CC BY
5DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-3-1 EDN: OEQCXG JEL classification: B41, B52, O14
Anna A. Urasova Perm centre of the Institute of Economics (Ural branch of RAS),
Perm, Russia
Noonomics as a scientific theory: Key postulates and implications
Abstract. Scientific economic discourse holds a certain pool of theories and concepts, which are now considered generally accepted. They rely on a developed evidence base, have passed through several stages, and have mature schools of thought. Yet as we can see from the history of economic thought, during their genesis these theories were not always connoted and contextualized unambiguously. Perhaps at present we are witnessing the formation of a new scientific theory - noonomics. The paper aims to study its essence, basic characteristics and postulates and to prove that it belongs to the modern stage in the development of the theories of economic dynamics and stadi-ality in economic processes. These theories constitute the methodological basis of the research. The methods include systematisation and generalisation used to reveal the key propositions of the theories of economic cycles and dynamics; logical structural analysis and causal analysis to track the evolution of the foundations underlying the theories of technological development; the method of particularising to describe the essence of noonomics. The paper identifies the relevant characteristics of the theories of economic dynamics and stadiality of economic processes and examines noonom-ics in the context of the said theories. The research confirms the scientific foundations of this concept. The results contribute to the understanding of a transition to the next stage in the economy and society's technological development by extending the boundaries of the theories of economic dynamics.
Keywords: noonomics; industrialisation; technological paradigm; technologies; industrial revolution; economic theory.
Acknowledgements: The paper is prepared in accordance with the R&D Plan for the Institute of Economics (Ural Branch of RAS).
For citation: Urasova A. A. (2023). Noonomics as a scientific theory: Key postulates and implications. Journal of New Economy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 6-21. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-3-1. EDN: OEQCXG.
Article info: received May 25, 2023; received in revised form June 2, 2023; accepted June 14, 2023
Introduction
Noonomics as a concept, according to Sergey Bodrunov, one of its creators and proponents, emerged in 2018, and therefore, we can identify its current stage of development as genesis. The scientist argues that the predictive capabilities of the concept allow articulating a vision based on the study of objective trends in the evolution of the material basis of production and the consequences of this evolution. Bodrunov defines noonomics as a comprehensive social science theory of an interdisciplinary nature. Thus, noonomics is focused on the problems of technological changes from the viewpoint of their impact on public relations and, in addition, acts as a tool for implementing strategic development projects, since it has predictive potential.
Bodrunov sees the reason for noonomics becoming a science in the hypertro-phied value of market criteria in the modern model of development. This means that the production is the defining sphere of human existence, but it does not mean that economic principles prevail in other spheres of social life. Quite the opposite, the social life accumulates contradictions: segregation, differentiated access to social benefits, competition, etc. Such situation leads to the exhaustion of the development paradigm rooted in the principles of economic society. Noonomics offers ways to overcome the urgent civilisational crisis and enter a new stage of development.
However, a logical question arises: is noonomics applicable only at the stage of development of industrial society and industrial production?
Since it is widely accepted that industry is the core of the modern economy, the evolution of industry determines shifts in the socioeconomic structure by moving from one social paradigm to another. Thus, a technological paradigm is a change of technologies. However, in addition to technology, material production includes labour, means of production and forms of its organisation. Accordingly, the technological revolution is a change of both technologies in general and technologies of labour, production, etc.
The purpose of the study is to find the key postulates and implications of noonomics and to prove that it belongs to the modern stage in the development of the theories of economic dynamics and stadiality in economic processes being part of the approach that explains another stage in the technological development.
With this purpose in mind, we accomplish the following objectives:
- identify the stages in the development of theories of economic dynamics and the stadiality of economic processes;
- reveal the principles and attributes of the current stage of development of the said theories;
- particularise the key postulates of noonomics, which explain the current transitional state of the economy;
- correlate this concept with the attributes of the theory of economic dynamics;
- provide arguments as to why this concept belongs to the analysed theories.
Theoretical basis and the conceptual framework of the study
Before speaking about the essence of noonomics, let us clarify the key methodological definitions. In terms of generally recognised scientific terms, the following sequence seems logical: a scientific approach, a scientific theory, a scientific concept.
A scientific approach can be understood as a set of theories and concepts, views and standpoints aimed at detecting, investigating and justifying a scientific solution to a specific problem. Its principles and methods are becoming generally accepted and have a developed evidence base. Depending on the characteristics of the content, we can speak of theoretical, methodological and theoretical-methodological approaches (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of scientific approaches
Approach Degree of elaboration of key scientific terms Evidence base Degree of elaboration of methods
Theoretical Terms and concepts are well-developed and defined, generally accepted Logic and principles of theoretical postulates are generally accepted Own research methods are not developed, methods from other scientific approaches are used
Methodological Own research methods are developed on which scientific evidence is based
Theoretical-methodological Own methods, as well as methods from other scientific approaches, scientific fields are used
Thus, to reveal a specific approach in the theoretical and methodological space we need to identify research methods and techniques inherent in it, as well as the degree of their scientific recognition. Each approach suggests a solution to an important scientific problem, which then becomes generally accepted, using the developed evidence base peculiar to the given approach.
A theoretical approach is a set of theories, concepts, views and standpoints relying on the methods and techniques of basic scientific approaches and scientific fields. In fact, this approach uses the entire set of methodological developments and certain algorithms for proof.
A methodological approach represents a set of methods built upon common theoretical principles and concepts. Its evidence base rises from its own methodological tools.
A theoretical-methodological approach is a set of theories, concepts, views and standpoints resting on an evidence base that includes both its own methodological tools and methods of basic scientific approaches, scientific fields.
Less is the scope of a theory, which is a set of concepts, standpoints and views on addressing an important scientific problem, with an evidence base recognised in the scientific community. In most cases, a specific theory lies within a single scientific approach.
The concept is a set of views and perspectives aimed at handling a scientific problem using an evidence base for which there is no consensus assessments in the scientific community.
In summary, a scientific concept is created when forming a problem field, diagnosing a scientific problem, developing a scientific hypothesis. Subsequently the concept transforms into a scientific theory, which becomes part of a new scientific approach as the evidence base develops.
Any scientific concept stands on a theoretical foundation that has emerged by the time of the concept's appearance. With regard to noonomics, such a research subject as transitional processes in economic and social development is considered within many theoretical and methodological approaches and theories that are focused on proving the laws of development, the principles of evolutionary or revolutionary transition, technological trends in the economy, etc.
Thus, we are talking about a set of theories of technological transformations, which creates a theoretical platform of noonomics, namely the theories of industrial society, technological structures and industrial revolutions. At the same time, noonomics acts as a concept accumulating the achievements of the said areas and developing their key postulates, adapting them to modern realities. In particular, the key postulates of the theory of technological paradigms are the absolutisation of technological changes in economic development and the duration of technological paradigms.
Development of the theories of economic dynamics and stadiality of economic processes
Let us consider the formation of the scientific ideas about the dynamics and cyclicity of development in the economic space. A retrospective analysis of the key theories and concepts underlying this research field shows the evolution of the conceptual framework and the main theoretical propositions.
Since the middle of the 19th and early 20th centuries there have been numerous studies investigating transitional processes in the economy. Many authors, including Tugan-Baranovskiy, Spiethoff, Harrod, Aftalion, Moore, Hansen, etc. have developed several fundamental postulates interpreting the concepts of a transitional economic process and an economic crisis.
For instance, Tugan-Baranovskiy [1894] defined the economic crisis as a tool to regulate the economic system that has the property of self-organisation and is used for the continuous development and improvement of the economic space.
Spiethoff understood the economic crisis as an industrial catastrophe, which indicates a scenario of a progressive transition of economy to the stage of depression [Spiethoff, 1929]. In this context, we can talk about the types of economic dynamics: upward and downward periods, which can be called economic waves.
Patterns and relationships between individual economic phenomena were also studied by Harrod [1939; 2008], who interpreted economic progress as a combination of quantitative changes occurring as the economic system evolved in the relationship between labour, production and the size of available capital.
Aftalion pointed to the accelerator effect of derivative demand arising in crisis periods of the economic system development. In such situations, the demand for consumer goods changes depending on the dynamics of demand for investment objects (cf.: [Nenovsky, 2006]).
Moore observed cyclic patterns and presented his findings in a number of contributions. In particular, he wrote about business cycles and their conditionality by natural factors, such as precipitation, yield, etc., which is the key reason for the cyclic-ity of prices of goods and services [Moore, 1914].
Notable contributions have been made by Hansen [2008], who examined the essential elements of the economic cycle: investment factors, factors of economic dynamics (technology, resources, population, etc.), structural factors, etc.
In the middle of the 19th and early 20th centuries, numerous studies investigated the field that included definitions of economic cyclicity and the relationship between dynamic processes and specific economic factors. However, there was neither a scientific approach nor a theory systematising the core concepts, postulates and principles in the research of that period.
In the middle of 20th century, integral scientific theories of cyclical economic development grew out of prior academic experience. Seminal contributions were made by Kondratyev [2002], who based his argument on the following assumptions: 1) reversibility of economic development; 2) existence of large market cycles. Taken together, these assumptions explain fluctuations of economic processes. In particular, the scientist insisted that economic cycles have different length. For example, seasonal cycles run on less than a year, commercial and industrial cycles last 7-11 years. Large cycles (50-60 years) can be defined as a set of scientific and technical directions of economic development focused on the technical and technological modernisation of the economic system.
Under the postulates indicated above, Kondratyev created the concept of cyclic fluctuations with the properties of universality, which allowed providing short, medium
and long-term forecasts. The scientist proved that long-term economic waves are regular cyclical phenomena that affect the spheres of public life in direct proportion to the processes of formation of factor relationships, the strength and depth of which determine scientific and technological progress and economic changes in the technological space.
Kondratyev defined the economic process as a combination of shocks and fluctuations in the economic space. His viewpoint explaining an economic crisis as one of the phases of the single economic cycle, went against the accepted standpoints that described a crisis as a property of the economy. The change of phases, disturbing the economic equilibrium, leads to a new equilibrium, which is the general economic goal. Establishing such an equilibrium is associated with the economic system acquiring new characteristics: complexity, continuity, cumulative nature, etc. The key condition for development in this case is preserving elements and connections from the previous stage [Kondratyev, 2002].
There is no mutual influence between all three types of cycles identified by Kon-dratyev. In particular, emerging of large cycles in the phase of transition forms upward waves, entailing positive dynamics of the main economic indicators. Upward waves exist in the economic space and are replaced by downward waves within which innovations arise as a resource that can lead to a complete modernisation of economic processes.
The works of Schumpeter anchored the ideas about the cyclical nature and stadial-ity of economic development. The researcher also proceeded from certain assumptions. Thus, he believed that changes in the economy are inherent to the economic system and serve as a source of economic processes.
Schumpeter associated crisis phenomena in the economy with external and internal factors [Schumpeter, 1982]. He gave reasons for the need to regulate internal factors that determine economic periods of prosperity and depression. Economic evolution, the scientist believed, is linked with constant shocks, in which forward and backward movements are equally characteristic of the economic system. This theoretical position contradicts the conclusions of Kondratyev regarding the reversibility of economic processes. Schumpeter correlated the coherence of forward and backward movements with the synthesis of production factors, the influence of which is random. The synthesis engenders the driving resource of the economy - entrepreneurs who are key economic agents in the time of crisis [Schumpeter, 1982].
The emergence of such a resource as business sector is connected with a period of economic recovery. Entrepreneurs are the most receptive to innovations, act as their initiators and implementers, which activates the production process on a national scale. As a result, according to Schumpeter, the economic crisis can be defined as the process of spreading innovation [Zanini, Schumpeter, 2019].
Kuznets proposed seminal ideas outlining the role of innovation in the cyclical nature of economic processes [Kuznets, 1930, 1941, 1953a, 1953b]. He researched innovations proceeding from the fact that any modernisation leads to the redistribution of the entire population's income. The size of income directly affects the presence and volume of depressive trends in the economy.
Thus, we can speak of the middle of the 20th century as a period that saw the origin of crucial theories explaining the patterns of economic dynamics, stadiality and cy-clicity of economic development. And innovations were the vital link in this process.
The third stage of the evolution of theoretical knowledge in the field of economic dynamics dates back to the 1970s and 1980s and culminates in a unified complex theory of technological structures. At this stage, Glazyev, Kuczynski, Lvov, Mensch, Perez, Freeman, Yakovets and others drove the further development of economic systems.
Having scrutinised the trends of structural and functional instability in the USA and Germany, Mensch and Freudenberger linked instability and innovation [Mensch, Freudenberger, 1975]. In addition, the researchers developed a typology of basic innovations underlying the system of economic sectors. According to their logic, there are also radical innovations focused on the selective modernisation of lagging industries.
Mensch made the concept "technical method of production" (Techniksysteme) common while treating it as a life cycle of technology. A significant role in such a cycle is played by the technological stalemate (das technologische Patt), which is actually identical to the concept of crisis in the economic system [Mensch, 1975]. Innovation as a source of development is inherent in this stage.
Freeman introduced the concept of a techno-economic paradigm into scientific discourse. His contribution received a further justification in the works of Perez [2011]. The authors linked economic dynamics with the phenomenon of innovations diffusion, which sets the speed of their spread in the economy.
The concept of technological paradigm, which also arose in the 1980s, is discussed in the work by Lvov, Glazyev and Fetisov [Glazyev, Lvov, Fetisov, 1992]. The economists defined it as a phenomenon within which integrity, stability and isolation of development processes are observed. In particular, this is exemplified by a cycle "from resources to final products". Researchers divide industries into two groups. The first group forms the core of the next technological paradigm, the second acts as a locomotive for introducing innovations in production, directing them in accordance with technological dominants [Glazyev, 2012]. In the light of proposed division of industries, it is conceivable to speculate about the structure of the technological paradigm.
Yakovets [1988, 1996] continues to explore the topic of technological paradigms, and points to the existence of several types of them. He identifies them depending on
the influence of industry-wide trends, localisation of the industry, duration of technological changes, and believes the latter to be the defining criterion. Yakovets interpreted the technological paradigm as a set of scientific and technical directions, the implementation of which creates the foundation for the technological development of the economy. This paradigm has a core consisting of key industries, production technologies, which entail production changes, as well as technologies in the service sector.
Some other studies explore the process of achieving a coherence between the structure of the technological paradigm and the level of economic development of industries [Yakovets, Kuzyk, Kushlin, 2005]. The said structure is analysed by Maevskiy [2000], who includes the industries possessing the property of self-development (for instance, mechanical engineering and construction) into technological paradigms. Gurieva justifies the approach that distinguishes between generations of machines based on fundamental innovations [Gurieva, 2004, 2005].
Therefore, the research of the economic dynamics and stadiality of economic processes embraces a number of approaches for identifying and justifying important scientific concepts. One reduces the technological paradigm to a combination of productions, while the other interprets this paradigm as a combination of scientific and technical directions. There is also an approach that synthesises the postulates of both.
At the current stage of development, researchers experience difficulties with interpreting recent trends within the theory of technological paradigms. First, the question of the time frame for these paradigms appears to be inappropriate, since this frame is quite conditional. Second, the problem of the speed of paradigm changes that determine dependencies caused by local specificities is not solved. Third, this theory does not possess universal analytical tools that allow assessing the level of the paradigm development.
These difficulties have led to the emergence of a number of concepts that interpret transitional processes in the modern economy and justify patterns in the stadiality of economic development [Gustafsson et al., 2016; Ren, Yu, Zhu, 2016]. Several theories have been proposed including Arthur's theory of innovative development [Arthur, 1990], technocenosis theory [Fufaev, 1989, 1991a, 1991b], Turchin's structural and demographic models [Turchin, 2010], noonomics [Bodrunov, 2021], technotronics [Stephan et al., 2017], etc.
In summary, several logically related stages can be identified in the growth of scientific knowledge about the economic dynamics and stadaility of economic processes (Table 2).
During genesis we notice the emergence of individual views and positions that interpret transitions in the economy and establish cause-effect links between the
Table 2. The study of economic dynamics and cyclicity: Identification of historical periods
Stage Researchers Characteristic
Genesis of scientific theories and concepts (late 19th century -middle 20th century) Mikhail I. Tugan-Baranovskiy, Arthur Spi-ethoff, Roy Harrod, Albert Aftalion, Henry L. Moore, Alvin H. Hansen and others Emergence of conceptual framework, basic theoretical attitudes and principles
Formation of seminal theoretical directions, core postulates and concepts (early 20th century - the 1970s) Nikolai D. Kondratyev, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Simon S. Kuznets, and others Formation of scientific theories and concepts of cyclical development
Theoretical and methodological stage (1970 - the 1990s) Gerhard O. Mensch, Thomas Kuczynski, Christopher Freeman, Carlota Perez, Dmitriy S. Lvov, Sergey Yu. Glazyev, Yuriy V. Yakovets, and others Evolvement of theories having a broad evidence base, own methodological attitudes and principles
Formation of innovative and technological approach to analysing periods of uncertainty (the 1990s - present) William B. Arthur, Peter V. Turchin, Vladimir I. Maevskiy, Lira K. Gurieva, Sergey D. Bodrunov, and others Justification of theoretical developments and concepts that explain the patterns and various aspects of transitional processes at the current stage of technological development
processes observed and phenomena in transitional conditions. However, such advancements are of a selective nature. At the present time, it is not feasible to systematise the postulated theoretical theses, which in most cases do not have a sufficient evidence base, and to incorporate them into a single scientific concept.
At the second stage, individual theories of cyclical economic development are formed, relying on logically interconnected evidence and arguments. This gives rise to the concepts of cycles and waves, which have become generally accepted in the scientific community.
The third stage is associated with the evolution of the concept "technological paradigm", its interpretation and justification of its structure.
Taken together, all these contributions form a holistic theory of paradigm change, ground the phenomenon of multiple paradigms' existence and the patterns that arise
in the transitional states of the economic system. The driving force behind such changes are innovations.
Due to the existing economic differences we are witness to the next stage of the scientific discourse evolution within economic dynamics and stadiality. This stage includes various innovative and technological advancements and is marked by a number of attributes (Table 3).
Table 3. Attributes of the current evolution stage of the theories of economic dynamics and
stadiality of economic processes
Attribute Characteristics of an attribute
Justification of the boundaries of economic development periods (paradigms, stages, etc.) Emergence of perspectives, scientific schools and concepts that point to the lack of clear boundaries of economic development and define them as transition stages
Assessment of the speed of economic dynamics and change of production development periods Spread of views related to justifying the acceleration of economic changes and shortening the time of change of economic development periods
Development of analytical tools Arrival of a variety of methods for analysing and assessing economic measurements, capable of predicting and evaluating the subsequent stages of development
The prior findings signal the need to consider noonomics as one of the original concepts concretising the laws of the modern transition phase of the economy.
Basic postulates of noonomics
The current transition phase of the theory of economic dynamics is often referred to as post-industrial [Pavlov, 2020]. In this logic, the transition to the Industry 4.0 naturally entails a transition to the concept of noonomics, which provides for the complex development of society. Accordingly, the dominance of industrial production is a prerequisite for the development of noonomics.
Looking at its nature, it seems appropriate to identify two key areas: technological and socieconomic, that coexist and push the boundaries of this scientific concept. The aim of transitional processes is to shape a new industrial society in which industry retains its fundamental importance for the economy [Khubiev, 2020].
The presence of elements of a new industrial society is evidenced by elements of the next technological paradigm [Maslov, 2020]. In fact, the author of the considered concept assumes that at the end of another transition phase, industrial society will obtain a new quality, which consists in that knowledge acquires the role of a key resource in social development [Bodrunov, 2021, p. 34]. Thus, knowledge determines the development of material production.
This is also consistent with the consequences of the transition to the sixth technological paradigm in which the human role in the production process is declining. In modern transitional processes, scientific, technical and technological resources are combined with a social resource, generating a synergy effect through the creation of a new, more complex and valuable resource "knowledge" [Bodrunov, 2018a, 2018b]. Gradually, the prevalence of material production decreases, it 'gains' knowledge, acquiring the property of knowledge intensity, and becomes determined by society. On a higher level of generalisation, we can argue that Bodrunov [2021] sees a change in the determining development from the materialistic to the idealistic under the conditions of the currently observed transitional processes.
This is confirmed by the identified imperatives of the transition to a noosociety, such as the desimularisation of social needs, noocriteria values and the formation of a noohuman [Bodrunov, Glazyev, 2023, p. 234], that determine socioeconomic changes and construct a vision of future social structure. The aggregate of these imperatives is the basis of the technological transformations that are forming a new world order.
Considering the causes of the current crisis, the proponents of noonomics point to the depletion of important types of economic resources and, as a result, to the limitations of the economic model of social development based on the priority of the market and market relations. This correlates with our position on the use of technological solutions to reduce anthropogenic pressure on the natural environment. As an alternative, noonomics proposes the creation of a second-generation industrial society as a result of the completion of transitional processes. This process is based on the vector of scientific and technological progress, the spread of the institution of property, as well as new principles of human development [Bodrunov, 2021], in particular, the dominance of the value of the right to consciousness over material costs, the replacement of a number of human functions in the production field. Thus, the solution to the problems of transition to a new order is seen in the creation of a new economic value of production and consumption based on reason.
We correlated the noonomics concept with the indicated attributes of the current development stage of the theories of economic dynamics and the stadiality of economic processes and obtained the following results (Table 4).
Thus, the current stage of development of economic dynamics sees the appearance of a number of author's concepts that offer an interpretation of the transition phase in the economy and justify patterns in the stadiality of economic development. Noonomics is one of these concepts, which considers the conditions for the transition to the next stage of development not only in the economy but also in other areas of society and develops corresponding analysis and forecasting tools. This stage
Table 4. The concept of noonomics contextualised withtin the attributes of the current development stage of the theories of economic dynamics and stadiality of economic processes
Attribute Essence of noonomics
Justification of the boundaries of economic development periods (paradigms, stages, etc.) The concept is applicable under the conditions of a transition phase of the economy; takes into account the conditions for the transition to the next stage of development not only of the economy, but also of other spheres of society
Assessment of the speed of economic dynamics and change of production development periods The concept is applicable under the conditions of industrial development of society; implies a transition from a materialistic to an idealistic understanding of social development, in which knowledge as a resource is the determining factor
Development of analytical tools Methods have been developed that include indicators for the development of other areas of public life (social, cultural, political, etc.) in addition to economic ones, as well as methods for forecasting and scenario planning of social development
involves moving from a materialistic to an idealistic understanding of social development based on a resource such as knowledge.
Conclusion
From a scientific perspective on the worldview, any scientific theory or concept meets a number of criteria. Then, noonomics is characterised as follows.
First, it solves a major socially significant problem of transition to new technological, economic and other conditions of development. Second, it has a developed conceptual framework, which includes a set of concepts and terms (noohuman, noosoci-ety, etc.). Third, it has an evidence base that is closely related to the reasoning behind a number of theories of economic dynamics. This scientific approach does not have its own methods as yet, since it is at the stage of genesis. At the same time, noonom-ics is one of the significant concepts that interpret the current transition phase of the economy and predict its development on a systems basis.
We cannot but mention the criticism of this concept in scientific discourse [Tebekin, Mitropolskaya-Rodionova, Khoreva, 2021], since viewing it from controversial positions allows examining its central postulates deeper and increasing the objectivity of its theoretical understanding and consideration of the possibilities of its practical implementation.
First of all, these authors believe it inappropriate to speak of 'a new, second-generation industrial society' in relation to the Russian context, and prefer to consider the development of society in our country as a restoration of production processes to
the level of a post-industrial economy, which emerged in developed countries. They argue that the technological development of the Russian economy from the third to the sixth technological paradigm bypassing the fourth and fifth ones, seems very difficult, since the industries operate within multiple paradigms, and the basic industries (mechanical engineering, microelectronics, nanotechnology) belong to different paradigms. In this regard, the scenario of reindustrialisation as a strategy for Russia's economic development is more likely. In addition, the asymmetry of the development of the Russian economy in the context of large, medium and small companies in favour of the former actually limits the possibilities of competition as a driver of development. Therefore, researchers deny the possibility of introducing a model of a new, second-generation industrial society into this economy and insist on the need to create natural conditions for free competition in industry [Tebekin, Mitropolskaya-Rodionova, Khoreva, 2021].
Despite these criticisms, we conclude that noonomics is an actively evolving concept that offers evidence for the patterns of modern transitional society structure, develops its own tools for analysing and forecasting economic development, and pools the achievements of the fundamental theories of economic dynamics and sta-diality.
Thus, in line with the purpose of the study, we attempted to theoretically underpin the major stages in the development of the theories of economic dynamics and stadiality of economic processes by positioning noonomics as a scientific concept; to reveal the essence of the current stage of theoretical development in this context and to formulate our key positions on transitional processes and possible scenarios of economic development; to detail the basic postulates of noonomics and define the conditions of socioeconomic transition. The present findings confirm that noonomics is able to reasonably predict transitional processes in the economy at the stage of industrial society, thereby expanding the limits of the theory of economic dynamics.
References
Bodrunov S. D. (2018a). Noonomia as a new paradigm of balanced ecological-economic-socio-technological development. Energiya: ekonomika, tekhnika, ekologiya = Energy: Economics, Technology, Ecology, no. 9, pp. 32-36. DOI: 10.31857/S023336190001709-5. (In Russ.)
Bodrunov S. D. (2018b). Transition to a promising technological mode: analysis from the NIS.2 and noonomy standpoints. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia, no. 3 (57), pp. 5-12. (In Russ.)
Bodrunov S. D. (ed.). (2021). A(O)ntology of noonomics: The fourth technological revolution and its economic, social and humanitarian consequences. Saint Petersburg: Witte Institute for New Industrial Development (INID). 338 p. (In Russ.)
Bodrunov S. D., Glazyev S. Yu. (2023). Patterns of the formation of the foundations of noonomics as a future social order: To know and act. Saint Petersburg: Witte Institute for New Industrial Development (INID); Moscow: Tsentrkatalog Publ. 340 p. (In Russ.)
Glazyev S. Yu., Lvov D. S., Fetisov G. G. (1992). Evolution of technical and economic systems: Possibilities and limits of centralized regulation. Moscow: Nauka Publ. 207 p. (In Russ.)
Glazyev S. Yu. (2012). Modern theory of long waves in the development of the economy. Eko-nomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii = Economics of Contemporary Russia, no. 2 (57), pp. 8-27. (In Russ.)
Gurieva L. K. (2004). The concept of technological structures. Innovatsii = Innovations, no. 10 (77), pp. 70-75. (In Russ.)
Gurieva L. K. (2005). Theory of diffusion of innovations. Innovatsii = Innovations, no. 4 (81), pp. 22-26. (In Russ.)
Kondratyev N. D. (2002). Long economic cycles and the foresight theory. In: Kondratyev N. D. Selected works. Moscow: Ekonomika. 400 p. (In Russ.)
Maevskiy V. I. (2000). Evolutionary theory and macroeconomics. Voprosy ekonomiki = The Issues of Economics, no. 3, pp. 26-41. (In Russ.)
Maslov G. A. (2020). Origins of establishing NIS.2 and noonomy concepts in the economic theory. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia, no. 2 (64), pp. 142-151. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2020-2-64-142-151. (In Russ.)
Pavlov M. Yu. (2020). Noonomy, postindustrial economy and Industry 4.0: Comparison and contrast? Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia, no. 2 (64), pp. 152-162. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2020-2-64-152-162. (In Russ.)
Perez C. (2011). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Moscow: Delo Publ. 232 p. (In Russ.)
Tebekin A. V., Mitropolskaya-Rodionova N. V., Khoreva A. V. (2021). The theoretical model of the new industrial society of the second generation and problems of practical implementation economic. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika = Theoretical Economy, no. 3(75), pp. 59-70. (In Russ.)
Tugan-Baranovskiy M. I. (1894). Industrial crises in modern England, their causes and impact on people's life. Saint Petersburg. 512 p. (In Russ.)
Turchin P. V. (2010). Historical dynamics: Towards theoretical history. Moscow: LKI Publ. 365 p. (In Russ.)
Fufaev V. V. (1989). Optimisation of the structure of technocenoses. In: Electrification of metals enterprises in Siberia (a collection of papers). Issue. 6. Tomsk: Tomsk University, pp. 151-159. (In Russ.)
Fufaev V. V. (1991a). Structural and topological sustainability of cenoses' dynamics. In: Cybernetic systems of cenoses: Synthesis and management (a collection of papers). Moscow: Nauka Publ., pp. 18-26. (In Russ.)
Fufaev V. V. (1991b). Optimisation of H-distribution by interval models of objective functions. Proc. 4th Sci. Tech. Conf. "Technical and Economic Problems of Optimisation of Power Consumption Modes of Industrial Enterprises" (pp. 31-32). (In Russ.)
Hansen A. (2008). Business cycles and national income. Moscow: Finansovaya akademiya Publ. 466 p. (In Russ.)
Harrod R. (2008). Toward economic dynamics. Moscow: Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the RAS. 210 p. (In Russ.)
Khubiev K. A. (2020). On the socio-economic factor of the theory of noonomic. Nauchnye trudy Volnogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii = Scientific Works of the Free Economic Society of Russia, vol. 223, no. 3, pp. 530-538. DOI: 10.38197/2072-2060-2020-223-3-530-538. (In Russ.)
Yakovets Yu. V. (1988). Acceleration of scientific and technological progress: Theory and economic mechanism. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ. 216 p. (In Russ.)
Yakovets Yu. V. (1996). Russian economy: Changes and prospects. Moscow. 280 p. (In Russ.)
Yakovets Yu. V., Kuzyk B. N., Kushlin V. I. (2005). Forecast of innovative development of Russia for the period up to 2050, taking into account global trends. Innovatsionnaya ekonomika = Innovation Economy, no. 1 (78), pp. 19-28. (In Russ.)
Arthur W. B. (1990). Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American, vol. 262, no. 2, pp. 92-99.
Gustafsson R., Jaaskelainen M., Maula M., Uotila J. (2016). Emergence of Industries: A Review and Future Directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 28-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12057.
Harrod R. F. (1939). An essay in dynamic theory. Economic Journal, vol. 49, no. 193, pp. 14-33.
Kuznets S. (1930). Secular movements in production and prices: Their nature and their bearing upon cyclical fluctuations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 231 p.
Kuznets S. (1941). Economic progress. The Manchester School, vol. 12, issue 1, pp. 28-34. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1941.tb00545.x.
Kuznets S. (1953a). Economic change: Selected essays in business cycles, national income, and economic growth. New York: Norton. 333 p.
Kuznets S. (1953b). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 265-280.
Mensch G. (1975). Das technologische Patt: Innovationen überwinden die Depression. Frankfurt: Umschau Verlag Breidenstein. 271 p. (In German)
Mensch G., Freudenberger H. (1975). Von der Provinzstadt zur Industrieregion (Brünn-Studie): Ein Beitrag zur Politökonomie der Sozialinnovation, Dargestellt am Innovationsschub der Industriellen Revolution im Raume Brünn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 314 p. (In German)
Moore H. L. (1914). Economic cycles: Their law and cause. New York: Macmillan.149 p.
Nenovsky N. (2006). Exchange rates and inflation: France and Bulgaria in the interwarperiod and the contribution of Albert Aftalion (1874-1956). Sofia: Bulgarian National Bank. 76 p.
Ren R., Yu L., Zhu Y. (2016). Innovation-orientation, dynamic capabilities and evolution of the informal Shanzhai firms in China A case study. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-01-2015-0003.
Schumpeter J. A. (1982). The 'crisis' in economics - fifty years ago. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 1049-1059.
Spiethoff A. (ed.) (1929). Beiträge zur Erforschung der wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen: Aufschwung, Krise, Stockung. Jena: G. Fisher. 120 p. (In German)
Stephan A., Schmidt T. S., Bening C. R., Hoffmann V. H. (2017). The sectoral configuration of technological innovation systems: Patterns of knowledge development and diffusion in the lithium-ion battery technology in Japan. Research policy, vol. 46, issue 4, pp. 709-723. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.009.
Zanini A., Schumpeter J. A. (2019). Istituzioni americane e progresso economico. Scienza & Politica. Per Una Storia Delle Dottrine, vol. 31, no. 61, pp. 171-183. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-9618/10218. (In Italian)
Information about the author Anna A. Urasova, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Associate Prof., Director. Perm centre of the Institute of Economics (Ural branch of RAS), Perm, Russia. E-mail: annaalexandrowna@mail.ru
© Urasova A. A., 2023
