|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Institutions, individuals, and social relations in the modernization process
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-12-125-140
Abstract
The controversy over the role of institutions in the emergence of the modern development is analyzed in the article; essential faults in both institutionalism and its criticism are revealed. The faults in question are: The tendency to stay in the framework of economics as a purely empirical science, though the interdisciplinary character of the problem of modernization, its sociological and social-philosophical theory demands for the interdisciplinary and metatheoretical level; modernization is often considered only in its final stage (the development of modern institutions and the transition to the modern economic growth), while an analysis of social transformations on its earlier stages is necessary (the rise of cities as trade and craft centers, the expansion of urban markets, the extension of influence and independence of merchants and craftsmen); the theory is limited by the definitions of “economic growth” and “institutions” which clearly do not seem to be sufficient. It is considered to be essential to restore the term “social relations” in its Marxist meaning; in case of long-term historical transformations (such as modernization), its replacement by “institutions” is not valid (the terms “structures/relations” and “institutions” are not identical).
References
1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2016). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).
2. Akiyama K. (2003). The history of Nippon. In: The history of Japan: Collection of historical works. Moscow: Evrolints, pp. 381—486. (In Russian).
3. Alayev L . B., Rybakov R . B. (eds.) (2005). The history of the East. Vol. 4: The East in the modern period, Book 2. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. (In Russian).
4. Arslanov V. V. (2016). Geography, institutions and the roots of global inequality: A critical appraisal of Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory of economic development. Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS. (In Russian).
5. Weber M. (1990). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. In: Weber M. Selected works. Moscow: Progress. pp. 44—272. (In Russian).
6. Grinin L. E., Korotaev A. V. (2007). Social macroevolution and historical process (Introduction). Filosofiya i Obshchestvo, Vol. 2, pp. 19—68. (In Russian).
7. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2019). Contra Pan-institutionalism: Working paper. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).
8. Collins R. (2002). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Novosibirsk: Sibirskiy Khronograf. (In Russian).
9. Collins R. (2015). Macrohistory: Essays in sociology of the long run. Moscow: URSS. (In Russian.)
10. Lal D. (2009). Reviving the invisible hand: The case for classical liberalism in the twenty-first century. Moscow: Novoye Izdatelstvo. (In Russian).
11. НNorth D., Wallis J., Weingast B. (2011). Violence and social orders. A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).
12. Harrison L. (2016). Jews, confucians, and protestants: Cultural capital and the end of multiculturalism. Moscow: Mysl. (In Russian).
13. Hodgson G. (2007). What are institutions? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, pp. 28—48. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2007-8-28-48
14. Hodgson G. (2008). Institutions and individuals: Interaction and evolution. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, pp. 45—60. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2008-8-45-60
15. Yasin E. (2007). Modernization and society. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 4—29. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2007-5-4-29
16. Arrow К . J. (1994). Methodological individualism and social knowledge. American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 1—9.
17. Bhaskar R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
18. Crafts N. (2005). The First industrial revolution: Resolving the slow growth/rapid industrialization paradox. Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 3, No. 2—3, pp. 525—534. https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.525
19. Deakin S. (2009). Legal origin, juridical form and industrialization in historical perspective: The case of the employment contract and the joint-stock company. Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 35—65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn019
20. Lipset S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1—22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096130
21. McCloskey D. N. (2016). The Great Enrichment: A humanistic and social scientific account . Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 6—18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2016.1152744
Review
For citations:
Trubitsyn D.V. Institutions, individuals, and social relations in the modernization process. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2020;(12):125-140. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-12-125-140
Views:
1069
Email this article 
