this document through the Washington Post DV WKH¿UVW ELUG of General Secretary Michael Gorbachev’s reform program that would later be popularized as Perestroika. :KLOH6RYLHWHFRQRPLVWVZHUHFRHUFHGWRDGKHUHWRWKHRI¿FLDOOLQHWKHVHQRWHG advances by the Novosibirsk School promoted an understanding that institutions proved integral and helped to constitute the subject matter for sociology inquiry. Russian institutional thought more recently While it could be argued that institutional thought experienced a long incubation period stretching over many decades, the situation changed after 1991 and ZLWKWKHVWDUWRI5XVVLD¶VWUDQVLWLRQWRPDUNHWHFRQRP\,WVKRXOGEHUHFRJQL]HG that the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Soviet experiment brought with LWDQDEUXSWHQGWR0DU[LVP±/HQLQLVPDVDQRI¿FLDOLGHRORJ\XQGHUSLQQLQJWKH VRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFVFLHQFHV,QGHHGWKHVHZHUHGUDPDWLFWLPHVDQGVRGUDPDWLF WKDW HVWDEOLVKHG ± HYHQ IDPRXV ± HFRQRPLVWV GHFLGHG WR WRVV RXW WKHLU OLEUDULHV accumulated over the years, as they were suddenly faced with reinitiating their HGXFDWLRQ,QVKRUWRUGHUIRUPHU6RYLHWHFRQRPLVWVZHUHIDFHGZLWKMRLQLQJWKH world’s larger economic conversation, borrowing this term and metaphor from $UMR.ODPHU,QLWLDOO\LQWKHYDFXXPFUHDWHGIURPWKHRXWULJKWUHMHFWLRQ DPHU,QLWLDOO\ LQWKHYDFXX QWKHYDFXX FUHDWHGIURPWKHRXWULJ of the tradition political economy of socialism, neoclassical approach adition dition of the politica ocialism, the neoclassica was quickly Science. However, kly introduc introduced introdu odu d into in uni uuniversity ersity ity curricula in Economic Science this approach proved inadequa inadequate for explaining many of the challen challenges facing oach prove a post-Soviet Russia. There w weree a host of reasons cited cited, including that maroviet Russia kets had not been thoroughly introduced for allocating the factors of production of land, labor, and capital. Because of the rapid pace of transition away from planned and towards market economy, the neoclassical approach failed to win RYHUWKHOLRQ¶VVKDUHRIHFRQRPLVWVDWWKHVWDUWRIWKHSRVW6RYLHWHUD,QDGGLWLRQ the neoclassical discourse tended to scare away many potential members from joining, for this school poses barriers for understanding by relying upon reducWLRQDQGDQDEVWUDFWGHGXFWLYHDSSURDFKWKDWDOVRLQFOXGHVKLJKO\VSHFL¿FWRROV DQG FRPSXWLQJ IRU DGYDQFLQJ UHVHDUFK 3UREOHPV LQWHJUDO WR DGRSWLQJ WKH QHRclassical paradigm thereby created and provided fertile ground for institutionalist approaches. For a thorough description of these developments, please see, for H[DPSOH FRQWULEXWLRQV IURP 'DQLLO )URORY ,QVKDNRY DQG )URORY / 0RVFRZVNL\ 5XVWHP 1XUH\HY DQG 9ODGLPLU 'HPHQWLHY DQG 1DWDOL\D0DNDVKHYD ,QVXPZHFRXOGQRZOLVWDQGGHWDLOWKUHHRIWKHPDLQFDXVHVSURPRWLQJWKH spread of institutional thought in post-Soviet Russia. First, is the sudden and XQH[SHFWHGFROODSVHRIWKH6RYLHWH[SHULPHQWLQ³UHDOH[LVWLQJVRFLDOLVP´DFFRPpanied by a disbelief in what had been the supporting doctrines. Consequently, institutionalists who had been studying capitalist economies and societies shifted Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 109 to a new position and were no longer seen as ideological opponents, but rather as wanted members of the new generation of potential theoretical contributors. Second, newly found openness of post-Soviet Russia to global markets, including the markets for ideas, provided new channels through which the achievements of foreign economists, institutional theorists among them, were received in the new Russia. Third, the popularity of institutionalist thought was conditioned by a pressing need for an active construction of new institutions necessary for a quickly transforming Russia. So the privatization of Russian industry and the accompanying emergence of visible oligarchs that were also seen as integral to the transition to market economy rendered Veblen’s penetrating critiques of the power of big EXVLQHVV LQFUHDVLQJO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKH 5XVVLDQ FRQWH[W ,Q 9HEOHQ¶V The Theory of Business Enterprise>@ZDVLQWURGXFHG7KH5XVVLDQWUDQVODWLRQRI WKLVERRNZDVSXEOLVKHGE\'HORDQGPHDQV³%XVLQHVV´LQ5XVVLDQ'HORVKRXOG be recognized as a publishing house that became specialized in translations of evolutionary-institutional works drawn from foreign sources, and that could be effectively disseminated across a broad Russian readership. About ten titles in the HYROXWLRQDU\LQVWLWXWLRQDOWUDGLWLRQZHUHWUDQVODWHGDQGSXEOLVKHGEHWZHHQ and 2012, and through this one publishing house. ,IZHQRZUHWXUQWRWKHLGHDVDGYDQFHGE\$OH[DQGU$NKLH]HUUHODWHGWRLQYHUsion cycles, then Russia in the post-Soviet era could be described as entering into the opposite phase of what during the Soviet era was dominated by emphasis RQDQRI¿FLDOYHUVLRQRIWKHSROLWLFDOHFRQRP\RIVRFLDOLVP,QVKRUWWKHSRVW Soviet era marks the transition from institutional phase om instituti institut nal thought in a thwarted thwar thwarte to a ÀRXULVKLQJSKDVH7KLVFDQEHH[SUHVVHGDV±RYHUWLPH±WKH³PLQXVVLJQ´ KLQJSKDVH LQJSKDVH7KLVFDQ 7KLVFDQ EHH[SUHVVHG EHH[SUHVVHG V±RYHUWLPH±WKH³PLQ GUDPDWLFDOO\VKLIWVWR³SOXV´LQWKHSHUFHSWLRQRILQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP)LJXUH \ VKLIWV WR ³SOXV´ \VKLIWVWR S XV LQWKH LQ W SHUFHSWLRQRILQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP)LJXUH FHSWLRQRILQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP Our interpretation rpretation oof what is rrepresented presented in Figure 8.1 is that in 1990s 199 there took place a sharp tra transition away sition ition aw y from criticizing and rejecting institutional ins thought in the economic arena, to the dissemination of ideas across a large domestic community of economists, with ideas that also penetrated and altered XQLYHUVLW\ FXUULFXOD $XWKRU 'DQLLO )URORY GH¿QHG WKH V DQG WKLV¿UVWGHFDGHRIWUDQVLWLRQDVDQDFWLYH³WUDQVSODQWLQJ´RIIRUHLJQLQVWLWXWLRQDO thinking into Russian economic and social thought. This decade could also be considered in a sense as a golden age DQG GH¿QHG E\ WKH ODUJHO\ XQFRQWUROOHG DQGXQLQWHUUXSWHGÀRZRIHFRQRPLFLGHDVLQWR5XVVLD'XULQJWKLV¿UVWGHFDGHRI transition, numerous writings of Western authors were translated and published, DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\ ZHUH SUHVHQWHG ZLWK FRPSUHKHQVLYH LQWURGXFWLRQV ,Q most cases, these introductions also provided platforms for Russian scholars to offer their professional judgments of ideas coming in from Western economists. 6XEVWDQWLDO¿QDQFLDOVXSSRUWIURPDEURDGDQGHVSHFLDOO\IURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV and European Union countries, assisted with rapid translations into Russian and then the publication and dissemination of notable works authored by foreign instiWXWLRQDOLVWVDVZHOODVSUHSDUDWLRQVIRUWKH¿UVWJHQHUDWLRQRIXQLYHUVLW\WH[WERRNV on institutional economics that were widely distributed throughout the geographic WHUULWRU\RIWKH5XVVLDQ)HGHUDWLRQ)RUHLJQIRXQGDWLRQVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQV±VXFK DVWKH6RURV)RXQGDWLRQ86$,'WKH:RUOG%DQNSOXVVRPH(XURSHDQ6FLHQFH Taylor and Francis Not for distribution 110 Kirdina Figure 7.1 ,QVWLWXWLRQDOLVPLQ5XVVLDLQVHDUFKRI%HUG\DHY¶VPHGLDQFXOWXUH )RXQGDWLRQV ± SURYHG LQVWUXPHQWDO :H FDQ DOVR QRWH WKH ¿QDQFLQJ DQG VXSporting of contacts between Russian economists with their foreign counterparts. Numerous well as research aand that involved us educational, as we d publishing, projects th hundredss of experts from R Russia republics were Ru ia and some off the former Soviet repu LQFOXGHG7KLV¿UVWGHFDGHRIWUDQVLWLRQFRXOGEHMXGJHGDVDSHULRGIRUTXLFNO\ 7KLV¿UVW 7KLV¿UVWG 7KLV ¿UVW UVW GHFDGH FDG RI QVLWLRQFRXOGEHMXGJHGDVDSHULRG FDGHRIWU WLRQFRXOGEHMXGJHGDVD bringing Russian ins institutionalists tutionalist up to a world standard. standar Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Discussion and conclusion At the start of this inquiry we distinguished two distinct phases in the Russian SHUFHSWLRQRILQVWLWXWLRQDOWKRXJKW:HGH¿QHGWKHthwarted phase by its tendency of outright rejection of institutional thought during the long Soviet era, and this rejecting seems related to the Soviet leadership’s interest in ensuring the domiQDQFHRIWKHLU0DU[LVW±/HQLQLVWOLQHV7KHQZLWKWKHHQGLQJRIWKH6RYLHWHUDZH can notice dramatic increases in levels of interests in institutional thought that PLJKW DOVR EH GH¿QHG E\ WKH ÀRXULVKLQJ SKDVH ,Q WKHVH UHVSHFWV RXU UHVHDUFK tends to conform with Akhiezer’s understanding and uses of inversion cycles for shedding some needed light on Russian historical experiences that also include intellectual history. From this angle, we could then consider some of the contributions of Russian institutionalists as efforts to reduce the swings of such cycles, and through, in a sense, offering a median utilitarian culture that attempts to create new middle ground for ameliorating Russia’s historic tendencies to rapidly move towards polar extremes without drawing bearings from the past. For institutionalists, this means the creation of original Russian concepts that serve to integrate native Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 111 advancements into the original institutional thought selected from abroad, and then integrated into Soviet and now Russian economic thought. ,WZDVHPSKDVL]HGWKDWIRUWKHGXUDWLRQRIDOPRVWDOORIWKH6RYLHWHUDHFRQRPLVWVHVSHFLDOO\ZHUHDIIHFWHGE\UHVWULFWLRQVVWHPPLQJIURPDQRI¿FLDOSROLWLFDO economy of socialism based upon Marxian ideas in Soviet interpretation. And consequently, economists faced limited opportunities for absorbing, much less originating, ideas in the evolutionary-institutional tradition. The exception was to critique institutional contributions for their spurious bourgeois tendencies. Our understanding is that, with the ending of the Soviet era, and starting with the 1992 founding of the Russian Federation, the transition era of the last two decades has indeed offered Russian thinkers greater opportunities for exposure to and adoption of foreign ideas in social and economic sciences. ,QWKHFXUUHQWHUDWKHJURXSGRPLQDWLQJLQVWLWXWLRQDOVWXGLHVLQ5XVVLDODUJHO\ relies upon ideas advanced by foreign institutionalists. At the same time a discernible group of Russian-based institutionalists has already emerged and there is on its way towards becoming well established. Some of their contributions DUHDOUHDG\UHÀHFWHGLQGLFWLRQDULHVDQGHQF\FORSHGLDVZLWKWHUPVDQGPHDQLQJV VXFKDV³LQVWLWXWLRQDOWUDS´3ROWHURYLFKDQG³LQVWLWXWLRQDOPDWUL[WKHRU\´ .LUGLQD WR VWDUW WKH OLVW 7KHQ WKHUH DUH FRQWULEXWLRQV IURP 0DNDVKHYD 0RVFRZVNL\,QVKDNRYDQG)URORYDVZHOODV)URORY DGYDQFLQJZULWLQJVWKDWLQYHVWLJDWHDQGPHDVXUHWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRI the rise of a home-grown Russian institutionalism. With these advances in mind, recent advances institutional thought ances in Russian ins tutional utional thou ht now require domestic domesti biographers and historians storians focused on social ocial and economic eco omic thought. To complete inquiry, plete thiss iin inquiry uiry, we uiry w would ould ld like to note that meaningful mean ccollaboration among Russian in institutionalists serves as a titutionali s and their foreign counterparts ser particularly useful way to culture, and thereby assist in o form a ddialogic alogic utilitarian culture overcoming the swings of inversion cycles and the tendency for the splitting of 5XVVLDQVRFLHW\RIZKLFK$NKLH]HU>@ZDUQV7KHSURPLQHQW5XVVLDQ HFRQRPLVW/HRQLG$EDONLQSHPSKDVL]HVWKDW Taylor and Francis Not for distribution >W@KH WDVN RI WKH UHYLYDO RI WKH 5XVVLDQ VFKRRO RI HFRQRPLF WKRXJKW DV DQ organic part of the world of science has to be undertaken. And it is not a return to the old, but the ability to understand the realities of the coming century. There is reason to believe that tomorrow belongs to those who are actively involved in creating a new paradigm of social science; who will determine the country’s place in the system of alternatives for its future development; and who are able to creatively combine an analysis of global changes in our world while also preserving the uniqueness of Russian civilization. And in this new era, certainly when compared to the Soviet era, we have established that institutional thought has advanced rapidly and also spread broadly, WDNLQJ¿UPURRW$QGFHUWDLQO\WRWKHH[WHQWWKDWIXUWKHUDGYDQFHVLQWKHPHWKRG DQG DSSURDFK WR LQVWLWXWLRQDO WKLQNLQJ DUH QRZ LGHQWL¿DEO\ JURZLQJ RXW RI Russian soil. 112 Kirdina Notes 1 Funding for this study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities, UHVHDUFKSURMHFWQXPEHU ,QRXULQTXLU\ZHUHO\XSRQWKHWHUPVevolutionary-institutional economics, institutionalism, institutional thinking, and institutional thought more or less interchangeably. 2XUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHXVHRIWKHVHWHUPVGUDZVIURPDQGUHÀHFWVEDFNXSRQZKDW LVWHUPHG2ULJLQDO,QVWLWXWLRQDO(FRQRPLFVD¿HOGLQ(FRQRPLF6FLHQFHWKDW¿QGVLWV origins in the seminal writings of Thorstein Veblen. 3 Out of respect for Albakin’s promotion of evolutionary-institutional thinking in Russia, in 2015, the Center for Evolutionary Economics, located in Moscow, introduced the /HRQLG $EDONLQ $ZDUG UHFRJQL]LQJ DFKLHYHPHQWV LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO DQG HYROXWLRQDU\ research advanced by members of the younger generation of Russian scholars. $V RQH RI WKH DXWKRUV RI WKLV LQTXLU\ 6YHWODQD .LUGLQD DOVR VHUYHG DV D PHPEHU RI NSES and worked directly together with Tatyana Zaslavskaya in the 1980s and 1990s in Novosibirsk. References $EDONLQ/HRQLGThe Dialectic of the Socialistic EconomyLQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ0\VO $EDONLQ /HRQLG The Russian School of Economic Thought: The Search of SelfDeterminationLQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,QVWLWXW(FRQRPLNL $IDQDV\HY96,QVWLWXWLRQDOLVP,QThe Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 3rd ed., Vol. LQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ6RYHWVND\D(QWVLNORSHGL\D Akhiezer, Alexandr. 1991. Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience. Volume 2. (Sociocultural LQ5XVVLDQ1RYRVLELUVN6LELUVNL\&KURQRJUDSK cultural Dictionary) Dictio LQ 5XVVLDQ1RY RY LELUVN6LELUVNL\&KURQRJUD LELUVN6LELUVNL\&KURQ $NKLH]HU$OH[DQGU>@Russia: $OH[DQGU>@ $OH[DQGU>@ Russia: Criticism Critic m of Historical Experience. Criti Experienc Volume 1. From thee Past to Future LQ5 LQ5XVVLDQ1RYRVLELUVN6LELUVNL\&KURQRJUDSK L VVLDQ 1RYRV 1RYRVL UVN 6LELUVNL\ &KURQRJUDSK $OWHU/%Bourgeois Economists Imperialist Reaction %Bour % Bour eois Econo mists ists of the U.S. in the Service of Imperia LQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ*RVSODQL]GDW VVLDQ0RVFRZ*RVSODQ *RVSOD GDW $OWHU / % The Bourgeois Political Economy of the United States LQ 5XVVLDQ 0RVFRZ,]GDWHO¶VWYRVRFLRHFRQRPLFKHVNR\OLWHUDWXU\ $OWHU/%Selected Works. Bourgeois Political Economy of the United StatesLQ 5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ1DXND Berdyaev, Nicolai. 1915. The Soul of RussiaLQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,'6\WLQ %O\XPLQ,]UDLO¶The Subjective School in Political Economy LQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ ,]GDWHO¶VWYR.RPDNDGHPLL %O\XPLQ ,]UDLO¶ Sketches of Modern Bourgeois Theoretical Economics (On the Characterization of Social School) LQ 5XVVLDQ 0RVFRZ .RPPXQLVWLFKHVND\D $NDGHPL\D,QVWLWXW(NRQRPLNL %O\XPLQ,*History of Economic Thought (Essays on the Theory).LQ)<3RO\DQVN\ HGLQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ*RVXGDUVWYHQQRHL]GDWHO¶VWYR³9\VFKD\DVKNROD´ %O\XPLQ , * ,QVWLWXWLRQDOLVP ,Q Criticism of Bourgeois Political Economy. In 3 volumes9RO,,. Criticism of Modern English and American Political Economy LQ 5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,]GDWHO¶VWYRDNDGHPLLQDXN6665SS± Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya. 1953. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Second Edition. 9RO0RVFRZ6RYHWVND\D(QWVLNORSHGL\D Taylor and Francis Not for distribution &RPPRQV-5Legal Foundations of Capitalism1HZ<RUN0DFPLOODQ 'DY\GRYD , 'LH 1RZRVLELUVNHU 6R]LRORJLVFKH 6FKXOH $XIVWLHJ XQG 1LHGHUJDQJ HLQHVUHJLRQDOHQVR]LDOZLVVHQVFKDIWOLFKHQ=HQWUXPVLQ2VZDOG,QJULG3RVVHNHO5DOI Evolutionary-institutional thought in Russia 113 6W\NRZ 3HWUD :LHOJROLV -DQ (G Socialwissenschaft in Rusland. Vol. 2. Analysen russischer Forschungen zu Sozialstruktur, Wählerverhalten, Regionalentwicklung, HWKQLVFKHQ.RQÀLNWHQ*HRSROLWLNQDWLRQDOHQ,QWHUHVVHQXQG6RZMHWJHVFKLFKWH%HUOLQ Berliner Debatte, SS± )URORY 'DQLLO +RZ ZH WDXJKW LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP LQ 5XVVLD LQ 5XVVLDQ Economic Herald of the Rostov State University± )URORY 'DQLLO ,QVWLWXWLRQDO HYROXWLRQ RI SRVWVRYLHW LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP LQ 5XVVLDQ Voprosy Economiki± Frolov, Daniil. 2009. Prospects for the Russian Institutional Economics.3DSHUIRUWKH)LUVW (FRQRPLF &RQJUHVV RQ 'HFHPEHU LQ 5XVVLDQ KWWSZZZHFRQRUXVRUJ FRQVSGKWPODFFHVVHG0D\ )URORY 'DQLLO 0HWDSKRULVP RI LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVP 3K\VLFDOLVP YV ELRORJLVP LQ Russian), Terra Economicus± *OH]HUPDQ * ( .HOO\ 9 = 3LOLSHQNR 1 9 +LVWRULFDO PDWHULDOLVP 7KH WKHRU\DQGPHWKRGRORJ\RIVFLHQWL¿FNQRZOHGJHDQGUHYROXWLRQDU\DFWLRQLQ5XVVLDQ Kommunist,± ,QVKDNRY2)URORY'DQLLOInstitutionalism in Russian Economic ThoughtLQ 5XVVLDQ 9RO DQG 9ROJRJUDG ,]GDWHO¶VQYR 9ROJRJUDGVNRJR JRVXGDUVWYHQQRJR universiteta. ,SSROLWRY / 0 %LUWK RI LQVWLWXWLRQDOLVW HFRQRPLFV LQ 5XVVLD DERXW D PHWKRGRORJLFDOGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHVLQ5XVVLDQVestnik isntututa ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, ± ,YDQRY917KH1RYRVLELUVNVRFLRORJLFDOVFKRRO,Q Sociological Encyclopedia LQ5XVVLDQ9RO0RVFRZ0\VO .LUGLQD 6YHWODQD DQG SRYHUW\ RI VRFLDOLVP LQ HWODQD *ODQFH * DQ I WWKH SROLWLFDO HFRQRP\ RI RI VRF Russian),, Jurnal Ekonomitchesk Ekonomitcheskoi Theorii Theorii± Theorii .LUGLQD6YHWODQD,QVWLWXWLRQDOPDWUL[WKHRU\,Q 2VLSRY*90LVNYLFKHY/1 WODQD,QVWLWXWLRQD DQD,QVWLWXWLRQ W L WK 2 L * 9 0L N L (GV Sociological Dictionary LQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,1)5$0 ciological Di ionary LQ XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,1)5$0 Kirdina, Svetlana. New systemic institutional and tlana. 2013. N w system systemi nstitutional approach for comparative political po economic analysis, Review of Radical Political Economy± .ODPHU $UMR . Speaking of Economic: How to Get in the Conversation. /RQGRQ Routledge. .R]ORYD . % Institutionalism in American Political Economy LQ 5XVVLDQ 0RVFRZ1DXND 0DNDVKHYD1DWDOL\D(FRQRPLFVLQ5XVVLDLQWKHWUDQVIRUPDWLRQSHULRGHQGRIWKH VXQWLOWKHV5HYROXWLRQDQGVFLHQWL¿FNQRZOHGJHLQFUHDVLQJLQ5XVVLDQ ,Q Beginnings: Studying the Economy of Both the Structure and Process 0RVFRZ *8:6+(SS± 0DU[.DUO>@Das Kapital, Band I/RQGRQ3HQJXLQ 0DU[.DUO(QJHOV)UHGHULFNThe Communist Manifesto1HZ<RUN,QWHUQDWLRQDO 3XEOLVKHUV 0DWYHHYD6XVDQQD6SOLWVRFLHW\7KHSDWKDQGWKHIDWHRI5XVVLDLQVRFLRFXOWXUDO WKHRU\ E\ $OH[DQGU $NKLH]HU LQ 5XVVLDQ ,Q $NKLH]HU $OH[DQGU (G Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience. Volume 1. From the Past to Future. 1RYRVLELUVN 6LELUVNL\&KURQRJUDSKSS± 0RVFRZVNL\//LPLWVRILQVWLWXWLRQDOLVPLQ5XVVLDQThe Economist± 1XUH\HY50'HPHQWLHY99)RUPDWLRQRIWKHSRVWVRYLHWLQVWLWXWLRQDOLVPLQ 5XVVLDQ,Q1XUH\HY50'HPHQWLHY99 (GVPost-Soviet Institutionalism. 'RQHWVN.DVKWDQSS± Taylor and Francis Not for distribution Kirdina 3RODQ\L.DUOThe Great Transformation. 1HZ<RUN)DUUDUDQG5LQHKDUW 3ROWHURYLFK9LFWRU³,QVWLWXWLRQDO7UDS´New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and Law, Second Edition$YDLODEOHDW6651KWWSVVUQFRPDEVWUDFW Proceedings of the XXVI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. 1981 LQ 5XVVLDQ ɆRVFRZ 3ROLWL]GDW KWWSSXEOOLEUX$5&+,9(6..366B.366 KWPODFFHVVHG0DUFK Sikora, V. D. 1983. Anti-Orthodox Economic Theory (Critical Analysis) LQ 5XVVLDQ .LHY9LVKFKD6KNROD 6RURNLQD6R¿DScenarios for the Future, or Illusions of the Past?: On Institutionalism as the Trend n of Bourgeois Economic Thought LQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ,]GDWHO¶VWYR0\VO¶. 6WDOLQ-RVHIFoundations of Leninism. 0RVFRZ)RUHLJQ/DQJXDJH3UHVV 9HEOHQ7KRUVWHLQThe Theory of Business Enterprise. 1HZ<RUN&KDUOHV6FULEQHU¶V6RQV Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in Institutions1HZ<RUN0DFPLOODQ <DGRY9$³5HÀHFWLRQVRQWKHVXEMHFWRIVRFLRORJ\´LQ5XVVLDQSociological Studies± =DVODYVND\D 7DW\DQD 2Q WKH VRFLDO PHFKDQLVP RI HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW LQ 5XVVLDQ ,Q Ways of Improving the Social Mechanism of the Soviet Economy. 1RYRVLELUVN,(L2336%5$6 Zaslavskaya, Tatyana. 1990. The Second Socialist Revolution: An Alternative Soviet Strategy%ORRPLQJWRQ,1,QGLDQD8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVS =DVODYVND\D 7 , Selected Works. Transformation Process in Russia: Searching for New Methodology 9ROXPH 7ZR LQ 5XVVLDQ 0RVFRZ 3XEOLVKLQJ +RXVH ³(FRQRPLND´ Zaslavskaya, Ryvkina, Rozalina. 199 1991. Life: Essays on aya, Tatyana., & Ryvkin 9 Sociology of Economic Economi Lif the TheoryLQ5XVVLDQ0RVFRZ1DXND eory or LQ5XVVLDQ0RVF LQ5XVVLDQ0RV Z1DXND and Francis Not for distribution
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
