The institutional train in economic theory and practice. Part 2

Abstract

The article raises the question of the responsibility of economics for the theoretical and ideological support of economic policy. During the period of economic reforms in the 90s of the last century, political economy was removed from the educational space and its normative function. Responsibility for economic policy has shifted to neoclassical economic theory and, above all, to its current in the form of neo-institutional economic theory. After thirty years of radical economic reforms in Russia, its disastrous results have become apparent. They resulted in prolonged stagnation, technological lag, and structural deformations. Russia has irretrievably lost historical time in technological and economic development. The main attention is paid to neoinstitutional economic theory as the most normatively active stream of neoclassicism influencing economic policy. Its inconsistency in its claims to dominance in the normative field is proved by its "subject curse" beyond the limits of economic theory. It is proved that all definitions of institutions, except for norms and rules, include technology, money, and economic laws. The institutional paradigm finds a solid substantive basis in objective economic laws, which serves as the basis for the complementary unification of the two main trends of economic theory. Accordingly, the functions of economics will be strengthened. Combining the efforts and scientific apparatus of the two movements opens up the possibility for systematic research, which in recent years has been dreamed of by the founder of neo-institutional theory, R. Coase.