Згідно з Наказом Міністерства освіти і науки України від 28.12.2019 № 1643
журнал внесено до Переліку наукових фахових видань України 
(категорії “Б”з економічних наук

Проводимо набір статей до публікації у науковому фаховому журналі "Вісник КНТЕУ" з економічних наук

ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE OF THE XXI CENTURY

Автор: Sveta on .

Cite as APA style citation
Lagutin V. Ontologichni ta gnoseologichni zasady ekonomichnoi' nauky XXI stolittja. Visnyk Kyi'vs'kogo nacional'nogo torgovel'no-ekonomichnogo universytetu. 2020. № 2. S. 21-35.

FREE FULL TEXT (PDF)
DOI:  http://doi.org/10.31617/visnik.knute.2020(130)02

UDC 330.101"20"
 
LAGUTIN Vasyl,
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of Economics and Competition Policy
Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
Kyoto str., 19, Kyiv, 02156, Ukraine

E-mail Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.
ORCIDhttps//orcid.org/0000-0001-6626-4381

ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE OF THE XXI CENTURY

BackgroundThe searchofnew theoretical and methodological approaches in the XXI centuryisa prerequisite for the development of economic science. The economic rea­lity itself isnew, problematic, contradictory andcreates the impuls for the emergence of a new type of conceptual and paradigmatic constructions. An urgent problem in these condi­tions is the formation of modern ontological and epistemological foundations of the scien­tific economic system, the provision of real knowledge of its subject, which is reliable, that is, substantiated in the detailed logical theoretical form.
The aim of the article is to study the ontological and epistemological foundations of the development of economic science in the XXI century (the study was conducted using two most common transcendental economic categories - value and capital).
Materials and methods. General scientific and special methods of scientific know­ledge, methodological tools of modern economic theory, system method, logical and histo­rical approaches, method of scientific abstraction, analysis and synthesis, qualitative struc­tural approach, method of interdisciplinary analysis have been used.
Results. Ontological principles of economic science are connected with the object­tive existence of economy (its place in society, connections with technological processes, specific properties, systemic, structural, cause and effect, functional and other character­ristics) and epistemological principles of economic science are connected with research methodology.
The emergence of new approaches in economic science to the ontological content of the economy of the XXI century clearly correlates with the emergence of the concept of post-industrial society.
An economic ontology cannot be outside a thorough epistemological study, that is a methodology. The methodology of science is based on a philosophical basis. The most promising in modern conditions for economic science is a synergistic methodology with its effective methods of study of emergent systems.
The problem of paradigmatic innovations in economic science is acute today.
The theoretical development of the subject of science involves the selection of certain fundamental categories - the beginnings of a peculiar categorical matrix. These are, first and foremost, such generalizable categories as "value" and "capital" for economic science. These categories reflect the content of the base objectively determined economic substance.
Conclusion. The scientific material of the XXI century modifies traditional ontolo­gical (what and how it exists) and epistemological (as knowledge is justified of what exists) conceptions of the economy. Effective in the ontological and epistemological sense, econo­mic science opens new perspectives that give the system of economic categories a truly updated content. Such approach will actually bring domestic economic science into the future of the XXI century.
Keywords: economic ontology, economic epistemology, methodology, paradigm, language of science, economic information, value, capital.

REFERENCES

  1. Avtonomov, V., & Avtonomov, Y. (2019). Four Methodenstreits between Behavioral and mainstream economics. The Journal of Economic Methodology. (Vol. 26), 3, 179-194 [in English].
  2. Akerlof, Dzh., & Shyller, R. (2017). Fishyng. Hto i jak manipuljuje vashym vyborom [Phishing. Who and how manipulates your choice]. Kyiv: Nash format [inUkrainian].
  3. McCloskey, D. (2016). Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the Worid. Universsity of Chicago Press [in English].
  4. Munda, G. (2016).Beyond Welfare economics: some methodological issues. The Journal of Economic Methodology. (Vol. 23), 2, 185-202 [in English].
  5. Papava, V. (2018). Pro kryzu v ekonomichnij nauci ta shljahy vyhodu z nei’ [On the Crisis in Economic Science and the Ways to Overcome It]. Ekonomika Ukrai’ny Economy of Ukraine,10,32-52[in Ukrainian].
  6. Pilkington, P. (2016). The Reformation in Economics: A Deconstruction and Recon­struction of Economic Theory. London: The Palgrave Macmillan [in English].
  7. Rodrik, D. (2017). Jekonomika reshaet: sila i slabost’ "mrachnoj nauki" [The Economy Decides: Strength and Weakness of "Dark Science"]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gajdara [in Russian].
  8. Syll, L. P. (2016). On the Use and Misuse of Theories and Models in Mainstream Economics. London: College Publications [in English].
  9. Fullbrook, E. (2016). Narrative Fixation in Economics. London: College Publications [in English].
  10. Hausman, D., McPherson, M. S., & Satz, D. (2017). Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy. Cambridge [in English].
  11. Gejec’, V. (2018). Ekonomichnu praktyku – na naukove pidg’runtja [Economic practice – on a scientific basis]. Ekonomika Ukrai’ny Economy of Ukraine,10,3-9[in Ukrainian].
  12. Grycenko, A. (2018). Cyfrovyj rozvytok: struktura, kapitalizacija ta socializacija [Digital development: structure, capitalization and socialization]. Ekonomichna teorija Eco­nomic Theory,4,5-20[inUkrainian].
  13. Jeshhenko, P. S., & Arsejenko, A. G. (2011). Nova paradygma rozvytku ekonomiky – nastijlyve velinnja nashogo chasu [The new paradigm of economic development is the imperatives of our era]. Ekonomika i prognozuvannja Economyand Forecasting, 1, 28-47 [inUkrainian].
  14. Zvjerjakov, M. (2018). Teoretychna paradygma stalogo rozvytku ta ukrai’ns’ki realii’ [Theoretical Paradigm for Sustainable Development and Ukrainian Realities]. Ekono­mika Ukrai’ny EconomyofUkraine, 10, 10-31[inUkrainian].
  15. Tarasevych, V. (2018). Problematyka istyny u svitovij ekonomichnij nauci [The Prob­lems of Truth in World Economic Science]. Ekonomika Ukrai’ny Economy of Ukraine,10,88-100[in Ukrainian].
  16. Umanciv, Ju. (2019). Ekonomichna teorija u novitn’omu metodologichnomu dyskursi [Economic Theory in the Latest Methodological Discourse]. Visnyk Kyi’vs’kogo nacio­nal’nogo torgovel’no-ekonomichnogo universytetu HeraldofKyivNationalUniversityof TradeandEconomics,2, 51-63. DOI:10.31617/visnik.knute.2019(124)03[in Ukrainian].
  17. Filipenko, A. (2017). Ekonomichnyj svit: metodologija [Economic World: Methodo­logy]. Ekonomichna teorija Economic Theory, 3, 5-22 [inUkrainian].
  18. Schwab,K. (2018). Shaping TheFourthIndustrialRevolution. Geneva: WorldEco­nomicForum [in English].
  19. Harari, Ju. N. (2018). 21 urok dlja 21 stolittja [21 Lessons for the 21st Century]. Kyiv: Fors Ukrai’na [inUkrainian].
  20. El-Erian, M. (2010). NavigatsontheNew Normal in Industrial Countries.Per Jacobsson Foudation Lecture. Retrieved from www.imf.org [in English].
  21. Taleb,N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin[in English].
  22. Blaug, M. (1980). Methodology of Economics, or Now Economists explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [in English].
  23. Kuhn, T. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press [in English].
  24. Baudrillard, J. (1995). SimulacraandSimulation, trans. Sheila Faria Glaser, Ann Arbor, MJ: University of Michigan Press [in English].
  25. Baudrillard,J. (1972). For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign [in English].