The Principles and Concepts of Institutional Modeling of Econotronics
Abstract
The presented study outlines the principles and concepts of economic modeling in the digital society from the perspective of the institutional economic theory. Aim. The study aims to develop the principles and concepts of modeling of economic institutions in the digital society within the framework of the author’s concept of econotronics. Econotronics is a branch of the economic science dealing with the development dynamics of the institutions of interaction between economic agents and the society through digital technologies. Tasks. The author aims to determine the differences between the economy of the 21st and the 20th centuries, to formulate the concept of econotornics, and to establish the principles and concepts of institutional modeling of the economy in the digital society. Methods. This study uses the critique of previous research and the author’s developments to propose theoretical approaches to institutional modeling of economic objects in the digital society. Results. The author determines the scientific principles of the establishment of economic institutions and the ideas of modeling when dividing institution groups according to their resource use goals, structuring decentralized transactions within the framework of the blockchain technology, assessing institutions in terms of their performance, for the purpose of evolving social projects through the implementation of shared economy. The theory of institutional modeling of econotronics has found application in the empirical assessment of the institutional environment of social entrepreneurship, development of labor resources using the blockchain technology, formation of a matrix of the institutional environment of local public goods, and in the institutional mechanism for the formation of social innovations. Conclusions. Institutional modeling of econotronics provides an opportunity to ensure rational management aimed at predicting further development of the driving factors of the economy in the modern conditions of a digital society.
About the Author
Evgeniy V. Popov
Institute of Economics of the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Bardhan P. State and Development: The Need for a Reappraisal of the Current Literature // Journal of Economic Literature. 2016. Vol. 54 (3). P. 862-892.
2. Arcalean C., Glomm G., Schiopu I., Suedekum J. Public Budget Composition, Fiscal (De)Centralization and Welfare // Canadian Journal of Economics. 2010. Vol. 43 (3). P. 832-859.
3. Xie D., Zou H., Davoodi H. Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in the United States // Journal of Urban Economics. 1999. Vol. 45 (2). P. 228-239.
4. Matsui K. Post-Decentralization Regional Economies and Actors: Putting the Capacity of Local Governments to the Test // The Developing Economies. 2005. Vol. 43 (1). P. 171-189.
5. Martin R., Pike A., Tyler P., Gardiner B. Spatially Rebalancing the UK Economy: Towards a New Policy Model? // Regional Studies. 2016. Vol. 50 (2). P. 342-357.
6. Попов Е. В. Децентрализация трансакций эконотроники // Инновации. 2018. № 3 (233). С. 8-13.
7. Wallis J., North D. Measuring the transaction sector in the American economy, 1870-1970 // Engerman S. L., Gallman R. E. (eds.). Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Р. 95-161.
8. Попов Е. В. Институты. Екатеринбург: Ин-т экономики Урал. отд-ния Рос. акад. наук, 2015. 712 с.
9. Afonso O., Bandeira A. M. Maintenance and Destruction of R&D Leadership // The Manchester School. 2012. Vol. 80 (6). P. 740-751.
10. Denning S. An Economy of Access is Opening for Business: Five Strategies for Success // Strategy & Leadership. 2014. Vol. 42 (4). P. 14-21.
11. Szetela B., Mentel G. May the Sharing Economy Create a New Wave of Globalization? // Economic Annals. 2016. Vol. 161 (9-10). P. 31-34.
12. Lamberton C. P., Rose R. L. When is Our Better than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems // Journal of Marketing. 2012. Vol. 76 (4). P. 109-125.
13. Mont O. Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2002. Vol. 10 (3). P. 237-245.
14. Свон М. Блокчейн: схема новой экономики / пер. с англ. М.: Олимп-Бизнес, 2017. 240 с.
15. Gouldner A. W. Dialectics of Ideology and Technology. N. Y.: The Free Press, 1976. 415 p.
16. Попов Е. В. Эконотроника // Экономика региона. 2018. Т. 14. Вып. 1. С. 13-28.
17. Ostrom E. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2000. Vol. 14 (3). P. 137-158.
18. Тамбовцев В. Л. Теории институциональных изменений. М.: ИНФРА-М, 2008. 153 c.
19. Попов Е. В., Веретенникова А. Ю., Козинская К. М. Социальное предпринимательство как объект институционального анализа // Вестник Пермского университета. Сер.: Экономика. 2017. Т. 12. № 3. С. 360-374.
20. Buchanan J. M. How can constitutions be designed so that politicians who seek to serve “public interest” can survive and prosper? // Constitutional Political Economy. 1993. Vol. 4 (1). P. 1-6.
21. Макаров В. Л. Социальный кластеризм: российский вызов. М.: Бизнес Атлас, 2010. 272 с.
22. Coase R. H. The Nature of the Firm // Economica. 1937. Vol. 4 (16). P. 386-405.
23. Popov E. V., Veretennikova A. Yu., Omonov Zh. K. A Social Innovation Impact Assessment Matrix // Digest Finance. 2017. Vol. 22 (4). P. 365-378.
24. Полтерович В. М. Общий социальный анализ и проектирование реформ // Журнал новой экономической ассоциации. 2013. № 1 (17). С. 185-188.
25. Maevsky V., Kazhdan M. The Evolution of Macrogenerators // Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 1998. Vol. 8 (4). P. 407-422.
Review
For citations:
Popov E.V. The Principles and Concepts of Institutional Modeling of Econotronics. Economics and Management. 2018;(12):13-22. (In Russ.)
Views:
151
