Abstract
Recent decades have witnessed an upsurge in multiple alternative approaches to unraveling major economic problems, together with the mainstream economic theory, which in this study has been considered an indicator of economic crisis. In this study, we attribute institutional stasis, as well as methodological heterogeneity of its two constituent sections, micro- and macroeconomics, to the primary drawbacks of neoclassical economic theory. Overcoming the crisis of economic science correlates with the creation of a general economic theory on the principles of “pure science,” with elucidated functions of various socioeconomic disciplines. If “pure economic theory” intends to form an intellectual layout of the economic system, then the “realistic sciences,” also including modern macroeconomics in this study, are tools for analyzing specific socioeconomic phenomena and processes. As people with consciousness and interests act in the society, this study postulates the existence of a certain zone of ambiguity, which cannot be entirely covered.
Publisher
The Russian Academy of Sciences
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献