Political economy: emergence and evolution. Political Economy

INTRODUCTION

POLITICAL ECONOMY: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED SOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The theme of the work is “Political economy: emergence and evolution”.

The paper considers the formation and evolution of political economy, critically analyzes the current state of the problem.

Political economy is one of the oldest economic sciences. In ancient Greece, Xenophon (V-IV centuries BC) called this science "oikonomy" (from the Greek words "oikos" - household and "nomos" - law). Consequently, it was about the laws governing the domestic slave economy. Aristotle also used it in this sense.

The name "political economy" was introduced into scientific circulation by the French mercantilist A. Montchretien, who in 1615 published his work "Treatise of Political Economy" in Rouen. The term "politics" (from the Greek word "politike" - public administration, public affairs) was used by A. Montchretien to emphasize the need for rational management not of the household, but of the state, national. After all, the mercantilists were supporters of the state approach to the economy, as well as the need to understand and explain the state economic policy in order to increase the wealth of the nation. The name of science appeared before its conceptual foundations were formed and its subject was determined.

As is known, K. Marx called mercantilism the first school of bourgeois political economy. However, most foreign economists believe that mercantilism was not a science, but only its prehistory. The researchers also focus on the fact that political economy has emerged from moral philosophy. This was the process of formation of classical political economy. It has become a science. She began teaching at universities.

POLITICAL ECONOMY: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

state political economy mercantilism

The definition of political economy as a science required the formulation of its subject. However, oddly enough, political economy from its very inception did not have a clear definition of its subject. For a long time it remained a science of wealth, which was due to the title of A. Smith's book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776).

In the 19th century, due to the rapid development of capitalism, the ideas of classical political economy "do not work" in real life. Under these conditions, the students and followers of the classics criticize capitalism and classical political economy, and, as a result, in the last third of the 19th century. the neoclassical direction is formed. In scientific literature, this transition is called "marginal revolution".

A kind of completion of marginalism was the concept of A. Marshall, who saw it as his task to systematize the entire post-Ricardian political economy. In 1890, he published the work "Principles of Economics", and in 1902 he proposed to the leadership of the University of Cambridge instead of the course "Political Economy" to introduce the course "Economics". The idea was to strengthen the applied nature of political economy.

In numerous responses to the specified work of A. Marshall, which are cited by J. M. Keynes, it was about the emergence of a "new political economy", and hopes were expressed that this work "will contribute to the revival of the shattered authority of political economy." However, "economics" is not political economy, although foreign economists try to identify them. Thus, the author of the well-known textbook on "economics" P. Samuelson wrote: "Economic theory, or political economy, as it is usually called." Of course, "economics" does not ignore the problems that political economy explores, but they do not determine its subject. True, "economics", like political economy, did not have and does not have a single definition of its subject. And P. Samuelson generally believed that "no definition of the subject of economic theory can be accurate, and, in fact, there is no need for this."

As University of Chicago professor F. Knight wrote, "economics" has replaced political economy. It became the leading university economics course. There is a differentiation of economic science, micro- and macroeconomics are formed. Branch economies separated from political economy. Separate schools and directions of economic science are developing. Keynesianism and institutionalism emerge. It is true that economists who have studied the history of economic thought write about the schools of political economy. In particular, B. Seligman, considering the development of economic theory since the end of the 19th century, writes about the English, Swedish and American schools of political economy. Meanwhile, the economists represented in the studies are shown as the authors of individual theories.

And it is no coincidence that scientists, without denying the existence of certain theoretical foundations of scientific schools, focus on the need for a "general theory". It was the need for such a "general theory" that led to the emergence of diverse "political economy".

Professor of the University of Friborg G. Bortis (Switzerland) noted that after the Second World War, the section of "political and social sciences" accelerated, their specialization deepened, and economic theory lost its historical component. This led to the predominance of the hypothetical approach in the formation of theoretical models, which, in turn, contributed to a better understanding of individual, isolated problems and limited the ability to analyze the functioning of the socio-economic system as a whole.

G. Bortis proclaims the "political economy of humanism," which for him corresponds to a society organized on humanistic principles. According to the scientist's definition, the leading role in its organization is played by "classical Keynesian political economy" (for him it is a synthesis of the works of Quesnay, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes). It is she who is able to solve the interrelated problems of income distribution and employment, which, as J. M. Keynes emphasized, the existing society is not able to solve. Only a system of socio-political sciences, in which political economy plays a leading role, can solve these problems. Accordingly, G. Bortis interprets such a system as a third way, alternative to the economic theory of socialism and liberalism (neoclassics).

If G. Bortis proclaims the political economy of humanism, then the famous English physicist, specialist in the field of quantum physics and biophysics, Ph.D. D. Hooke (1942) came up with the quantum theory of political economy, which deals with the interaction of natural and social sciences. He explores and proclaims the influence of quantum physics on the development of political economy. D. Hooke opposes the quantum theory to the Cartesian-Newtonian concept, which, according to him, is built on the principles of atomism and forms an abyss between human society and nature. Focusing on the theoretical and methodological achievements of quantum physics, the scientist emphasizes that they can be used in the interests of the development of economic theory.

Physical economy, which also deals with the unification of physical and economic, has received significant development and recognition. Its founder is the outstanding Ukrainian scientist S. Podolinsky (1850-1891). He formulated a new scientific paradigm of civilizational development, based on the energy theory, as well as presenting the interaction of world energy (object) and man (subject) as the basis of life. The ideas of S. Podolinsky were developed by the outstanding Ukrainian scientist in the field of natural science V. Vernadsky (we are talking, in particular, about his studies of the biosphere and noosphere). A significant contribution to the development of the ideas of physical economy was made by M. Rudenko (1920-2004). It was he who gave the name to this science, revealed the location of the energy source that underlies photosynthesis, and built the formula for the "energy of progress."

At the same time, evolutionary, realistic, critical and other branches of political economy were proclaimed. And what does it mean? According to scientists, this means that the "end of classical political economy" has come. Of interest is the prophetic prediction of this process by M. Tugan-Baranovsky: "There is every reason to recognize the fate of political economy as a kind of science about the cause-functional relationships of economic phenomena, closely related to the modern national economy. Together with it, it arose and developed and along with it There will be no place for this science in the socialist system, although it is in this system that practical knowledge relating to the field of economic policy, and all the auxiliary scientific disciplines necessary for this - for example, statistics - should receive extraordinary development. part will become a theory of economic policy, and part will become part of a more general science of society - sociology.

The emergence of many "general theories" (political economy) did not solve the problem. It was again about the different theoretical foundations of "political economy", about the lack of a single definition of their subject matter. Only the name of the science was preserved, under which the "general economic theory" was formed.

Changes in economic life, global shifts in the development of world civilization require new theoretical generalizations. The established schools and directions of social thought are not able to explain them. There was a need for a transition to a new paradigm of ideas about the development of society. In particular, there was a need for a detailed analysis of the problem of the influence of political institutions and processes on the functioning of the economy. Classical political economy only partly took political factors into account. The subsequent directions of this science did not include political processes in their analysis. Thus, interest in traditional political economy was lost.

In the second half of the XX century. interest in the study of political processes and their role in economic life, as well as the role of government in the state, increased. Accordingly, there was a change in the term "political economy". Scholars proclaim the idea of ​​a "renaissance of political economy", of its reorientation, mainly, to the study of issues of interaction between the state and the economy, to the analysis and justification of economic policy. They note that the problems of the mutual influence of economic and political processes, the interaction of economics and politics have become one of the leading subjects of research in the social sciences. And "... the most successful project in the field of political and economic research in modern social sciences can be considered political economy (political economics) or new political economy (new political economy)".

The new political economy is a scientific symbiosis of political science and economics, formed on a common methodological basis, which consists of several scientific theories, and above all, the theory of public choice. According to recognized leaders in this theory, J. Brennan and J. Buchanan, public choice theory "applies the technique and analytical apparatus of modern economics to the study of political processes." Scientists associate the formation of a new political economy with the pioneering work of E. Downes "The Economic Theory of Democracy" (1957), in which the subject of study was the relationship between economics and politics. And the sources (origins) of the new political economy, in addition to the theory of rational choice, were determined by agency, international, spatial and other theories, "which for a long time were independent tools for studying the impact of politics on the economy."

Second half of the 20th century became the arena for the emergence of a whole series of works that marked the formation of a new political economy. We are talking about the articles by W. Nordhaus, E. Taft, D. Hibbs and P. Mosley on the problems of the theory of the political business cycle, the monographs "Political Economy" by T. Persson and D. Tabellini, "Political Competition" by D. Roemer and others

There is a growing interest in studying the role of government in public life, and, accordingly, the term "political economy" is filled with new content. Modern new political economy includes several directions. We are talking about both purely political and political-economic models of this science. For example, the spheres of the political economy of democracy, initiated by E. Downes, are the study of the influence of political processes and institutions on the formation of economic policy, the study of the institution of competition of political parties in elections and the behavior of voters, the definition of the government and its functions.

Scholars associate the further development of the new political economy with the second stage (70s of the 20th century), which was marked by the appearance of a number of works on political business cycles. They dealt with the relationship between the political and economic cycles, proclaimed the hypothesis of fluctuations in economic indicators synchronously with the elections. These problems were studied by W. Nordhaus, E. Taft, P. Mosley and others. The constitutional political economy of J. Brennan and J. Buchanan occupies an important place in the new political economy. It originated almost simultaneously with the theory of public choice and for a certain period was on the periphery of the mainstream, and recently it has regained relevance. As the authors of constitutional political economy write, its task and, accordingly, the scope of research is the analysis of the rules that must be followed in order to ensure the acceptably efficient functioning of society as such. Scientists emphasize the importance of this problem and draw an analogy with classical political economy, in particular with the theory of A. Smith, who "used the term "laws and institutions"". We need rules, they write, because in everyday life without them we would be at war all the time. "The rules define the boundaries of the space within which everyone can act as he sees fit." The study concludes: "We must rethink our rules and our thinking", "focus our attention on right-handers that limit the activities of governments, and not on innovations that justify the ever-increasing intervention of politicians in the lives of citizens." J. Buchanan also explores the practical application of constitutional economic theory. In particular, he identifies several areas of its practical application: these are taxation rules, budget policy, distribution of income and wealth, etc.

The well-known French economist J.-J. Laffon. He defines political economy as "the discipline that arises from the need to delegate economic policy to politicians, and therefore fundamentally the problem of incentives." As the author notes, in this study, he "raises several questions about the incentives that arise when politicians are delegated the right to make socially significant decisions." To analyze the traditional issues of political economy, the author, as he himself points out, uses the theory of contracts and the economics of information. Accordingly, the first and second sections of his work are devoted to the consideration of constitutions from the standpoint of both full and incomplete contracts. In the third section, the scientist considers the contract model with asymmetric information. They are also offered a methodology to identify optimal changes in the constitution. In addition, the author explores such topical issues as corruption, ecology, positive features and shortcomings of laws, etc.

The new political economy is developing dynamically. According to the researchers of this problem, it is "one of the most active areas of research in modern economic theory, since the introduction of political restrictions in standard economic models allows us to advance in understanding and explaining real economic problems."

A high appraisal of the new political economy cannot serve as a sign of its high scientific level. It, like other areas of modern economic theory, is not able to provide either answers to questions that arise in the world economy of the 21st century, or scientific knowledge about them. Like modern economics in general, the new political economy is not structured. It deals with individual theories - both purely political and political-economic models. It does not give an idea of ​​the fundamental laws of the development of the modern economy.

And it is no coincidence that in the scientific literature the question of the "renaissance" of political economy is not removed from the agenda. Because of this, the study of this problem by Russian scientists, who interpret it as "the fate of political economy," is of particular interest. First of all, it should be noted that with the beginning of perestroika, political economy was excluded from the scientific and educational processes in the Russian Federation and replaced by "economic theory" or "national economy". However, scientists did not stop the struggle for the restoration, the "renaissance" of political economy as a science and as an academic discipline. In November 2002, a group of leading Russian economists addressed an open letter to the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation with a proposal "to restore political economy as a general theoretical discipline and as a science in the Russian classification of sciences."

However, the question arises: if we restore political economy as a general theoretical discipline, then, in fact, which one? Is this about classical, Marxist or some new political economy? The appeal of scientists was ignored, and in the scientific community there were two trends - supporters and opponents of the "renaissance of political economy." Opponents of the revival of political economy focused mainly on neoclassical "economics", arguing their position with a number of provisions, by the way - not scientific, but mainly organizational and practical. They opposed the restoration of political economy in the educational process, motivating their opinion by the fact that regulatory documents in education give each university the opportunity to introduce disciplines into the educational process at its own discretion. Opponents of the revival of political economy also argued the "practical inexpediency" of this action, due to the fact that a lot of work has already been done to create training course programs and relevant documentation on "economic theory". They also referred to the all-European requirements, in particular - the Bologna process, in the program of which there is no such subject as political economy. In turn, supporters of the "renaissance" of political economy tended to synthesize different areas of economic theory (in particular, classical and neoclassical) under the general name "political economy". Such an attempt was implemented in a number of textbooks (published at Moscow University), which dealt with the coverage of unambiguous economic categories from different conceptual positions. However, this idea did not receive the support of scientists.

A new version of the synthesis of theories was proposed by S. Dzarasov, including classical, post-Keynesian, institutional and neo-Marxism in the new, revived political economy. Consequently, the neoclassical synthesis was opposed to the postclassical - "synthesis of a higher level." According to the author, Marxist methodology should become a tool that would unite theories within the framework of a new course of political economy. Based on this methodology and using the views of the leading representatives of these areas, one can "seriously advance political economy and present an alternative to the 'neoclassical-mainstream' political economy interpretation of modern society."

Without dwelling on the many absurdities of the proposed synthesis, it should only be emphasized that both Keynesianism and institutionalism, as well as neoclassicism, are alien to Marxist methodology, and therefore its application to them as components of the new political economy is not acceptable.

In June 2004, the International Scientific Symposium "Economic Theory: Historical Roots, Modern Role and Development Prospects" was held at Moscow University. Summing up the work of the symposium, Professor V. Cherkovets stated with regret that he "did not work out any coordinated decision on the ways of restoring political economy as an independent academic discipline in universities." According to the scientist, the symposium could not offer a specific project for solving the problem, given the state of economic science both in Russia and in the world educational and scientific space. So he poses the question: "What to do?" and highlights two problems, two tasks that, in his opinion, should be solved in order to restore the political economy: "Of course, special large-scale preparatory work is needed, aimed, on the one hand, at political and economic studies of the largest topical problems of the socio-economic development, on the other hand, on the development of the accumulated questions of structuring economic theory itself in its current state.

In practice, the author proposes to solve the problem of the "model" of the revival of political economy by implementing two "subprograms":

1) preparation of teaching aids and textbooks on this subject;

2) implementation of scientific research.

In such textbooks, he proposes to include the main political and economic directions of modern economic theory, conducting a comparative analysis of their methodologies, interpretations of the most important problems and categories of the same name (such as, for example, "goods", "utility", "cost", "money", "prices ", "profit" and its sources). In fact, the scientist proposes to include all modern economic theories in these textbooks, paying special attention to classical political economy and Marxism.

In our opinion, the creation of a textbook on political economy on such a basis is rather problematic. It will look more like a textbook on the history of economic doctrines or on modern economic theories, especially since V. Cherkovets proposes to conduct a comparative analysis of the methodologies of the included areas of modern economic theory, as well as their economic categories. And since the methodology and definition of economic categories in different directions are different things, it is difficult to imagine the content of such a textbook. As for the second part of the author's proposals, this provides for an analysis of the most pressing scientific problems in textbooks.

Of interest is the position of supporters of Marxism, who raise the question not of the renewal, "renaissance" of political economy, but of the formation of a new political economy that would meet the requirements of today, the challenges of the 21st century. In this context, the scientific research of K. Molchanov, who connects the problems of socio-economic development with the development of social sciences, and in particular political economy, is of particular interest. Accordingly, this author's transition to the "new political economy" is natural, due to socio-economic development. He traces the evolution of political economy, identifies its stages. The author's current stage is the fourth. The laws of development inherent in it, new problems, and, consequently, tasks, require new foundations for development, new theoretical developments and, accordingly, a "new political economy."

According to K. Molchanov, political economy in its "old" sense has "lost" its meaning for society, not having provided in the XX century. its mission (social development). Consequently, political economy in its "old" sense has been exhausted. Thus, objectively, there is a need for a new political economy. The author proposes to build a new political economy on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist "philosophical and economic heritage (but taking into account its re-awareness and dialectical development) in conjunction with the consideration and analysis of events and economic theories of the 20th century, as well as taking into account new goals and modern tasks requiring solution ". Consequently, he proposes to carry out the formation of a new political economy on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, taking into account contemporary problems and theories.

As for the rethinking of Marxism, K. Molchanov, first of all, refuses his fundamental thesis - the class struggle. "... The class struggle," he writes, "is unacceptable as the basis for development at the turn of the 21st century." He stands for conflict-free, democratic development that will take place in the future socio-economic formation, which the author conditionally defines as "the formation of an industrial social society." According to the scientist, the transition to a new formation will be accompanied by the transformation of some economic categories, in particular, value and surplus value. The absence of class struggle, he believes, will lead to a new definition of surplus value - "political economy, not political."

Summing up the study, K. Molchanov concludes that the socio-economic processes of modernity and, accordingly, the transition to the study and development of political economy through stages and phases determine the need for "rethinking knowledge and defining new methods of analysis." In his opinion, the new approach and the corresponding foundations will ensure the formation of modern political economy. "Retaining the achievements of political economy of the 17th-20th centuries, modern political economy is not reborn from the ashes of its predecessor, but appears at the beginning of the 21st century from the waves of the global ocean of knowledge and historical experience of development, marking a new circle in the development of science." Consequently, the author's evolution, the development of political economy is a natural process, due to socio-economic development, and its peculiar vision is a combination of Marxism with modern economic theories.

It is impossible to bypass the opinion of scientists about the "end of classical political economy", which they associate with the weakening of class contradictions. In March 2008 at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at a round table meeting, Professor M. Voeikov made a scientific report "The Labor Question and the End of Classical Political Economy". He connects political economy with the labor issue, which he understands as the problem of the opposition of labor and capital. "The presence and existence of the working class," emphasizes the author of the report, "obviously can be directly connected with the fate of political economy." In turn, the irrelevance of the "labor question" explains the irrelevance of political economy. "If the current Russian government," he argues, "strives not in words but in deeds to create a welfare state, then the significance of the labor question will decrease and political economy will lose its meaning." Consequently, the speaker connects the subject of political economy with class society and, accordingly, denies political economy in the broadest sense. As for today, according to the scientist, the presence of class contradictions determines the need for political economy for society. The report contains many absurdities, which was already noted during its discussion 36 . And what is interesting is that the discussion has acquired a primary focus on clarifying the working question, and not the problems of political economy.

The materials of the round table were negatively assessed by representatives of the all-Russian public organization "Russian Scientists of Socialist Orientation". In particular, V. Budarin's article "What kind of political economy does Russia need" analyzes in detail the speeches of both the speaker and opponents. First of all, the author of the article draws attention to the fact that neither the speaker nor the majority of the speakers actually set themselves the task of proving the idea of ​​the inevitability and necessity of the withering away of classical political economy or somehow resisting it, but instead discussed various related topics. He emphasizes that the speaker does not give a clear definition of the essence of classical political economy and its chronological framework. V. Budarin is outraged by the fact that the speaker, analyzing Marxism-Leninism, does not even mention such "outstanding personalities who have made an invaluable contribution to the significant development of Marxist political economy, such as V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, N. A. Voznesensky".

V. Budarin also does not accept the speaker's assertion that the need for political economy is due to key contradictions, the class division of society that arises only at the stage of bourgeois development and "has the property of someday ending." Then there will be no need for political economy. The author of the article also criticizes the speaker for his definition of the subject of political economy, which for him is the social conflict between capitalists and workers as the main conflict in the distribution of the social product.

The issue of solving the problem of the revival of political economy through the synthesis of theories and thereby creating an "integrative course of economic theory" was discussed for a long time on the pages of economic publications. Supporters of such integration understood its meaninglessness, shortcomings - in particular, "the danger of eclecticism, the mechanical unification of significantly different and even opposite conclusions, provisions and assessments of real economic relations." They hoped to prevent this by "singling out the entities that are most adequate" to modern economic relations. It is clear that this is not a scientific solution to the problem, but a synthetic course is a fiction.

The diversity of opinions and proposals for the restoration of political economy did not change the situation. The Russian Federation has approved a scientific research program on the "New Political Economy". This prompted scientists to develop appropriate programs, methodological base and training courses, as well as to prepare new manuals and textbooks. For example, A. Dankov, analyzing the evolution of the new political economy, defines its subject and identifies several stages in its development. He writes: "The new political economy is a separate branch of social science, the subject of which is the influence of political institutions and processes on economic policy."

Educational and methodical materials and the program of the course "New Political Economy" were developed by V. Busygin. In particular, this program has 7 sections, with the corresponding disclosure of their content.

Section 1. The role of the state in the modern economy. Political institutions and political restrictions. Section 2. Models of political processes and tools for political economy analysis. Section 3. Redistribution policy. Section 4. Comparative analysis of political systems. Section 5. The problem of temporal consistency of political decisions and approaches to its solution. Section 6. Monetary policy. Section 7. Political economy of reforms. In our opinion, this is a rather modest list of issues studied by foreign economists. But, obviously, it cannot be otherwise. The fact is that economic theory is becoming more and more enriched, growing and at the same time dividing into separate conceptual parts that separate from it. And "new political economy" is, to some extent, a collective name for separate theories of the political-economic direction, which have not yet been structured. Therefore, researchers can include in their analysis problems that are of greater interest to them.

For those who have studied Marxist political economy, this structure of science is unusual. After all, in Marxist political economy we are talking about a clear definition of the subject of science, the main and initial relations, economic laws and the system of economic categories are studied, the main contradiction of the mode of production is singled out and ways to resolve it are revealed. This means that there is a systematic and clear logic in scientific analysis.

As for the "new political economy," at first glance, one is struck by the variegation and diversity of its content. It brings to the fore political issues and their impact on the economy. One gets the impression that the study of "new political economy" presupposes knowledge of classical, Marxist political economy with their interpretation of economic laws and categories. Meanwhile, the "new political economy" is advancing successfully. As for its assessment, in our opinion, it is quite possible to agree with the conclusions of A. Dankov: “The new political economy is still a fertile object for criticism. The absence of empirical evidence, on the one hand, and the arbitrary nature of the assumptions put forward, on the other hand, contribute to the accumulation of concepts and paradigms. Today one can say of the new political economy what John Keynes said of mathematical economics in the 1930s, namely that it "is essentially a mere hodgepodge, as inaccurate as the original assumptions on which it is based, and the authors are able to forget about the complex relationships and interconnections of the real world, locking themselves in a labyrinth of pretentious and useless symbols. At the same time, the author also determines the importance of the latest economic research. In particular, he writes that "the recognition of the fact that economic policy is formed within the framework of the political process, by political authors in the context of political institutions, and its content and results are largely determined by political "origin", is the main result of half a century of efforts of many scientists. and researchers, united by the tradition of the new political economy".

CONCLUSION

In summary, there are several issues to be noted. First of all, we are talking about the structuring of economic science and the definition of its subject. This problem, emphasizes Professor V. Eremenko, "constitutes an essential characteristic of economic science itself." In modern conditions, there is no more or less unambiguous systematization and structuring of economic science. In scientific research, we often encounter the identification of the concepts of "economics", "economic theory", "political economy", "theoretical economics", "economic science", etc. without defining the subject. This identification concerns, in particular, such fundamental concepts as "economic science", "political economy", "economic theory". V. Eremenko accuses, in particular, Professor P. Grunewegen (Sydney University) of such identification, who, according to him, identifies the concepts of "political economy", "economic science" and "economic theory", than "... even more exacerbated the discussion.

In our opinion, it is worthwhile to make some remarks. First of all, in the work of P. Grunewegen we are talking about the study of the emergence and evolution of the term "political economy". “The discussion,” the scientist writes, “... will be mainly focused on definitions and will be etymological in nature, emphasizing the lack of precise definitions of the term "political economy" and its more modern synonym "economics"", that is, "economics". The fact that we are talking about "economics" is evidenced by both the content of the work and its title. As for the term "economics", this is an unfortunate translation of the term "economics", which introduces a lot of confusion in scientific research. From our point of view, it is more expedient to leave this term without translation. At the same time, we are impressed by V. Eremenko's opinion that "the concepts of 'economics', 'economic theory' and 'political economy' not only do not coincide, but are completely different." To the greatest extent, this identification concerns the concepts of "political economy" and "economic theory".

We regard this identification of concepts as unjustified. After all, the term "economic theory" can and should be used when talking about individual theories (distribution, exchange, growth, etc.), and within their framework - about a multitude of individual theories. Consequently, it is illogical to define the entire science of "political economy" by such a term. Obviously, the mass identification of terms can be explained by the fact that during the time of perestroika, it was the term "economic theory" that was replaced by the term "political economy". Scientists, trying to keep at least the name of science, used such definitions as "economic theory (political economy)"; "economic theory, political economy aspect", etc.

As for manuals and textbooks, they were usually built according to the "economics" scheme. In our opinion, we can agree with the opinion of U. Aliyev, who proposes to call this discipline (political economy) "theoretical economy (economics)" - on the model of determining the theoretical component in other sciences (for example, "theoretical mechanics", "theoretical mathematics") . Changing the name, of course, also implies the need to scientifically substantiate the new concept by clarifying its subject. As is known, political economy did not have and does not have a single definition of the subject. It has changed in the process of socio-economic development, which will certainly continue. This is as far as the name of science is concerned. As for its content, this is a separate issue.

Interesting thoughts about the evolution of economic science and its future are expressed by Professor D. Colander (USA). First of all, he emphasizes the inevitability of changes in economic theory, due to both technological progress and personnel changes in the composition of scientists. "Changes in technology, - the researcher writes, - will cause significant transformations in the economics of the future." They enhance computational capabilities in scientific work. And "young, differently trained, economists are replacing the old ones, and the image of what economic science is and its study is changing." D. Colander predicts the development of new hybrid forms - such as psychoeconomics, neuroeconomics, socioeconomics, bioeconomics, etc. In his opinion, the importance of new specific sections of applied economics - such as the economics of health, crime, etc. exist as a set of loosely coupled approaches". Ultimately, the scientist believes, psychologists, sociologists, economists will disappear - only social scientists will remain.

As for the new political economy, its appearance can be regarded as a certain stage in the development of economic science. And its definition as a "new political economy" indicates that the name corresponds to the content and subject of science. Indeed, we are talking about "political economy", about the unification of politics and economics, while in orthodox political economy the name meant "the laws of state and public administration." The New Political Economy explores the complex and important problems of social development. However, it is not able to form (develop) the theoretical foundations of modern economic and social development, as well as a long-term socio-economic strategy. Therefore, it is no coincidence that scientists emphasize the need for the formation of political economy as the fundamental theoretical basis of the system of economic sciences, the subject of which should be the essence of the phenomena and processes of economic life, that is, economic laws.

LIST OF USED SOURCES

1. Aliev U. Once again about the terminological designation of the theoretical component of economic science. "Society and Economics" No. 4-5, 2003, p. 250.

2. Colander D. The revolutionary significance of complexity theory and the future of economic science. "Economic Issues" No. 1, 2009, p. 98.

3. Keynes J. M. Alfred Marshall. In: Marshall A. Principles of economic science. T 1. M., 1993, p. 33.

4. Samuelson P. Economics. M., "Progress", 1964, p. 26.

5. Seligman B. Main currents of modern economic thought. M., "Progress", 1968, p. 287, 355, 414.

6. Bortis G The revival of the old sciences of the state is the way to the system of humanistic socio-political sciences. In the book: Social and political sciences in the union of independent powers. Zustrich worker. Kiev, April 23-25, 1998, p. 45.

7. Korniychuk L., Shevchuk V., Vorobieva L. Physical economy. Ukrainian school. "Economy of Ukraine" No. 9-10, 2006.

8. Tugan-Baranovsky M. I. Fundamentals of political economy. M., 1998, p. 37.

9. Libman A. Directions and prospects for the development of political and economic research. "Economic Issues" No. 1, 2008, p. 27.

10. Brennan J., Buchanan J. The reason for the rules. Constitutional political economy. St. Petersburg, 2005, p. 12.

11. Dankov A.N. Retrospective of the new political economy (), p. 3.

28. Busygin V. P. New political economy. 2004.

29. Grunevegen P. Political economy and economic science (Political Economy and Economics). In: Economic Theory (Edited by J. Intwell). M., "Infra - M", 2004, p. 680.

30. Shubladze E.K. the question of the theoretical designation of economic theory. "Society and Economics" No. 8, 2000, p. 189

31. Salikhov B. Is Political Economy Adequate to Contemporary Social Realities? "Society and Economics" No. 3, 2006, p. 17

32. Leonenko P. M. Methodological aspects of the history of the Ukrainian economic thought (XIX-XX centuries). K., 2004, p. 66.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Political economy appeared at the dawn of our civilization many years before economists could derive and explain this term. Initially, it existed as a system of housekeeping. A competent and rational distribution of labor and resources leads to well-being, saves from hunger and want, which was necessary for the people of antiquity. However, with the advent of capitalist society, housekeeping began to be considered not at the level of families, but at the level of states. The purpose of the proper organization of labor and the circulation of goods produced by man is to enrich the country.

Term author

The authorship of the phrase "political economy" belongs to Antoine de Montchretien, who wrote the work "Treatise of Political Economy". It is noteworthy that Montchretien himself was not an economist and did not write a single book on economics either before the treatise or after it. He was an illustrious playwright, a good connoisseur of antiquity, his work is more of a reference manual than a scientific work.

In 1911, the Encyclopædia Britannica conducted a study during which scientists studied how independent the treatise was. A panel of experts concluded that it was based on the writings of Jean Bodin. Montchretien dedicated the Treatise of Political Economy to the august persons of France - King Louis Louis XIII and Anna de Medici.

The Significance of Capitalist Society in Political Economy

Before the advent of capitalist society, economic relations manifested themselves purely as volitional relations. When the capitalist society was created, economic relations began to exist as an independent and independent concept. The agricultural industry faded into the background, the dominant place began to belong to the manufacturing industry. An industrial society is characterized by the fact that any benefits are the result of human labor, and they are produced not within the framework of one industry, but several, and the most diverse in their type of activity and significance. This was the reason for the emergence of a clear delineation and division of labor resources and led to the emergence and broad development of economic relations.

Due to the fact that goods are produced in a variety of production cells, they need to fully circulate between these cells. Circulation must be strictly controlled and coordinated for normal social production.

The place for the exchange of products is the market, therefore capitalist society is a synthesis of industrial and market society. It is safe to say that it was the capitalist economy that gave rise to the market economy and its prosperity in society.

Mercantilism and its features

The author of the term "political economy" Montchretien very accurately made it clear that he considers economic activity at the level of the state, and not at the family level. The emergence of capitalism led to the formation of a single economic complex within a particular country. The author of the treatise himself and his economist followers were the founders of mercantilism. Its essence was to find an answer to one question: how to manage the country's economy in such a way as to make it rich? After all, such important indicators as military power and a place in the international arena depend on the well-being of the state. The imperfection of mercantilism consisted in the identification of wealth with only three goods:

• gold;
• silver;
• money.

The task of the specialists was solely to preserve these assets within the country and increase them. In the 16th century, at the dawn of the emergence of political economy, trade was considered the greatest prospect for enriching the treasury. Profits could be made by buying goods at a lower price and selling them at a higher price. People were designated only as buyers or sellers; they did not take an active part in the formation of political economy and its development.

However, focusing only on foreign trade, economists are faced with the problem of unequal exchange of goods. Also, the question arose of how value is formed and changed, and Aristotle was looking for an answer to it at one time. The very concept of pricing and value change was developed at the time when classical political economy was born.

Forming the foundations

William Petty, one of the brightest representatives of the emerging classical school, discovered the law of value. He began to fundamentally study the factors that influence the formation of value and its change in any direction. These studies led the scientist to discover the existence of the law of value. He was the first to propose the theory of the inextricable dependence of the price of a product on the amount of labor expended on its manufacture. Thanks to these conclusions, the foundations of the labor theory of value emerged.

Also, Petty, at the same time as Pierre Lepezan de Boisguillebert, discovered that the enrichment of a country depends not only on the intensity of foreign trade, but also on production activities. The sphere of circulation ceased to occupy a dominant place in the market, and the sphere of production came to replace it; this was an aid to the foundation and development of bourgeois political economy.

The classical school of political economy already had knowledge about the exchange of products of labor between people. However, the circulation of these products was preceded by distribution among all members of society. It is for this reason that Petty threw away the theory of trade and put in its place rent, on the basis of which industrial profit and interest were formed.

School of Physiocrats

The first stage in the formation of political economy ended with the emergence of the physiocratic school. With the light hand of Boisguillebert, the theory was adopted that land ownership is the fundamental principle of production. This great economist managed to get closer to the law of value only to a small extent, because capitalist relations were not sufficiently developed in France.

The Physiocrats identified agriculture with production itself and believed that it was it that could give a net or surplus product.

F. Quesnay, a representative of this school, introduced such a concept as reproduction, and identified three main social castes:

• productive - land owners who produce a product not only for their own food, but are also producers of a pure product;
• owners - landowners who receive a net product;
• barren - workers employed in the field of handicraft or trade, who had nothing to do with owning or cultivating the land, according to Quesnay, they received wages exclusively from the two previous castes.

Turgot had a slightly different division, initially he singled out only two classes: the landowners or the productive class, and the content class (artisans). However, the transfer of land to private ownership has made some adjustments to the classification. People who were left without land began to work for those who were able to take possession of the fields in due time. In fact, another class of land owners appeared who were not directly involved in their cultivation (unemployed).

Land owners were able not to work independently, but to hire workers, as there was a demand for this kind of work. In the most economically developed countries, plots were rented out. This led to the emergence of such castes:

• manufacturing entrepreneurs;
• owners-manufacturers;
• ordinary employees.

British School Achievements

At the second stage of its formation and development, classical political economy, whose representatives no longer turned to the circulation of goods, but put production in the central place, comes to the discovery of the existence of economic laws. These laws do not depend much on the desires and actions of a person, they are similar to the laws of nature, since they are characterized by spontaneity.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo became the brightest representatives of this formative time. Scientists became developers and researchers of the labor theory of value.

Smith became world famous for his "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", and Ricardo's "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" belongs to Ricardo.

The final stage or the path to socialism

At the beginning of the 19th century, in most economically developed countries, an industrial revolution took place, the impact of which on the economy was simply colossal. This time is considered the third stage in the development of political economy, it is characterized by additions, rethinking and enrichment with new ideas of Smith's main theories. Capitalism at that time developed very rapidly, therefore, specialists had the opportunity to revise the arguments about the market law previously presented by colleagues, supplement them and refine them.

Dawn of socialism

The fourth stage in the formation and development of political economy took place in the second half of the 19th century. Karl Marx and J.S. Mil became prominent representatives of this time. Marxist political economy was based on the fact that price formation is more efficient in a highly competitive environment.

It is worth noting that both Marx and Mil showed a special interest and sympathy for the representatives of the working class. In particular, Marx was sure that if the exploitation of labor by capital is intensified, then this will certainly lead to class struggle, which will begin the withering away of the state and the emergence of the economy of a classless society.

Also, Marx belongs to the undermining of the revolution. He substantiated the labor theory of value and brought it to its logical conclusion. According to him, the basis of the value of the product is human labor, therefore, the workers should rightfully own all the benefits of society that they created by this labor. However, capitalists cannot voluntarily give up all their means of production. It is for this reason that the workers must seize them themselves by making a revolution.

The term "political economy" has experienced many transformations since its inception. Immediately he denoted a narrow concept - housekeeping. With the advent of capitalism, theories of political economy began to develop and modernize, they changed depending on the political situation in the world and in specific countries and continue to change now. The development of society inevitably leads to changes and additions to the basic postulates created in the most popular classical schools.

Political Economy, political economy- one of the social sciences, the subject of which are production relations and the laws that govern their historical development.

Term etymology

For the first time, the phrase political economy was used by the playwright and writer Antoine Montchretien in an economic treatise. « Traite d'economie politique» ("Treatise on Political Economy", 1615). Montchretien did not write economic works either before or after. Back in 1911, characterizing the degree of independence of the treatise, the Encyclopædia Britannica concluded: it " mainly based on the work of Jean Bodin". The circumstances that prompted the playwright to write the treatise were purely political (the author dedicated it to the young King Louis XIII and Queen Mother Marie de Medici). An excellent connoisseur of ancient languages ​​and literature, Montchretien constructed a successful term to designate the subject of J. Bodin's research.

Abstract, anagram " political Economy» - « economic policy» corresponds to the movement from justification (theory) to implementation (practice). However, due to their fundamental nature, the conclusions of political economy could have rather a recommendatory character for politicians.

Montchretien did not have time to "introduce a new term into use" - to confirm it in discussions with colleagues, to contribute to the emergence of a tradition of its use, or at least to see this term with my own eyes in someone else's treatise - Montchretien did not have time. Over the next 6 years before his death (1621), Montchretien did not write other works on economic and economic topics.

The subject and method of political economy

Category " political Economy» is one of the elements of a subset of the category « economic theories»; Accordingly, these terms are unequal and not interchangeable. Political economy is only one of the many sciences that formulate economic theories. At the same time, within its framework, as well as "inside" any other science, several qualitatively different sets of particular theories can arise, coexist and even compete. Groups of interrelated, not mutually contradictory theories developed within the framework of one science, on the basis of the same subject, but by different groups of scientists using different methods and techniques, are formed into schools and currents of scientific thought. Over time, the discrepancies between them in the field of subject and method can reach a critical point, after which the emergence of new sciences is ascertained, already with their own, less mutually contradictory definitions of subjects and methods.

The subject of science is the key, but not the only object of its study. What is important is the sum of objects from the field of the subject of science, a subset of the sum of the objects studied by it. Depending on individual conceptual attitudes, the depth of the study of objects that are not named as part of the subject of political and economic research of a particular political and economic school may vary, up to a complete abstraction from their existence. In some cases, this may call into question the legitimacy of calling " political and economic"a school where not only the subject, but also private objects of research ignore the categories that are essential for the definition of a given science.

Method of science - methods of research. Among the methods shared with most other economic theories, political economy relies on:

• Analysis and synthesis. Analysis - the division of a complex object into components. Synthesis - integration into a single whole of parts, properties, relationships, previously identified in the course of analysis. Synthesis complements analysis and is inseparable dialectical unity with it;
• Abstraction- after analysis, the separation of essential characteristics (components) of the phenomenon from non-essential, produced according to a certain (often quantitative) criterion.
• Induction and deduction. Induction is a type of inference that provides a transition from single facts to multiple ones, from the particular to the general. Deduction, in a broad sense, is any inference at all; in philosophy, a reliable proof or conclusion of a statement based on the laws of logic. In deductive inference, the consequences are in the premises, and are extracted from there by logical analysis. Induction and deduction are not separate, self-sufficient, but necessarily inextricably interconnected moments of dialectical knowledge.

Systems approach- not a separate method (as is sometimes erroneously indicated, along with analysis, synthesis, abstraction, deduction and induction), but the entire set of methods listed above, which allows us to consider a separate phenomenon or process as a system consisting of a certain number of interconnected and interacting elements.

Methods specific to political economy that may be absent or of minor importance in other economic theories include:

• historical and sociological method. Since a person is included in the subject of political economy both as a subject of economic relations, and as an active participant, and as a result of economic processes, this science is obliged to consider phenomena in historical terms, projecting them onto a sociological result. The inductive-deductive relationship of these methods was noted by W. Sombart:
• « The historical approach is an approach to the single, one-time, while the sociological approach is to the recurring, i.e. to typical».

However, political economy does not replace either history or sociology, adopting from these sciences not their specific methods and subjects, but only principles. Thus, historicism is the principle of cognition of things and phenomena in their development and formation in connection with the specific historical conditions that determine them.

Political economy studies the economy and the relations that develop in it in terms of its subject, which is thus defined by the category " Relations of production". These are social relations that develop in the process of reproduction, including:

• production;
• distribution;
• exchange;
• consumption of material goods.

Political economy reveals patterns and formulates economic laws governing the development of production relations at different historical stages in the development of the economic activity of mankind. In order to distinguish between them, different methods can be used here, which make it possible to distinguish qualitatively different states of the productive forces and production relations of society, in particular, a special category of socio-economic formations.

Having formulated its subject, and thus drawing a watershed with the previous stages in the development of economic thought, in the 19th century, political economy, based on the observance of this formula, further delimits itself from other sciences and disciplines related to it in the field of the subject. These are, in particular: commodity science, the history of law (including economic) and the national economy of various countries and regions, economic statistics, etc. Interacting with them, and using materials professionally and thoroughly studied by specialist scientists in other fields, political economics itself becomes the basis for the emergence of new sciences: the history of economics, econometrics, etc.

In the XVIII-XX centuries and to this day, political economy is a major, but not the only source of socio-economic theories. The distinction between political economy and other related sciences and disciplines is carried out according to a number of criteria, including the socio-historical component, the coverage of the interests of all social groups-subjects of industrial relations, the forecast of the results of a particular economic policy. These criteria are generally met by a number of other economic schools of the 19th-20th centuries, one of which in this regard was called "Neoclassical economic theory" (descent from classical political economy).

The science of social production, i.e., economic relations of people. It studies the laws governing the production and distribution of material goods at various stages of the development of human society, the productive forces. and production relations, which together constitute a mode of production, to-ry corresponds to a certain socio-economic formation. Each social system has its own economic laws. P. e. studies issues affecting the economic and political interests of various segments of the population; therefore, a single P. e. it can not be.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

POLITICAL ECONOMY

(political economy) Traditionally, the term "political economy" denotes that branch of the art of government which is concerned with the systematic study of the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, although nowadays it is often misused to characterize the political aspects of economic strategy-making. Since the 17th century this concept has been understood in different ways. Nevertheless, three traditional trends in political economy can be distinguished, which still influence political science today. First, it is the tradition of classical political economy; secondly, the Marxist school, and, finally, the direction of political economy, which uses statistics and modeling techniques to test hypotheses about the relationship between management and the economy. The first recorded use of the term "political economy" dates back to the beginning of the 17th century (it is usually attributed to Antoine de Montchretien and dates back to 1615). The combination of the word "economics", used in the French courts of the times of King Henry IV, traditionally meaning "household management" with the word "politics" ( politics ) led to the creation of a new science of public administration of state affairs. Under the influence of François Casnay ​​(1694–1774), physician to Louis XV, the foundations of political economy were first systematically expounded in the writings of the Physiocrats. Disagreeing with the mercantilists that value is synonymous with money and that trade is productive, the Physiocrats defined value in terms of the production of material products, in which prosperity depends entirely on the successful operation of the agricultural sector. This view refuted the mercantilist idea of ​​enriching merchants and, by emphasizing the interdependence between individuals in society, made political economy a theory of national significance. By the middle of the 18th century, thanks to the Scottish Enlightenment Scottish philosophers, political economy had established itself as the forerunner of modern social science. Political economy began to be regarded as a science that studies the internal tasks facing statesmen and consisting in providing some reserves of livelihood for all members of society (James Stewart. "Principles of Political Economy") ("Principles of Political Economy", 1767). Adam Smith defined political economy as "the branch of science of the statesman or legislator" engaged in the dual task of "providing a high government revenue, or the livelihood of the people...and (providing) to the state or commonwealth an income sufficient to sustain the public service. This involves the enrichment of both the people and the sovereign" ("The Wealth of Nations", ("The Wealth of Nations", 1776). Smith, based on the work of his Scottish colleagues: Francis Hutcheson, Adam Ferguson, David Hume (Hume) and John Millar , (put forward the idea that the key to understanding the development of human society is to determine the mode of existence that prevails at each stage of human development. Although Smith worked with an underdeveloped scheme that included only four stages (hunting, cattle breeding, agriculture and trade), he carried out analysis of the early stage of industrial capitalism led him to the conclusion that trade is the pinnacle of economic civilization, and freedom is necessary for the development of trade. Smith argued that the human propensity to barter, to exchange things for things, led to the creation of the most perfect economic mechanism (a self-regulating market that satisfies both the interests of an individual and the needs of society. The benefits of the division of labor, that true source of social progress and personal well-being, were simply limited by the degree of development and the size of the market. Therefore, Smith was a supporter of free trade and curtailment of the economic role of the state. In contrast to the later marginalist approach to economics, developed chiefly by Stanley Jevons (1835–82), Carl Menger (1840–1921), and Leon Walras (1834–1910), Smith did not see the economy as a self-propelled mechanism isolated from society, of which she is a part. Representatives of classical political economy - from Sir William Petty to John Stuart Mill (Mill) (thought about how to define the social classes that make up society, identify the economic relations between them and discover the laws governing these relations. Thus, the idea of ​​​​the structure of society was based on understanding its economic basis.This point of view was clearly formulated by William Robertson (1812), who argued that "in every study of the activities of people united in society, first of all, attention must be paid to the mode of their existence. And since it is different, then the laws and the policies of different societies must be different". In addition to the economic theory of historical progress, the understanding of wealth, which includes goods (and not just values), and the justification for free trade based on the principle of an unrestricted worldwide division of labor, representatives of classical political economy developed a labor theory of value , which considered labor as a measure, and sometimes the source of all value. This last aspect of classical political economy was fully developed by David Ricardo (1772–1823), who, in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, attempted to define the laws governing the distribution of rent, profit, and wages. . An ardent opponent of the "corn laws" and the old law on the poor, which, in his opinion, fettered the development of production and distribution, Ricardo improved the "embodied labor theory of value" and came to the conclusion that the national product received for distribution is determined mainly by productivity and the supply of labor. And although Ricardo considered competitive capitalism to be the ideal form of society, his analysis of value allowed the so-called. Ricardian socialists postulate the existence of a conflict of interest between labor and capital, and his theory became an important weapon during the turmoil that led to the adoption in 1832 of Reform Bill. The theories of classical political economy have a significant, although not always recognized, influence on modern political science. The definition of social class (based on the division of labor) and the harmony of interests that is claimed to exist in relations between classes underlie many liberal political theories and consensus norms. Most liberal authors demonstrate the benefits of a market economy from a position similar to that developed by Adam Smith. In the field of international political economy, the liberal tradition draws heavily on the ideas of Smith and Ricardo to substantiate arguments in favor of eliminating all forms of protectionism in the world economy. In particular, Ricardo's "comparative advantage" theory, which maintains that the distribution of industry among nations should be governed not by absolute but by relative costs of production, is central to liberal views of development and underdevelopment. In the second half of the XIX century. theories of marginal (marginal) utility of Jevons and the Austrian school led by Menger appeared. Its proponents redefined economics as a branch of praxiology, the science of rational action. In an attempt to create a mathematically precise discipline, political economy as an economic theory of society was turned into a "positive economy". Lionel Robbins later called it "the science concerned with the study of human behavior as a relationship between ends and limited means that can be used in alternative ways." Since then, economic theory has been understood in a narrow sense as the isolated study of the behavior of utility-seeking individuals expressing their subjective preferences in a given market situation. This left room for the development of additional disciplines studying social action (sociology) and political action (political science). The organic study of the law of government and society on the basis of the mode of existence, which we see in the classical authors, has become a study of price determination and the allocation of resources according to individual choice. Karl Marx, on the contrary, created his own organic conception of capitalist society, subjecting classical political economy to a thorough critique and re-formulating its basic postulates. Marx's early economic and philosophical studies led him to question the natural historical basis of classical political economy. The mistake of the classical authors was to give a natural-historical (or universal) character to the historically specific social relations of capitalist society. Behind the formal abstractions of classical political economy (land, labor, rent-bearing capital, wages, profit) hid an unexplored historically specific phenomenon - private property. It was only by accepting the existence of private property as a given that the classical writers were able to suggest that technically classes arose as a result of the division of labor. According to Marx, the best representatives of classical political economy gave an analysis (albeit incomplete) of value and its significance, but failed to raise the crucial question: "Why did this content take such a specific form?" ("Capital", Vol. 1). Therefore, Capital begins with an analysis of the form of the commodity in order to emphasize, in contrast to the classics, that the products of labor become a commodity only in historically determined and therefore transient forms of society. On this historical and materialistic basis, Marx built his theory of capitalist society, rooted in the concepts of value, surplus value, and class. In Marx's view, the isolated individual considered by liberalism (only a parody, since private interest itself is already socially determined, and symmetrical exchange relations hide exploitation; such an understanding undermines Smith's theory of the harmony of interests that exists between classes. Capitalist society is based on a specific social form production, in which the production of useful goods is subject to the growth of surplus value.Thus, although Marx agreed with the classics that "the anatomy of civil society lies in political economy", his complete rethinking of classical concepts marked the beginning of a revolution in social and political theory, the results of which have yet to be mainstreamed into the mainstream of political science.Despite the dominance of the marginalist understanding of economics in the most orthodox academic circles, radical Marxist political economy continued to develop in the early twentieth century, and in the early years of the post-war period (after 1945) received support in the form of Keynesian (Keynes) Criticism of Neoclassical Economics in Western Europe and the USA. In addition, a new scientific discipline (international political economy) has begun to study the mutual influence of politics and economics on a global scale, while radical environmental politics (environmental politics) proceeds from the rejection of marginalist economics in favor of a more clearly developed political economy. concepts of the world economy In an effort to separate itself from the ideological associations that the term "political economy" evokes, a growing number of political scientists are now working in the field of political aspects of economics, studying mainly the role of politicians in the development of economic policy and the impact of its implementation on popularity and chances on the election of governments The methodology of the modern political field of economics relies heavily on statistical and econometric modeling and emphasizes that hypotheses must be logically stated and allow for the possibility of refutation (falsifiability). Thus, the theory of the political business cycle, according to which, in preparation for elections, governments temporarily abandon their chosen policies in favor of policies that increase their popularity among voters, is a well-known hypothesis from the political field of economics. In the XX century. Classical and Marxist strands of political economy have not only survived, but continue to flourish, because the school of neoclassical economics often refuses to consider the political basis and social consequences of capitalist production and distribution. Political economy, as a discipline that analyzes the fundamental political problems associated with the accumulation and distribution of surplus product under capitalism, presents a serious challenge to the narrowness of the subject, which is characteristic of modern social science.

AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS- ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN AGRICULTURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF LAND AND OTHER MEANS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. THE KEY LINK OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ARE THE RENTAL RELATIONS ARISING BETWEEN LAND-OWNERS, LESS-HOLDERS AND WORKERS REGARDING THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF THE EXCESS surplus product.

AGRO-INDUSTRIAL INTEGRATION- STRENGTHENING INTERCONNECTIVITY AND ORGANIC CONNECTION OF AGRICULTURE AND RELATED INDUSTRIES THAT SERVE AGRICULTURE, SUPPLY IT RESOURCES AND BRING ITS PRODUCTS TO THE CONSUMER.

AGRICULTURAL COMPLEX- THE SET OF SECTORS OF THE COUNTRY'S ECONOMY, INCLUDING AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES CLOSELY RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, CARRYING OUT TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE, PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, SUPPLYING TO ITS CONSUMERS, PROVIDING AGRICULTURE WITH MACHINERY, CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS, SERVING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

ACTIVE OPERATIONS OF THE BANK - THAT aggravation, hardening, strengthening of OWN AND CLIENT'S FUNDS. THE ACTIVE OPERATIONS OF THE BANK ARE THE FOLLOWING: CASH SERVICES, SETTLEMENT OPERATIONS WITH CLIENTS, LENDING OPERATIONS, AGENCY (BROKERAGE, TRUST, GUARANTEES AND GUARANTEES, CONSULTING, MARKETING RESEARCH, FINANCE INVESTMENTS OF CLIENTS), INTERBANK SERVICES IN THE INTERBANK MARKET, CURRENCY OPERATIONS AND DR

JOINT-STOCK COMPANY– FORMATION ON THE BASIS OF CAPITAL POOLING BY ISSUING SHARES, IN WHICH PARTICIPANTS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ITS OBLIGATION OTHERWISE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES PURCHASED BY THEM.

PROMOTION– ISSUED SECURITIES ISSUED BY A JOINT-STOCK COMPANY WITHOUT A STATUTORY MATURITY PERIOD (CERTIFIES THE POSTING OF A SHARE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL) RIGHTS: RECEIVING DIVIDENTS, SALE, CONTROL BY A JOINT-STOCK COMPANY, SHARE OF PROPERTY DURING LIQUIDATION .

DEPRECIATION– THE PROCESS OF TRANSFER OF THE COST OF THE FIXED CAPITAL AS IT WEARS DURING ITS SERVICE LIFE TO THE FINISHED PRODUCT.

BANKNOTE- MONEY SIGN MADE FROM PAPER, DENSE FABRIC, METAL.

BANK LOAN- REPRESENTS, ON THE ONE PART, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PROVIDED BY THE BANK FOR A CERTAIN TERM AND ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND ON THE OTHER PART - A CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY OF SATISFACTION OF THE DECLARED FINANCE BY THE BORROWER OH NEED.

UNEMPLOYMENT- SOCIO-ECONOMIC PHENOMENON, SUPPOSING THE LACK OF WORK FOR PEOPLE CONSTRUCTING THE ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION.

EXCHANGE- COMMODITY (A SPECIAL TYPE OF FINANCIAL MARKET IN WHICH BUYERS AND SELLERS MEET AND MAKE TRANSACTIONS ON GOODS AND SERVICES) SECURITIES, DETERMINATION OF THEIR PURPOSE, DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THEM. (ELEMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE FOREIGN MARKET, THE ACTIVITY OF WHICH CONSISTS IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES FOR ORGANIZING AND CONDUCTING TRADINGS, CONCLUDING TRANSACTIONS WITH FOREIGN CURRENCY. EMPLOYEES)

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT- A MACROECONOMIC INDICATOR REFLECTING THE MARKET VALUE OF ALL FINAL GOODS AND SERVICES (I.E. INTENDED FOR DIRECT CONSUMPTION) PRODUCED IN A YEAR IN ALL SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY ON THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE FOR CONSUMPTION , EXPORT AND ACCUMULATION, REGARDLESS OF THE NATIONALITY OF THE USED FACTORS OF PRODUCTION. THE FIRST TIME THIS CONCEPT WAS PROPOSED IN 1934 BY SIMON KUZNETS.

GROSS INCOME– INCOME EQUAL TO REVENUE FROM GOODS AND SERVICES SOLD. TR= P * Q. TR - GROSS INCOME. P - UNIT PRICE OF PRODUCED GOODS. Q - QUANTITY OF SOLD GOODS. PQ - REVENUE FROM THE SALES OF PRODUCTS IN THE NUMBER OF Q UNITS.

GROSS NATIONAL INCOME- EXPRESSED AS THE PRIMARY INCOME RECEIVED BY RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTRY FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIOD, BOTH WITHIN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY AND ABROAD, NET THE INCOME TRANSFERED ABROAD. GNI = GDP + BALANCE OF PRIMARY INCOME RECEIVED FROM ABROAD OR TRANSFER ABROAD (SUCH FIRST INCOME IS USUALLY INCLUDED IN PAYMENTS OF WORK, INCOME FROM PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS, ETC.)

CURRENCY- THE KEY ELEMENT OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM OF THE STATE: A MONEY SIGN, A FULL COIN, A CURRENCY UNIT OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER MEASURES OF VALUE, MEANS OF CURE AND PAYMENT PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF MONEY, - WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THE LEGISLATION OF THIS STATE (TERRITORY) IS.

promissory note– A SECURITIES, A SEPARATE DOCUMENT OF A STRICTLY PROVIDED AMOUNT, CONTAINING OR UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION OF THE ISSUER OF IT (ORDER) OR A THIRD PARTY (TRANSFER) TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE PROmissory Note OR TO THE BEARER WITHIN A CONDITIONED TIME.

VERTICAL INTEGRATION- IMPLIES ASSOCIATION OF FIRMS ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEQUENTIAL STAGES OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALES OF GOODS. FOR EXAMPLE, INTEGRATION IN AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES USUALLY COMBINES THE STAGES OF PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ITS PROCESSING, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY TO THE TRADING NETWORK, AND SOMETIMES AND SALES TO THE CONSUMER.

GLOBALIZATION- PROCESS OF WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND CULTURAL INTEGRATION AND UNIFICATION. GLOBALIZATION IS A PROCESS OF INVOLVING THE WORLD ECONOMY, MORE RECENTLY UNDERSTANDED AS A SET OF NATIONAL ECONOMY, RELATED TO EACH OTHER BY THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL RELATIONS, THE MARKET AND THE CLOSE INTERNET OF THEIR ECONOMIES ON THE BASIS OF TRANSNATIONALIZATION AND REGIONALIZATION.

GLOBAL ECONOMY- ONE OF THE REGULARITIES OF WORLD DEVELOPMENT. THE IMMEASURABLE INCREASED IN COMPARED WITH INTEGRATION, THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE ECONOMIES OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FORMATION OF AN ECONOMIC SPACE, WHERE THE SECTORAL STRUCTURE, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE, GEOGRAPHY OF PRODUCTION FORCES DEFINE THEY ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WORLD CONJUNCTURE, AND THE ECONOMIC UP AND DOWN ARE ACQUIRE PLANETARY SCALE.

GLOBAL PROBLEMS- THIS IS A SET OF SOCIO-NATURAL PROBLEMS ON THE SOLUTION OF WHICH THE SOCIAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY AND THE PRESERVATION OF CIVILIZATION DEPENDS ON. THESE PROBLEMS ARE DYNAMIC, APPEAR AS AN OBJECTIVE FACTOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY AND REQUIRE THE UNITED EFFORTS OF ALL HUMANITY TO SOLUTION. GLOBAL PROBLEMS ARE INTERRELATED, COVER ALL SIDES OF PEOPLE'S LIFE AND RELATE TO ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD.

HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION- ACCOMPANIED BY ONE COMPANY WITH OTHERS (SAME TO IT IN THE AREAS OF APPLICATION OF CAPITAL OR PRODUCT RANGE) OR THEIR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC INTEREST.

STATE REGULATION OF THE ECONOMY- A COMPLEX OF MEASURES, ACTIONS USED BY THE STATE FOR CORRECTIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAIN ECONOMIC PROCESSES.

THE STATE BUDGET- THE MOST IMPORTANT FINANCIAL DOCUMENT OF THE COUNTRY. IT IS THE SET OF FINANCIAL ESTIMATES OF ALL DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC SERVICES, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, ETC. SOURCES AND AMOUNT OF EXPECTED REVENUES TO THE STATE TREASURY.

STATE DEBT- THE RESULT OF FINANCIAL BORROWINGS OF THE STATE, IMPLEMENTED TO COVER THE BUDGET DEFICIT. PUBLIC DEBT IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF PAST YEARS' DEFICIITIES, NET OF BUDGET SURPLUS. PUBLIC DEBT IS ADDED FROM THE DEBT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AS WELL AS THE DEBT OF ALL CORPORATIONS WITH STATE PARTICIPATION, IN PROPORTION TO THE SHARE OF THE STATE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE LAST .

GOVERNMENT ORDER- ORDER FOR THE DELIVERY OF GOODS, PERFORMANCE OF WORKS, PROVISION OF SERVICES AT THE Expense OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET, BUDGET OF SUBJECTS, LOCAL (MUNICIPAL) BUDGET AND EXTRA-BUDGETARY SOURCES OF FINANCING.

MONEY SUPPLY– A SET OF CASH AND NON-CASH FUNDS THAT ENSURE THE CIRCULATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES POSSIBLE BY PRIVATE PERSONS, INSTITUTIONAL OWNERS AND THE STATE.

MONEY– A SPECIAL GOODS PERFORMING THE ROLE OF A GENERAL EQUIVALENT AND INTERMEDIATE IN THE EXCHANGE OF GOODS. EXPRESS ECONOMIC RELATIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE REGARDING THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF GOODS.

DEPRESSION- STOCK IN THE ECONOMY CHARACTERIZED BY THE LACK OF PRODUCTION AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY, LOW DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUDGET DEFICIT- EXCESS OF THE BUDGET OVER ITS INCOME. IN THE EVENT OF EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURES, A BUDGET SURPLUS OCCURRED.

DECIL COEFFICIENT- THE RATIO OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE RICHEST 10% OF THE POPULATION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE POOREST 10% OF THE POPULATION.

DIVERSIFICATION- (DIVERSIFICATION - VARIETY, DIVERSITY). IT REPRESENTS THE ENTERPRISE OF THE FIRM IN CONSISTENTLY TECHNOLOGICALLY UNRELATED INDUSTRIES

INCOME- CASH OR MATERIAL VALUES RECEIVED BY THE STATE, INDIVIDUAL OR LEGAL ENTITY AS A RESULT OF ANY ACTIVITY FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. THIS DEFINITION GIVES A GENERAL VIEW OF INCOME. IN THE PRIVATE SENSE, INCOME IS UNDERSTANDING INCOME OF THE STATE, INCOME OF ORGANIZATIONS OR INCOME OF THE POPULATION.

NATURAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE- OBJECTIVELY FOLDING, RELATIVELY STABLE, NOT RELATED TO THE DYNAMICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL, DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES: STAFF TURNOVER, MIGRATION, DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS. THE NATURAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS CONSIDERED TO BE 4-5% OF THE LABOR FORCE.

THE LAW OF GROWTH OF NEEDS- A LAW EXPRESSING INTERNALLY NECESSARY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND THE ACHIEVE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHICH (LINKAGES) PROMOTES THE APPEARANCE OF NEW NEEDS AND THEIR MEANS SATISFACTION.

EMPLOYMENT- ACTIVITIES OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR PERSONAL AND PUBLIC NEEDS, NOT CONTRADICTING WITH THE LEGISLATION AND BRINGING THEM EARNINGS, LABOR INCOME.

WAGE- REMUNERATION FOR WORK DEPENDING ON THE EMPLOYEE'S QUALIFICATION, COMPLEXITY, QUANTITY, QUALITY AND CONDITIONS OF THE WORK PERFORMED, AS WELL AS COMPENSATION PAYMENTS AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

LAND RENT- INCOME RECEIVED BY THE LAND OWNER FROM LAND LEASEHOLDERS. LAND RENT IS IN THE FORM OF ABSOLUTE RENT, DIFFERENTIAL RENT AND MONOPOLY RENT.

LAND OWNERSHIP- THIS IS THE OWNERSHIP OF A PLOT OF LAND BY A LEGAL OR INDIVIDUAL ON CERTAIN REASONS (RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP, RIGHT OF USE). THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND ITS OWNER, IN TURN, IS THE SAME PERSON.

LAND USE- DISPOSAL OF LAND PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT WAYS; EXPLOITATION OF LAND PLOTS BY PERSONAL OR OTHER LABOR.

PRODUCTION COSTS– COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION OF PRODUCED GOODS.

IMMIGRATION- I.E., SETTLEMENT INTO A CULTURAL COUNTRY (THIS IS ITS DIFFERENCE FROM COLONIZATION) - IS PERFORMED OR BY INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES OR WHOLE GROUPS, MASSES (SO-CALLED MASS I.;

IMPORT- IMPORT OF GOODS, WORKS, SERVICES OF THE RESULTS OF INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITIES, ETC. TO THE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY FROM ABROAD WITHOUT OBLIGATIONS FOR REVERSE EXPORT.

GLOBALIZATION INDEX- THE GLOBALIZATION INDEX IS CALCULATED UNDER THE EDITION OF THE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE WITH THE HELP OF SPECIALISTS OF THE ADVISORY AND ANALYSIS AGENCY FOR 62 DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. THE INDEX DETERMINES THE DEGREE OF GLOBALIZATION OF A SINGLE COUNTRY BY DEVELOPING THIS PROCESS INTO SEPARATE COMPONENTS. THE INDEX DEMONSTRATES THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION OF THE COUNTRY INTO THE WORLD COMMUNITY.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY– A SET OF RIGHTS GRANTING TO ANY PERSONS THE RIGHT OF NON-INTANGIBLE OBJECTS (RIGHTS REGARDING SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL, LITERARY, TRADEMARKS, INVENTIONS, ETC.)

INTENSITY OF LABOR- EXPENSES BY THE WORKER OF PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND NERVOUS ENERGY PER UNIT OF WORKING TIME.

INFLATION– DEVALUATION OF MONEY, REDUCTION OF THEIR PURCHASING POWER AS A RESULT OF OVERFLOW OF MONEY CHANNELS OF CIRCULATION WITH MONEY SUPPLY AND MANIFESTED IN GROWTH OF PRICES.

MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE– A SET OF INSTITUTIONS, ESTABLISHMENTS, ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE MARKET AND PERFORMING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS TO ENSURE THE NORMAL MODE OF ITS WORK.

MORTGAGE- LONG-TERM LOAN PROVIDED TO A LEGAL OR INDIVIDUAL PERSON BY BANKS UNDER POLICIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE: LAND, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, PREMISES, CONSTRUCTIONS. THE MOST COMMON OPTION OF USE OF A MORTGAGE IN RUSSIA IS THE PURCHASE OF AN APARTMENT BY A INDIVIDUAL ON CREDIT.

CAPITAL- A SET OF GOODS, PROPERTY, ASSETS USED FOR PROFIT, WEALTH. IN THE NARROW SENSE - A SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (PHYSICAL CAPITAL)

COMMERCIAL BANK- A NON-STATE CREDIT INSTITUTION CARRYING OUT UNIVERSAL BANKING OPERATIONS FOR LEGAL ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS (SETTLEMENT, PAYMENT OPERATIONS, ATTRACTION OF DEPOSITS, PROVISION OF LOANS, AS WELL AS OPERATIONS IN THE SECURITIES MARKET AND INTERMEDIATE OPERATIONS).

COMMERCIAL LOAN- A TYPE OF CREDIT, THE ESSENCE OF WHICH CONSISTS IN THE TRANSFER BY ONE PARTY (LENDER) TO ANOTHER PARTY (BORROWER) AMOUNT OF MONEY OR OTHER THINGS DEFINED BY GENERAL FEATURES. A MODERN COMMERCIAL CREDIT IS A CREDIT PROVIDED BY ENTERPRISES TO EACH OTHER.

COMPETITION– COMPETITION BETWEEN BUSINESS SUBJECTS FOR THE BEST CONDITIONS FOR PRODUCTION, SALE OR PURCHASE OF GOODS.

GINI COEFFICIENT- INDICATOR THAT CHARACTERIZES INEQUALITY OF THE POPULATION'S INCOME, I.E. THE DEGREE OF DEVIATION OF THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY INCOMES FROM UNIFORM.

CREDIT- PUBLIC RELATIONS ARISING BETWEEN SUBJECTS OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS REGARDING VALUE MOVEMENT. CREDIT RELATIONS CAN BE EXPRESSED IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF CREDIT (COMMERCIAL CREDIT, BANK CREDIT, ETC.), LOAN, LEASING, FACTORING, ETC.

CREDIT CARD– A NAMED MONEY DOCUMENT ISSUED BY A CREDIT INSTITUTION, CERTIFYING THE OWNER OF THE CREDIT. ACCOUNT CARDS AT THIS INSTITUTION. GIVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASED GOODS AND SERVICES.

CREDIT SYSTEM- THE SET OF CREDIT RELATIONS EXISTING IN THE COUNTRY, FORMS AND METHODS OF LENDING, BANKS OR OTHER CREDIT INSTITUTIONS ORGANIZING AND CARRYING OUT SUCH RELATIONS.

LORENTZ CURVE- THIS IS A GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION. IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST MAX OTTO LORENZ IN 1905 AS AN INDICATOR OF INEQUALITY IN INCOME OF THE POPULATION. IN SUCH REPRESENTATION IT IS A IMAGE OF THE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION IN WHICH THE SHARE OF THE POPULATION AND INCOME ARE ACCUMULATED. IN A RECTANGULAR COORDINATE SYSTEM THE LORENTZ CURVE IS CONVEX DOWN AND PASSES UNDER THE DIAGONAL OF THE UNIT SQUARE LOCATED IN THE I COORDINATE QUARTER.

SUPPLY CURVE- A LINE REFLECTING THE ALL NUMBER OF PROPOSED BENEFITS AND THE EQUILIBRIUM PRICE. CHARACTERIZES THE GOOD OFFER.

POSSIBILITY CURVE- IT IS A SET OF POINTS THAT SHOW VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF THE MAXIMUM VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF SEVERAL (USUALLY TWO) GOODS OR SERVICES THAT CAN BE CREATED UNDER FULL EMPLOYMENT AND USE OF EVERYTHING X RESOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE ECONOMY.

DEMAND CURVE– A GRAPH illustrating the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRICE OF A DETAILED GOODS OR SERVICES AND THE NUMBER OF ITS CONSUMERS WISHING TO PURCHASE IT AT A GIVEN PRICE.

CIRCULATION OF CAPITAL– CONSISTENT HAY CAPITAL OF ITS FUNCTIONAL FORMS: MONETARY, PRODUCTIVE AND COMMODITY.

- PRICE(QUOTATION) OF THE MONEY UNIT OF ONE COUNTRY, EXPRESSED IN THE CURRENCY RATE LIQUIDITY INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION OF THE UNIT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, PRECIOUS METALS, SECURITIES.

– POSSIBILITY OF TURNING TO CASH WITHOUT LOSS OF VALUE. POSSIBILITY TO USE ASSETS AS PAYMENT MEANS. ABILITY TO QUICKLY TURN INTO ANY KIND OF PRODUCT

THE PROCESS OF CONVERGENCE, MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT AND MERGING OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY OF SELF-REGULATION AND SELF-DEVELOPMENT ON THE BASIS OF AGREED INTERSTATE ECONOMY AND POLICY.

INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MOVEMENT- IT IS THE MOVEMENT OF FINANCIAL FLOWS BETWEEN CREDITORS AND BORROWERS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, BETWEEN OWNERS AND THEIR COMPANIES WHICH THEY OWN ABROAD.

INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR- SPECIALIZATION OF COUNTRIES IN THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF GOODS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF WHICH THE COUNTRY HAS CHEAPER PRODUCTION FACTORS AND PREFERRED CONDITIONS IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. WITH SUCH SPECIALIZATION THE NEEDS OF COUNTRIES ARE SATISFIED BY OWN PRODUCTION AND ALSO THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS- ECONOMIC RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES, REGIONAL GROUPINGS, TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND OTHER SUBJECTS OF THE WORLD ECONOMY. INCLUDE MONEY AND FINANCIAL, TRADE, INDUSTRIAL, LABOR AND OTHER RELATIONS. THE LEADING FORM OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS ARE CURRENCY AND FINANCIAL RELATIONS.

EXCHANGE VALUE– THE ABILITY OF THE GOODS TO BE EXCHANGEABLE FOR OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES

THE METHOD OF SCIENCE- A SYSTEM OF THEORETICAL APPROACHES, METHODS, MEANS, TECHNIQUES AND OPERATIONS WITH THE HELP OF WHICH STUDY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ECONOMIC LAWS AND MECHANISMS OF THEIR ACTION.

METHODOLOGY– SCIENCE ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF APPROACHES AND WAYS TO KNOW THE REGULARITIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY, ITS INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS AND PROPERTIES.

LABOR MIGRATION- THIS IS A WORK FORCE FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER. IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED, FIRST OF ALL, WITH THE PROBLEM OF EXPORT OF CAPITAL, TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT IS DETERMINED BY THE INTERNAL REGULARITIES OF ITS MOVEMENT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF A “SPECIAL KIND” GOODS.

MINIMAL SALARY- THIS IS THE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AMOUNT OF WAGES FOR SIMPLE, UNSKILLED LABOR, BELOW WHICH THE PAYMENT FOR THE MONTHLY RATE OF WORK PERFORMED BY THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE SET.

WORLD TRADE- THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY-MONEY RELATIONS, MADE OF FOREIGN TRADE OF ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD.

WORLD ECONOMY- THIS IS A SET OF HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED, AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC DIVISION OF LABOR, SEPARATE BRANCHES OF THE ECONOMY, RELATED TO THEM WITH THE SYSTEM OF THE INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS.

MONOPOLY– THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE STATE, ENTERPRISE, ORGANIZATION TO CARRY OUT ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (MARKET DOMINATION)

MONOPSONY– THE SITUATION IN THE MARKET WHEN ONE BIG BUYER OPPOSITIONS TO MANY SELLERS. VERY RARE IN PRACTICE.

TAXES- MANDATORY, INDIVIDUALLY FREE PAYMENT COLLECTED BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE AND (OR) MUNICIPALITIES .

NATURAL ECONOMY- THE FIRST FORM OF PUBLIC PRODUCTION, A FORM OF ORGANIZATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH THE RESULT OF WHICH IS A PRODUCT FOR SATISFACTION OF THE OWN NEEDS OF THE MANUFACTURER (NOT FOR SALE). ALL REQUIRED BUSINESS UNITS.

SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACTION IS THE SEPARATION OF ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS (COMPONENTS) OF THE PHENOMENA FROM THE NON-ESSENTIAL, PRODUCED ACCORDING TO A CERTAIN (often quantitative) CRITERION.

NATIONAL WEALTH- THIS IS THE GENERAL RESULT OF THE CONSTANTLY REPEATED PROCESS OF PUBLIC PRODUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY. THE SET OF MATERIAL BENEFITS THAT THE SOCIETY HAS ON A CERTAIN DATE AND WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED BY WORK FOR THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS PERIOD OF ITS DEVELOPMENT.

NATIONAL INCOME- THIS IS THE TOTAL INCOME FROM THE USE DURING THE YEAR IN THE ECONOMY OF ALL FACTORS OF PRODUCTION. IT IS EXPRESSED AS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INCOME RECEIVED BY THE POPULATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE SOCIETY.

INDIRECT METHODS- ensures the satisfaction of the economic or material interests of the subjects of management with their appropriate behavior.

INDIRECT TAXES- THESE ARE TAXES THAT ARE DEFINED BY THE SIZE OF CONSUMPTION AND DO NOT DEPEND ON THE INCOME OR PROPERTY OF THE PAYER, ACT IN THE FORM OF A SURPRISE TO THE PRICE OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES, AND THE PAYER OF WHICH IS THE END USER OF THIS GOODS RA OR SERVICES.

NON-CYCLIC VIBRATIONS – VOLUTIONS IN THE ECONOMY WHICH DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF THE REPEAT PERIOD.

NOMINAL GDP- VOLUME OF NATIONAL PRODUCTION IN THE PRICES OF THE CURRENT PERIOD, I.E. AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION OF THIS VOLUME OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

NOMINAL INCOME- THE AMOUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD, IT ALSO CHARACTERIZES THE LEVEL OF MONEY INCOME INDEPENDENT OF TAXATION.

BOND– ISSUABLE SECURITY CONTAINING THE ISSUER'S OBLIGATIONS TO PAY THE PARENT VALUE TO THE OWNER (CREDITOR) AT THE END OF THE STATED TERM AND TO PAY PERIODICALLY A DETERMINED AMOUNT OF INTEREST. – THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCT WHICH CONSUMERS ARE READY AND ABLE TO BUY AT A GIVEN PRICE IN A DEFINED TIME PERIOD.

CAPITAL TURNOVER- A SET OF CONTINUOUSLY REPLACING CIRCUITS FOR WHICH THE ALL ADVANCED CAPITAL IS RETURNED TO THE ENTREPRENEUR IN MONETARY FORM.

WORKING CAPITAL- A PART OF THE FUNDS OF THE ENTERPRISE, THE COST OF WHICH IS TRANSFERRED TO THE FINISHED PRODUCT FOR ONE PRODUCTION CYCLE (CYCLE). THIS IS RAW MATERIALS, MATERIALS AND LABOR COSTS.

PUBLIC REPRODUCTION- CONTINUOUS RENEWAL ON THE SCALE OF SOCIETY OF THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION AS A UNITY PRODUCTS. FORCE AND PRODUCTION. RELATIONSHIPS. O. V. COVERS THE REPRODUCTION OF THE THREE ELEMENTS; MATERIAL BENEFITS, I.E. MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND OBJECTS OF CONSUMPTION; WORK FORCE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ITS CARRIERS, I. E. Ch. MANUFACTURERS FORCES OF SOCIETY; MANUFACTURING RELATIONSHIPS. THERE IS A SIMPLE AND EXTENDED O. V. IN THE FIRST CASE, PRODUCTION IS RENEWED IN THE SECOND CASE, IN THE SECOND CASE - ON AN INCREASING SCALE. AS HUMANITY DEVELOPES, THERE IS A MORE AND MORE PROFESSIONAL TRANSITION FROM SIMPLE O.V. TO EXTENDED. IN PRE-CAPITALIST. FORMATIONS SIMPLE REPRODUCTION DOMINATED; INCREASE IN PRODUCTION WAS SLOW AND REALLY DISCOVERED ONLY AFTER LONG. TIME. CAPITALISM IS CHARACTERISTIC OF EXPANDED BUT UNSTABLE, INTERRUPTED BY SLOW AND STOPPING O.V.

PUBLIC PRODUCTION- THE PROCESS OF CREATING MATERIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING CONSUMPTIONS, NECESSARY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SOCIETY. PRODUCTION IS PUBLIC DUE TO THE DIVISION OF LABOR BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY.

PUBLIC PRODUCT- THIS IS THE SET OF GOODS AND SERVICES PRODUCED DURING ONE YEAR, EXPRESSED IN MARKET PRICES.

MAIN CAPITAL- TRANSFERING ITS VALUE TO THE PRODUCT OF PRODUCTION IN PARTS, FOR SEVERAL CYCLES OF CAPITAL. THESE ARE BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, ETC.

PARADIGM- A SET OF COGNITIVE PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES FOR DISPLAYING POLITICAL REALITY, SETTING THE LOGIC OF KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, A MODEL OF THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS GROUP OF SOCIAL PHENOMENA.

PASSIVE OPERATIONS OF THE BANK- THIS IS OPERATIONS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH MAINTENANCE IS INCREASING CASH RESOURCES, WHICH THE BANK REALLY IS POSSIBLE AND CAN DISPOSAL1. THE NAMED RESOURCES CONSIST OF TWO COMPLEX PARTS - OWN FUNDS OF THE BANK AND FUNDS ATTRACTED.

FLOATING EXCHANGE RATE- A VARIETY OF THE EXCHANGE RATE WHICH FLUCTS, DUE TO THE USE OF THE CURRENCY REGULATION MECHANISM. SO, TO LIMIT SHARP fluctuations in the RATES OF NATIONAL CURRENCIES, WHICH CAUSE UNPLEASANT CONSEQUENCES OF MONETARY-FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS, THE COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM INTRODUCED SOG FLASSING OF RELATIVE MUTUAL EXCHANGE RATE VARIATIONS.

PLANNING- OPTIMUM DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES FOR ACHIEVING THE SET GOALS, ACTIVITIES (SET OF PROCESSES) ASSOCIATED WITH SETTING GOALS (TASKS) AND ACTIONS IN THE FUTURE.

PAYMENT BALANCE- A TABLE, STATEMENT, REFLECTING THE MOVEMENT OF CASH IN THE FORM OF PAYMENTS FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY. THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS CHARACTERIZES THE RATIO OF THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY A COUNTRY ABROAD DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD AND ENTERED IN THE COUNTRY DURING THE SAME PERIOD.

POLITICAL ECONOMY, POLITICAL ECONOMY- ONE OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, WHICH SUBJECT IS PRODUCTION RELATIONS AND THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.

FULL EMPLOYMENT- THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ENOUGH NUMBER OF JOBS TO SATISFY THE JOB REQUESTS OF THE ENTIRE WORKING POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY, THE PRACTICAL ABSENCE OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE JOBS THAT WANT TO WORK, ACCORDINGLY IE THEIR PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATION, EDUCATION, WORK EXPERIENCE.

PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT- INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES FORMED IN THE FORM OF A SECURITIES PORTFOLIO. PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS ARE PASSIVE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES, FOR EXAMPLE COMPANIES' SHARES, BONDS, ETC.

USER COST– USEFULNESS OF THE PRODUCT, ITS ABILITY TO SATISFY HUMAN NEEDS.

NEEDS- THE INTERNAL STATE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL OR FUNCTIONAL FEELING OF A LACK OF SOMETHING IS MANIFESTED DEPENDING ON SITUATIONAL FACTORS.

OWNERSHIP– AUTHORIZED COMPANIES. LAWS OF THE STATE, TRADITIONS, CUSTOMS, BEHAVIORAL RELATIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE, WHICH AROUND IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXISTENCE OF BENEFITS AND CONCERNING THEIR USE.

OFFER– NUMBER OF GOODS AND SERVICES THAT CAN BE OFFERED.

THE SUBJECT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND THEIR ECONOMIC LAWS IN RELATIONSHIP WITH PRODUCTIVE FORCES AND SOCIETY.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP– A SPECIAL TYPE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (PURPOSE ACTIVITY AIMED TO RECORDING PROFIT), WHICH IS BASED ON INDEPENDENT INITIATIVE, RESPONSIBILITY AND INNOVATIVE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEA.

COMPANY– AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ENTITY WITH THE RIGHTS OF A LEGAL ENTITY WHICH MANUFACTURES AND SELLS PRODUCTS, PERFORMS WORKS, RENDERS SERVICES.

UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY– ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS AND (OR) LEGAL ENTITIES RESERVING FULL INDEPENDENCE, BUT CARRYING SOLIDARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR OBLIGATIONS NOT ONLY WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE ENTERPRISE, BUT ALSO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY– AN ENTERPRISE WITH LIABILITY LIMITED ONLY TO THE CAPITAL OF THE ENTERPRISE IN WHICH THE ENTREPRENEUR IS NOT LIABLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY.

PROFIT– DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REVENUE FROM THE SALES OF THE PRODUCT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY AND THE SUMMARY OF THE COSTS OF THE FACTORS OF PRODUCTION FOR THIS ACTIVITY IN MONETARY TERMS

PRIVATIZATION– A FORM OF TRANSFORMATION OF PROPERTY, REPRESENTING THE PROCESS OF TRANSFER OF STATE (MUNICIPAL) PROPERTY INTO PRIVATE HANDS.

MARKET FAILURES- INABILITY OF MARKET MECHANISMS TO SATISFACTORY SOLVING IMPORTANT SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS FOR SOCIETY, IMPERFECTION OF MARKET INSTITUTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS; FIASCO OF MARKET RELATIONS THAT DO NOT ENSURE THE RATIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF RESOURCES, INDICATING THE NEED FOR STATE INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY.

FORECASTING- DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORECAST; IN A NARROW MEANING - A SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF SPECIFIC PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PHENOMENON. P. AS ONE OF THE FORMS OF SPECIFICATION OF SCIENTIFIC FORESIGHT IN THE SOCIAL SPHERE IS IN RELATIONSHIP WITH PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, DESIGN, MANAGEMENT, GOAL-SETTING.

PROGRAMMING- THE SYSTEM OF STATE REGULATION AND STIMULATION OF THE ECONOMY ON THE BASIS OF INTEGRATED GENERAL ECONOMIC PROGRAMS. ARISED AFTER THE 2nd WORLD WAR IN ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. HAS A RECOMMENDATION, THE PROGRAM CONTAINS GENERAL GUIDELINES; THE IMPACT OF THE STATE ON THE ECONOMY IS INDIRECT (MAJORLY THROUGH FINANCIAL AND CREDIT AND MONETARY POLICY).

PROGRESSIVE TAXATION SCALE- A SYSTEM IN WHICH TAX RATES INCREASE AS THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME INCREASES, UNLIKE A REGRESSIVE SYSTEM IN WHICH THE RATES ARE DECREASED.

LIVING WAGE- THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF INCOME CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO ENSURE A CERTAIN STANDARD OF LIVING IN A CERTAIN COUNTRY. IN PRACTICE, LEVEL OF LIVING LEVEL IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IS GENERALLY HIGHER THAN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

LABOR PRODUCTIVITY- LABOR EFFICIENCY, CAN BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENDED ON A UNIT OF PRODUCTS OR BY THE AMOUNT OF PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE WORKER FOR ANY TIME.

INDUSTRIAL CRISIS- ECONOMIC, ECONOMIC SHOCKS, DEPENDING ON VIOLATION OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEMAND AND SUPPLY; OVERSUPPLY OF GOODS CAUSES INDUSTRIAL CORRECTION.

PROPORTIONATE TAXATION SCALE- A TAXATION SYSTEM UNDER WHICH TAX RATES ARE CONSTANT AND DO NOT DEPEND ON THE VALUE OF TAXED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF TAXES IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE VALUES OF TAXED INCOME.

SIMPLE REPRODUCTION- THIS IS A REPETITION OF PRODUCTION ON THE PREVIOUS, UNCHANGED SCALE. THIS MEANS THAT SOCIETY IS ALL NEWLY PRODUCED PRODUCT, INCL. AND SURPLUS, EXPENDS ON CONSUMPTION, AND THE PRODUCTION ITSELF IS RENEWED IN THE SAME VOLUME AND IN THE SAME QUANTITY. SUCH REPRODUCTION IS OBSERVED IN SOME COUNTRIES IN ASIA, LATIN AMERICA AND IN MOST AFRICAN COUNTRIES.

PROTECTIONISM- THE POLICY OF PROTECTING THE DOMESTIC MARKET FROM FOREIGN COMPETITION THROUGH A SYSTEM OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS: IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES, SUBSIDIES AND OTHER MEASURES. SUCH POLICY PROMOTES THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PRODUCTION.

BUDGET SURPLUS- EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENSES. BUDGET SURPLUS - AN ECONOMIC CONCEPT THAT MEANS THAT THE BUDGET REVENUE EXCEEDS THE BUDGET EXPENDITURE.

DIRECT INVESTMENTS- INVESTMENTS (INVESTMENTS) OF CASH IN MATERIAL PRODUCTION AND SALES WITH THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE IN WHICH MONEY IS INVESTED AND RECEIVING INCOME FROM PARTICIPATION IN ITS ACTIVITIES (DIRECT INVESTMENTS PROVIDE ABOUT MAINTAINING A CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDING).

DIRECT METHODS- - are manifested in the form of administrative influence on the behavior, functioning and performance of economic entities, limiting to some extent their economic freedom.

DIRECT TAXES- TAX THAT IS COLLECTED BY THE STATE DIRECTLY FROM THE INCOME OR PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER. WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT TAX, LEGAL AND ACTUAL TAX PAYERS ARE THE SAME. ACTUAL PAYER - RECIPIENT OF TAXABLE INCOME, OWNER OF TAXABLE PROPERTY. DIRECT TAXES ARE THE HISTORICALLY EARLY FORM OF TAXATION. DIRECT TAXES ARE MANDATORY AND EVERY CITIZEN IS OBLIGED TO PAY THEM.

EQUILIBRIUM OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM– STATE OF THE MARKET UNDER EQUILIBRIUM OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY.

DIVISION OF LABOR– DISTRIBUTION IN THE SOCIETY OF SOCIAL FUNCTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THE APPEARANCE OF DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SOCIETY'S ACTIVITY.

EXTENDED REPRODUCTION- THIS IS A PLANNED, REGULATED PROCESS CARRIED OUT IN THE ENTIRE NATIONAL ECONOMY AS A UNIFIED WHOLE. IT INCLUDES THE REPRODUCTION OF THE PUBLIC PRODUCT, THE LABOR FORCE AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. REPRODUCTION IS CHARACTERISTIC OF ORGANIC COMBINATION AND UNITY OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES. AS A RESULT, REPRODUCTION AT INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISES ACTS AS A COMPONENT PART OF DIRECTLY PUBLIC REPRODUCTION ON THE SCALE OF THE WHOLE STATE.

REAL GDP- GDP INDICATOR ADJUSTED FOR CHANGES IN THE PRICE LEVEL (INFLATION OR DEFLATION); MEASURED IN BASE YEAR PRICES.

REAL INCOME- REPRESENTS THE QUANTITY OF GOODS AND SERVICES THAT CAN BE PURCHASED WITH DISPOSSIBLE INCOME DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD, ie, ADJUSTED FOR CHANGES IN THE PRICE LEVEL.

REGRESSIVE TAXATION SCALE - REDUCING THE TAX RATE AS THE LEVEL OF INCOME INCREASES, UNLIKE PROGRESSIVE AND PROPORTIONATE.

RE-PRIVATIZATION– ROLE RETURN TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

RESTITUTION– CONSEQUENCES OF AN INVALID TRANSACTION, CONSISTING IN THE RETURN BY THE PARTIES OF EVERYTHING RECEIVED UNDER THE TRANSACTION, OR IN CASH EQUIVALENT

RECESSION- RELATIVELY MODERATE, NON-CRITICAL DROP IN PRODUCTION OR SLOWER IN ECONOMIC GROWTH, REDUCTION IN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FOR A LONG TIME.

MARKET- THIS IS A MECHANISM OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS (GOODS AND SERVICES)

BALANCE OF TRADE- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNTRY'S EXPORT AND IMPORT COST.

OWN– ECONOMIC RELATIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE REGARDING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEANS AND RESULTS OF PRODUCTION.