Political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics: on the issue of intra- and interdisciplinary synthesis

Objective: to show the ontological potential of interdisciplinarity and paradigmatic pluralism in economic research by the example of the Chinese-specific socialism model and its description in Western socio-political discourse.

Methods: qualitative methods (discourse analysis, comparative analysis, generalization).

Results: the work shows the features of the discourse in modern economic theory regarding the problems of intra- and interdisciplinary synthesis. The economic mainstream, claiming the accuracy of its method of creating scientific knowledge, can and does become the basis of political knowledge and ideological judgments. Describing certain aspects of reality, the mainstream normalizes them, and sometimes elevates them to the rank of a rule. Based on the analysis of the Chinese model of economic reforms, the article shows that in Western socio-political and scientific discourses regarding this model, both at the stage of their beginning and now, there are erroneous ideas and expectations about the purpose, content and results of the reform process. The root cause of this false perception is, assumingly, the disciplinary isolation of economics, as economics is considered to be a universal extrapolitical and extra-cultural constant. To confirm this thesis, the main stages of the transformation of the ideology of building the Chinese economic model, its transition from an anti-market and anticapitalist position to a Chinese-specific socialism model are considered. It is shown that among the trajectories of China’s future development, Western economists and politicians saw only the two main ones: creeping liberalization and limiting the influence of the state in the Chinese economy, accompanied by democratization of the political sphere, on the one hand, and reaching the limits of economic growth possible for countries with authoritarian institutions, on the other. However, the collective action factor ignored by researchers has formed a stable growth economy, not accompanied by political liberalization.

Scientific novelty: consists in comprehending the discourses about the Chinese economy as a result of the challenge posed by the Chinese reforms to mainstream political economy.

Practical significance: the provisions and conclusions of the research can be further used to study the influence of economic theory on socio-political discourses and political decisions.

1. Kirdina-Chandler, S. G. (2023). On Synthesis and Interdisciplinarity in Economics: Сomparison of Russian and English Discourses. AlterEconomics, 20(1), 59–78. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.201.4

2. Krugman, P. R. (2009). How did economics get it so wrong? The New York Times Magazine, 9, 36–44. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

3. Stiglitz, J. E. (2009). The Current Economic Crisis and Lessons for Economic Theory. Eastern Economic Journal, 35(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2009.24

4. Akerlof, G. (2021). Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics. Economic policy, 16(1), 104–123. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2021-1-104-123

5. Lakatos, I. (2003). Falsification and methodology of scientific-research programs. In Structure of scientific revolutions (pp. 269–453). Moscow. (In Russ.).

6. Olsevich, Yu. Ya. (2013). Contemporary crisis of the “mainstream” in estimations of its representatives (preliminary analysis). Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS. (In Russ.).

7. Avtonomov, V. S. (2012). Mainstream and crises. In The 12th International scientific conference on the problems of economy and society development (In 4 books. Book 4, pp. 376–378). Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russ.).

8. Friedman, M. (1994). The Methodology of Positive Economics. THESIS, 4, 20–52. (In Russ.).

9. Tambovtsev, V. L. (2023). Claim for pluralism in economics: what is behind it? Journal of Institutional Studies, 15(1), 6–22. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2023.15.1.006-022

10. Akerlof, G. A. (2020). Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191573

11. Neves, V. (2023). The Utopia of Interdisciplinarity: A View from Economics. In: Theory and Practice in the Interdisciplinary Production and Reproduction of Scientific Knowledge in the XXI Century. Pombo O., Gärtner K., Jesuíno J. (eds.). Springer, 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20405-0_10

12. Koshovets, О. B. (2022). An economic agent in your brain: neuroeconomic discourse and the limits of rationality. Issues of economic theory, 15(2), 7–21. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666vte_2022_2_7_21

13. Zafirovski, M. (2003). Orthodoxy and heterodoxy in analyzing institutions: Original and new institutional economics reexamined. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(7), 798–826. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290310478757

14. Kirdina, S. G. (2013). Methodological individualism and methodological institutionalism. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 10, 66–89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-10-66-89

15. Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The Superiority of Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.89

16. Rodrik, D. (2015). Economic Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science. Journal of Economic Sociology, 16(4), 39–59. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2015-4-39-59

17. Neves, V. (2017). Economics and Interdisciplinarity: An Open-Systems Approach. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 37(2), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572017v37n02a05

18. Schumpeter, J. (2012). Science and Ideology. In D. M. Hausman (Ed.) The Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology (pp. 247–264). Moscow: Gaidar Institute. (In Russ.).

19. Jelveh, Z., Kogut, B., & Naidu, S. (2022, December 13). Political Language in Economics Columbia Business School Research Paper, 14–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2535453

20. Mohsen, J., & Chang, H. (2019). Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330845922_Who_Said_or_What_Said_Estimating_Ideological_Bias_in_Views_Among_Economists

21. Kuhn, Th. (2014). The Road since Structure. Moscow. (In Russ.).

22. Fisher, S., Dornbusch, R., & Schmalenzi, P. (1995). Economy. Moscow: Delo LTD. (In Russ.).

23. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Social space: fields and practices. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aletheia. (In Russ.).

24. The Real Policy Wonks: How Economists Reshaped America. (2019, October 17). A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/role-of-economists/

25. Marchionni, C. (2022). Social Aspects of Economics Modelling. Disciplinary Norms and Performativity. In B. Caldwell, J. Davis, U. Mäki, E.-M. Sent. Methodology and History of Economics: Reflections with and without Rules (1st ed.). Routledge.

26. Austin, J. L., Urmson, J. O., & Sbisà, M. (Eds.) (1955). How to Do Things with Words (2d ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

27. Orekhovsky, P. A. (2019). Structures of cognitivity and Russian reforms: Scientific report, preprint. Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS.

28. Merton, R. K. (1995). The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect. Social Forces, 74(2), 379–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580486

29. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.12.1053

30. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, Th., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.7.2.159

31. Laval, Ch. (2010). Homo economicus. Essay on the Origin of Neoliberalism. Moscow: New literary review. (In Russ.).

32. Barthes, R. (2003). The Fashion System. Articles on the semiotics of culture. Moscow: Publishing house. Sabashnikov. (In Russ.)

33. Koshovets, O. B. (2022). Economic knowledge and power: from scientific objectivity to technologies of impersonality and social design. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 171–189. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259113

34. Skaerbaek, P., Tryggestad, K., & Christensen, M. (2023). Economics performativity and its consequences for accounting and organizational spaces: the case of public sector reforms. In Space and Organizing (pp. 104–120). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800881563.00013

35. North, D. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change. Moscow: Publishing House of HSE University. (In Russ.).

36. Volchik, V. V. (2023). Ideas, symbols and narratives for the economic development of Russia. Russian Journal of Economics and Law, 17(1), 5–22. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21202/2782-2923.2023.1.5-22

37. Volchik, V. V. (2015). Interdisciplinarityin economic science: between imperialism and pluralism. Terra Economicus, 13(4), 52–64. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2015-4-52-64

38. Usov, V. N. (2017). The People's Republic of China in 1949–1960. In S. L. Tikhvinsky (Ed.). History of China from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century (In 10 vol., Vol. VIII: People's Republic of China (1949–1976), pp. 19–198). Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.).

39. Borokh, O. N. (2023). Priorities of China’s Economic Development in Contemporary Official Ideology. AlterEconomics, 20(1), 189–215. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31063/AlterEconomics/2023.20-1.10

40. Kang, David C. (2003). Transaction Costs and Crony Capitalism in East Asia. Comparative Politics, 35(4), 439–458. https:// doi.org/10.2307/4150189

41. Kruglova, M. S. (2023). Banking, Finance and Reform in the Nanjing Decade (1928–1937): A Synthetic Economic Policy. Issues of Economic Theory, 1, 127–141. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666vte_2023_1_127_141

42. Coase, R., & Ning, W. (2013). How China became capitalist. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo. (In Russ.).

43. Borokh, O., & Lomanov, A. (2020). China’s Path of Reform under Conditions of Globalization. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 64(6), 66–75. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-6-66-75

44. Karpov, М. (2014). The Vicious Circle of the ‘Chinese Miracle’. Market Transformations and the Problem of Reformability of the Lenin-Type Party State in the People's Republic of China. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Nestor. (In Russ.).

45. Deng Xiaoping. (1988). The main questions of modern China. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russ.).

46. Pantsov, A. V. (2013). Deng Xiaoping. Moscow: Young Guard. (In Russ.).

47. Smith, C. A. (2019). Datong and Xiaokang. In C. Sorace, I. Franceschini, N. Loubere (Eds.), Afterlives of Chinese Communism: Political Concepts from Mao to Xi (pp. 63–66). Anu Press.

48. Volynskii, A. I., & Kruglova, M. S. (2022). “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” as a result of rhetorical synthesis in economic policy. In V. I. Mayevsky, S. G. Kirdina-Chandler (Eds.), Synthesis in economic theory and economic policy (pp. 334–351). Moscow: Institute of Economics of Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.).

49. Borokh, O. N. (2022). Foreign Economists and Chinese Reforms: the Contribution of the Bashan Conference (1985) to Shaping the Strategy of Transformation. Issues of Economic Theory, 4, 93–109. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52342/25877666vte_2022_4_93_109

50. Zhiguleva, V. V. (2004). Reform of the price setting system in the people’s Republic of China (1978–2002): PhD (Economics) thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.).

51. Orekhovsky, P. A. (2019). Paradoxes of regressive modernization and export of Russian institutions. Federalism, 2, 61–71. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21686/2073-1051-2019-2-61-71

52. Kapeliushnikov, R. I. (2019). Contra pan-institutionalism. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. (In Russ.).

53. Volynskii, А. (2019). Mesoeconomics of the economic growth: studying the experience of Chinese reforms. Issues of Economic Theory, 1, 84–99. (In Russ.).

54. China v America. The Economist. 2018, October. 20th.

55. Volynskii, A. (2022). To the End of History. Oriental Courier, 4, 11–19. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18254/s268684310023799-6

56. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. N. Y.: Crown Business.

57. Lin, D. X. (2012). John K. Fairbank’s Construction of China, 1930s-1950s: Culture, History, and Imperialism. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 19(3–4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1163/18765610-01904003

58. Kruglova, M. S. (2020). Township and village enterprises in China: Reform success or evolution of a traditional institution? Terra Economicus, 18(4), 111–125. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2020-18-4-111-125