Changing the Paradigm of the Economic Science under Innovative Development

Objective: to analyze the evolution of the economic science paradigm aimed at forming a system paradigm that allows changing the style of scientific thinking, generating system solutions, in particular, in the field of transformation of labor potential relative to the demands of the digital economy.

Methods: the main method of research is the method of unity of the historical and the logical in relation to the evolution of the economic system, scientific views and principles that characterize it, as well as the principle of methodological system, which allows forming an idea of the modern economic system as a multidimensional object.

Results: the article briefly examines the evolutionary stages of the economics paradigm; it is revealed that innovative development as an objective process of changing the environment causes the modernization of key subsystems, actualizing the application of a system paradigm that allows linking and presenting an adequate interpretation of emerging facts, events, and phenomena characteristic of the modern realities of the digital economy. The need to expand the innovative potential of labor resources, observed at all stages of the reproduction process, rethinking of the role of labor and its main components puts forward the requirements for its qualitative modernization. The symbiosis of labor relations with cultural, mental and other subsystems, forming the foundations of labor consciousness and the construction of labor behavior, is considered to be an essential argument for expanding research based on a systematic approach. In this regard, scientific and applied developments aimed at the formation of mobile institutional mechanisms and structures, like institutional interaction centers focused on the development of labor potential and its harmonious improvement, enable to expand the range of the used mechanisms, setting them a vector that meets the needs of society.

Scientific novelty: based on a systematic approach, a characteristic of new institutional structures is proposed, which is related to social partnership and allows solving the problem of adaptation of labor potential to the demands of the digital economy.

Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific and pedagogical activities for the formation of institutional centers of interaction.

1. Lakatos, I. (2001). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In T. Kun. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii (pp. 455–524). Moscow, AST, 2001 (in Russ.).

2. Petti, V. (1993). Treatise of Taxes & Contributions. In Antologiya ekonomicheskoi klassiki: Petti, Smit, Rikardo. Moscow, Ekonov-Klyuch (in Russ.).

3. Kun, T. (2020). Structure of scientific revolutions. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo AST (in Russ.).

4. Val'tukh, K. K. (2005). Theory of cost: statistical verification, informational summarization, actual conclusions. Vestnik Rossijskoj akademii nauk, 9, 793–806 (in Russ.).

5. Bell, D. (2004). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture of social forecasting. Moscow, Academia (in Russ.).

6. Bogdanov, A. A. (1989). Tectology: common organizational science. Moscow, Tsentr gumanitarnykh tekhnologii. https://gtmarket.ru/library/basis/5909 (in Russ.).

7. Kornai, J. (1998). The System Paradigm. William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series, 278. William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

8. Kleiner, G. B. (2008). Systemic paradigm and systemic management. Russian Management Journal, 6 (3), 27–50 (in Russ.).

9. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.

10. Tumanyan, Yu. R., Ishchenko-Padukova, O. A., Movchan, I. V. (2019). Architectonics of the creative potential of economy: imperatives and social markers, monograph. Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog: Izd-vo Yuzhnogo federal'nogo universiteta (in Russ.).

11. Shiller, R. J. (2017). Narrative Economics. American Economic Review, 107 (4), 967–1004.

12. Inozemtsev, V. L. (2000). Modern post-industrial society: nature, contradictions, prospects, tutorial for university students. Moscow, Logos.

13. Tambovtsev, V. L. (2019). Ideas, narratives and changes in economics. Terra Economicus, 17 (1), 24–40.

14. Nort, D. (1997). Institutions, institutional changes and functioning of the economy. Moscow, Fond ekon. knigi “Nachala”.

15. Polterovich, V. M. (1998). Crisis of economic theory. Economics of Contemporary Russia, 1, 46–66 (in Russ.).

16. Smit, A. (1993). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Antologiya ekonomicheskoi klassiki: Petti, Smit, Rikardo. Moscow, Ekonov-Klyuch (in Russ.).

17. Kostyuk, V. N. (2001). Theory of evolution and social-economic processes. Moscow, Editorial URS (in Russ.).

18. Nesterenko, A. V. (2001). What William Baumol did not mention: contribution of the 20th century to the philosophy of economic activity. Voprosy ekonomiki, 7, 4–17 (in Russ.).

19. Nureev, R. M. (1993). Prerequisiets of a new economic paradigm: ontology and gnoseology. Voprosy ekonomiki, 4, 133–144 (in Russ.).

20. Veblen, T. (1984). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Moscow, Progress (in Russ.).

21. Williamson, O. (1993). Behavioral Assumptions. THEISIS, 1 (3), 39–49 (in Russ.).

22. Shumpeter, I. A. (2008). Theory of economic development. Moscow, Direktmedia Pablishin (in Russ.)

23. Nel'son, R., Uinter, S. (2000). Evolutionary theory of economic changes. Moscow, ZAO “Finstatinform” (in Russ.).

24. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

25. Kaneman, D. (2016). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Moscow, ATS (in Russ.).

26. Kleiner, G. B. (2002). Systemic paradigm and the theory of enterprise. Voprosy ekonomiki, 10, 47–69 (in Russ.).

27. Kornai, Ya. (2002). Systemic paradigm. Voprosy ekonomiki, 4, 4–22 (in Russ.).

28. Davis, J. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61 (4), 1–41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302483316_The_Group_Dynamics_of_Interorganizational_Relationships_Collaborating_with_Multiple_Partners_in_Innovation_Ecosystems

29. Kleiner, G. B. (2021). Systemic economics: steps of development, monograph. Moscow, Izdatel'skii dom “Nauchnaya biblioteka”.

30. Ermolaeva, E. P. (2001). Professional identity and marginalism: concept and reality. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 22 (4), 51–59 (in Russ.).

31. Pryazhnikova, E. Yu., Selezneva E. F. (2020). Problematic aspects of forming professional self-consciousness of a specialist during joining the profession. International Journal of Management Theory and Practice, 11, 206–215 (in Russ.).

32. Petrenko, T. V., Marinova, I. V. (2021). On the question of the development of institutions for forming labor potential of modern society. Business. Education. Right, 3 (55), 74–78 (in Russ.).

33. Passport of the “Culture” national project. Adopted by the Presidium of the Council under the Russian President on strategic development and national projects (protocol of December 24, 2018, No. 16). https://новаябиблиотека.рф/assets/files/pasport-nacproekta-kultura.pdf (in Russ.).