Discourse of “economics” against discourse of “economic system”: from understanding Reality to the creation of meanings
Table of contents
Discourse of “economics” against discourse of “economic system”: from understanding Reality to the creation of meanings
Publication type
Olga Koshovets 
Occupation: Senior research fellow of Institute of Economics and Institute for Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute of economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute for Economic Forecasting, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Petr Orekhovsky
Occupation: Chief research fellow of the Institute of economics, Russian Academy of Sciences; professor of Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Institute of economics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

The authors consider the existing types of “discursive practices” that is “economics” and “economic system” and give the examples of successful and problematic concepts of these discourses (human capital, technological structures) while evaluating its influence on economic policy and socio-cultural significance in the creation of the ideas about the “economic”. A key feature of the dominant discourse that is “economics” is “logical realism” and universalism. It enables to expand the basic concepts and narratives of this discourse not only on others disciplines, but also bring them into institutional and political analysis. Moreover, it is responsible for the fact that the “economics” discourse does not seek to describe the “economic”, but rather perform the function of creating a uniform reality, the social construction of “economy” as such. A key feature of the “economic systems” discourse is “nominalism”, which in principle rejects the idea of constructing a universal object. Since there is no conceptual “hard core» and the unity of language, what matters is the creation of interpretations and social construction of meaning which refers to the “economic” as something actually existing. That enables to keep the epistemological task of objective representation. However, the “economic system” discourse is potentially ready to occupy the place of the dominant discourse and to impose its own rules of “telling stories”.

discourse, social construction of reality, economic system, human capital, neomercantilism, technological paradigms
Date of publication
Number of purchasers
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
0 RUB / 0.0 SU
All issues for 2018
2112 RUB / 30.0 SU


1. Bourdieu P. (1994) Nachala [The Origins]. Moscow: Socio-Logos.

2. Calomiris C., Haber S. (2018) Neprochnyye po konstruktsii: politicheskiye prichiny bankovskikh krizisov i defitsita kreditov [Fragile by Design: The Political Origins of Banking crisis and Scarce Credit]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara.

3. Fourcade M. (2006) The construction of a global profession: The transnationalization of economics. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 145–194.

4. Frolov D.P. (2012) Institucional`naya logika texnologicheskogo progressa. Sluchaj nanotexnologij [Institutional logic of technological progress. The Case of Nanotechnology]. Zhurnal institucional`ny`kh issledovaniy, no. 1, pp. 49–65.

5. Frolov I.E. (2017) Istoricheskaya rekonstruktsiya vozniknoveniya deneg i rynka i ikh teoretiko-sistematicheskoye opisaniye kak ekonomicheskikh ob»yektivatsiy [Historical reconstruction of money and market emergence and their theoretical-systematic description as economic objectivizations]. Ekonomika v perelomnyye epokhi. Istoriya mirovoy ekonomiki, vyp. 6. Moscow: IE RAN, pp. 75–127.

6. Glazyev S.Yu. (1993) Teoriya dolgosrochnogo tekhniko-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Theory of longterm technical and economic development]. Moscow: VlaDar.

7. Kolosovsky N.N. (1958) Osnovy ekonomicheskogo rayonirovaniya [Foundations of the economic regionalization]. Moscow: Gospolitizdat.

8. Koshovets O.B., Frolov I.E. (2013) Ontologiya i real`nost`: problemy` ih sootnosheniya v metodologii ekonomicheskoy nauki [Ontology and reality: the problems of their correlation in the methodology of economic science]. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika: ontologii i etika. Moscow: Institut ekonomiki RAN, pp. 27–111.

9. Koshovets O.B., Ganichev N.A. (2017) Uskorennoe razvitie mikroe`lektroniki i IKT i “chetvertaya promy`shlennaya revolyuciya” [Accelerated development of microelectronics and ICT and the “fourth industrial revolution”]. E`LEKTRONIKA: “Nauka, Texnologiya, Biznes», no. 10, pp. 140–145.

10. Leamer E. (2012) The Craft of Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11. Orekhovskiy P.A. (2017) Aktorno-setevoy podkhod B. Latura i “faktor kul'tury” v analize ekonomicheskikh protsessov [Latour`s actor-network theory and “factor of culture” in the analysis of economic processes]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', no. 3, pp. 157–167.

12. Orekhovsky P.A. (2015) Avtoritetnyy diskurs rossiyskogo ekonomista [Authoritative Discourse of the Russian Economist]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', no. 6, pp. 97–115.

13. Peres C. (2011) Tekhnologicheskie revolyutsii i finansovoiy kapital. Dinamika puzyrey i periodov protsvetaniya [Technological revolutions and financial capital]. Moscow: Delo.

14. Porter M.E. (2000) Attitudes, values, beliefs, and the microeconomics of prosperity. Culture matters: how values shape human progress. L.E. Harrison & S.P. Huntington eds. New York: Basic Books.

15. Prognoz innovatsionno-tekhnologicheskoy i strukturnoy dinamiki ekonomiki Rossii na period do 2030 g. s uchotom mirovykh tendentsiy (2006) [Forecast of technological and structural dynamics of the Russian economy for the period up to 2030]. Moscow: Institut ekonomicheskikh strategiy.

16. Reinert E. (2014) Kak bogatye strany stali bogatymi, i pochemu bednyye strany ostayutsya bednymi [How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor]. Moscow: Izd-vo VSE.

17. Rodrik D. (2014). Paradoks globalizatsii: demokratiya i budushchee mirovoy ekonomiki [The paradox of globalization: democracy and the future of the world economy]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara.

18. Romanov V.N. (2003) Istoricheskoe razvitie kul'tury. Psikhologo-tipologicheskiy aspekt [Historical development of culture]. Moscow: Izd-vo Savin S.A.

19. Samuels W.J. (1991) “Truth” and “Discourse” in the Social Construction of Economic Reality. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 511–524.

20. Shchedroviczkiy G.P. (1996) Zametki ob epistemologicheskikh strukturakh ontologizacii, ob``ektivacii, realizacii [Notes on the epistemological structures of ontologization, objectification, realization]. Voprosy metodologii, no. 3–4, pp. 165–176.

21. Stiglits D., Sen A., Fitoussi J.-P. (2016) Neverno otsenivaya nashu zhizn'. Pochemu VVP ne imeyet smysla? Doklad Komissii po izmereniu effektivnosti i sotsial'nogo progressa [Misreading our life. Why does GDP make no sense?]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara.

22. Van Der Wee H. (1994) Istoriya mirovoy ekonomiki: 1945–1990 [History of the world economy: 1945–1990]. Moscow: Nauka.

23. Yudin E.G. (1978) Sistemnyy podkhod i printsip deyatel'nosti. Metodologicheskiye problemy sovremennoy nauki [System approach and principle of activity]. Moscow: Nauka.