| Summary |
Studying of the western theories is a necessary element of formation of economists. But blind following to their recommendations frequently brings harm, instead of advantage. Western theories created in specific conditions are not capable to answer many questions, actual for an economics of underdevelopment and the countries of the former socialist block. Moreover, they can be a source not the best and even incorrect decisions at realization of economic reforms and development of an economic policy. An example to this is the theory of modernization. Called to solve problems of transition from “backwardness” to “modernity”, it treats historical process as linear and not alternative. Therefore it repeatedly was object of shattering criticism. Nevertheless, the theory of modernization remains “guide to action” in many countries with “transitive economy”. The author seeks to show that the path of transition to a developed Western society, as declared by the theory of modernization, does not really exist. Each country must solve its problems, based on the needs of the world market on the one hand and its competitive capabilities on the other. An attempt to repeat the path traversed by developed countries is, firstly, impossible because of the changed configuration of the world economic space, and secondly, entails disorganization and destruction of the national life support system.
|
| Keywords |
Progress, continuity of development, the unity of human history, Westernization, enclave modernization, the theory of “big push”, “vicious circle of poverty”, the theory of dependence, the world economic space, catching up modernization, “innovative” mode
|
| References |
Parsons T. The Social System. Glencoe, 1964.
Lerner D. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe, 1958.
Smelser N. J. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: an application of theory to the British cotton industry. London, 1959.
Hagen E. On the theory of social change. Homewood, IL, 1962.
Levy M. J. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton, 1966.
Apter D. Some Conceptual Approaches to the Study of Modernization. Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey, 1968.
Smelser N. J. Processes of social change // Sociology: An Introduction. New York, 1973. Р. 709–762.
Эйзенштадт Ш. Революция и преобразование обществ: Сравнительное изучение цивилизаций. М., 1999.
Кравченко И. И. Модернизация сегодняшней России // Этатистские модели модернизации. М., 2002. С. 6–30.
Nurkse R. Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries. Oxford, 1953.
Nurkse R. Equilibring and Growth in the World Economy. Cambridge, 1961.
Rosenstein-Rodan P. N. Problems of Industrialisation of Eastern and South Eastern Europe // The Economic Journal. 1943. Vol. 53, iss. 210/211. (Jun.–Sep.). P. 202–211.
Leibenstein H. Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth. Studies in the Theory of Economic Development. New York, 1957.
Нуреев Р. М. Периферия мирового хозяйства: проблемы догоняющего развития // Экономический вестник Ростовского государственного университета. 2004. Т. 2, № 4. С. 37–39.
Eisenstadt S. N. Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs, 1966.
Eisenstadt S. N. Breakdowns of modernization // The Dynamics of Modern Society. New York, 1964. Р. 434–448.
Prebisch R. A critique of Peripheral Capitalism // CEPAL Review. 1976. № 1. P. 9–76.
Prebisch R. Socio-economic Structure and Crisis of Peripheral Capitalism // CEPAL Review. 1978. № 6. С. 159–202.
Gunder F. A. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York, 1967.
Gunder F. A. Latin America: Underdevelopment or revolution. New York, 1969.
Gunder F. A. On Capitalist Underdevelopment. New York, 1976.
Кардозо Ф. Э., Фалетто Э. Зависимость и развитие Латинской Америки. Опыт социологической интерпретации. М., 2002.
Dos Santos T. El nuevo caracter de la dependencia. Santiago-de-Chile, 1968.
Dos Santos T. Structure of Dependency // The American Economic Review. 1970. Vol. 60. May. P. 231–236.
Stavenhagen R. Needs, Rights and Social Development. Geneva, 2003.
Edelberto T. R. Repression and Resistance: The Struggle for Democracy in Central America. Reviewed by Abraham F. Lowenthal // Foreign Affairs. 1990. Summer. URL: http://polbu.ru/sztompka_sociology (дата обращения: 11.06.2017).
Tipps D. Modernization theory and the comparative study of Societies: a critical perspective // Comparative Modernization: A Reader. New York, 1976. P. 62–88.
Huntington S. P. The change to change: modernization, development and politics // Comparative modernization. New York, 1976. P. 25–60.
Durkheim E. Selected Writings. Cambridge, 1972.
Нельсон Р., Уинтер С. Дж. Эволюционная теория экономических изменений. М., 2002.
Полтерович В. М. Трансплантация экономических институтов // Экономическая наука современной России. 2001. № 3. С. 24–50.
Диденко Д. В. Теория модернизации и стратегии трансформации национальной интеллектуалоемкой экономики // Международная экономика. 2010. № 11. С. 43–47.
Диденко Д. В., Ключарев Г. А. Профессиональное образование в России: пути догоняющей и инновационной модернизации // Вопросы образования. 2013. № 1. С. 183–204.
Побережников И. В. Модернизационная перспектива: теоретико-методологические и дисциплинарные подходы // Третьи Уральские историко-педагогические чтения. Екатеринбург, 1999. С. 16–25.
Ясин Е. Г. Модернизация российской экономики: что в повестке дня // Экономический журнал ВШЭ. 2001. № 2. С. 159–160. URL: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/modernizatsiya-rossiyskoy-ekonomiki-chto-v-povestke-dnya (дата обращения: 11.06.2017).
Трубецкой Н. Россия и мир // Трубецкой Н. Наследие Чингисхана. М., 2000. С. 29–92.
Доббин Ф. Формирование промышленной политики: Соединенные Штаты, Великобритания и Франция в период становления железнодорожной отрасли. М., 2013.
|
