Economic theory

Methodological issues of social order relationships analysis in categorial structures of international political economy

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 135, Issue 11-12(1), Pages: 12-15

Citation information:
Dalevska, N. (2013). Methodological issues of social order relationships analysis in categorial structures of international political economy. Economic Annals-XXI, 11-12(1), 12-15. https://ea21journal.world/index.php/ea-v135-03/

View Full TextDownload PDF

Natalia Dalevska
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Donetsk National Technical University
58 Artema St., Donetsk, 83001, Ukraine
dalevskaya_n.m@mail.ru

Methodological issues of social order relationships analysis in categorial structures of international political economy

Abstract. The dynamism and dimensions of changes in the interaction of social and individual in a human being significantly complicate determination of global value guidelines in social order relations in structural categories of international political economy. This facilitates the study of cause-and-effect relations in the system of legitimation/delegitimizing of international power, power institutions of international, national and regional management, and the search of effective mechanisms of universal coordination of countries’ social policy in the context of social order relations reproduction within the universal political and economic space. The range of options to legitimize the social order relations depends on the implementation of economic, political and social transformations and formation of the national, regional and international security system of business entities.

On the basis of the analysis of the social order’s methodological foundations two dominant approaches can be singled out: structural and cognitive ones. The main attention in the structural approach is concentrated on reorganization and organization of political institutes. The cognitive approach is characterized by the accent on reeducation, respecialization and resocialization of actors of the universal political and economic space. Both approaches don’t contradict each other, because they focus their attention upon complementary interaction of strategic goals of economic, political and social integration of international relations’ actors.

Thus, the development of communication connections of international relations’ actors within the universal political and economic space can be considered to facilitate the evolution and transformation of international power institutes, cause drastic changes in structural categories of international political economy, regarding the formation of effective mechanisms to legitimize the social order relations by introducing the corresponding key factors, namely: normative and legislative factors, which may include the formation of universal standards of corporate culture and protection of intellectual property rights; economic factors – development of motivational tax system and stimulation of the world innovational infrastructure development; social and political factors – introduction of social partnership system and involvement of actors of international relations into realization of social programs, regarding the rational use of human development resources.

At the same time, the social order relations within the universal political and economic space determine the structural basis of the international political economy, which fixes distinctive features of dynamic links to actors of international relations and actualizes problems of functional and normative specifics of institutional systems in the area of international relations.

In this sense the interaction of actors of international relations in the power field of modern society more and more differentiates itself and assumes the nature of a systemic hierarchy, on every level of which there occur processes of institutional changes in the social order relations in accordance with the parameters of national economic security of every business entity within the universal political and economic space.

Keywords: International Political Economy; Actors of International Relations; Social Order; Legitimating; World Political Economic Space

JEL Classification: B40; F29

References

  1. Arrighi, G. (2007). Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century. London: Verso.
  2. Wallerstein, I. (2008). Historical capitalism. Capitalist civilization (Trans. from Eng.). Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. (in Russ.).
  3. Halchynskyi, А. (2012). Economic development: methodology of the renewed paradigm. Ekonomika Ukrainy (Economics of Ukraine), 5, 4-17 (in Ukr.).
  4. Kornivska, V. The inventive character of the unity of the European monetary space. Ekonomika i prohnozuvannia (Economy and Forecasting), 1, 109-122 (in Ukr.).
  5. Pakhomov, Yu. (2008). Bifurcational state of the world system nucleus before the change of world leaders. Ekonomika Ukrainy (Economics of Ukraine), 4, 4-14 (in Ukr.).
  6. Skaaning, S. (2006). Political Regimes and Their Changes: A Conceptual Framework. CDDRL working papers.
    Retrieved from http://www.cddrl.stanford.edu
  7. Stepanenko, A. (2011). Safety as a foundational system paradigm of constant development and well-being of the society. Ekonomist (Economist), 4, 26-29 (in Ukr.).
  8. Filipenko, A. (2010). Economic globalization: origins and result. Moscow: Economy (in Russ.).
  9. Habermas, J. (2001). Involvement of another: Political theory essays (Trans. from German by Y. S. Medvedev; edited by D. A. Sklyadnev). Moscow: Nauka (in Russ.).
  10. Hungtington, S. (2004). Political order in changing societies (Trans. from Eng.). Moscow: Progress-Tradition (in Russ.).
  11. Hobbes, T. (1991). Leviathan or The Matter, Form and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil (Trans. from Eng.). Works: In 2 volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russ.).
  12. Frank, A. G., & Gills, B. K. (2000). The Five Thousand Year World System in Theory and Practice. In R. A. Denemark et al. (Eds.). World System History: The Social Science of Long Term Growth. L., N.Y.: Routledge.
  13. Sztompka, P. (2000). The Ambivalence of Social Change. Triumph or Trauma?
    Retrieved from http://www.skylla.wzberlin.de/pdf/2000/p00-001.pdf
  14. Collyns, С. (2008, December). The Crisis through the lens of History. Finance and Development, 18-20.
  15. Barro, R. J., & Tenreyro, S. (2006, April). Closed and Open Economy Models of Business Cycles whit Marked up Sticky Prices. The Economic Journal, 116 (511), 434-456.
  16. Andrusiv, V. (2007). Institutional change and simulative institutions. Nova paradyhma (New Paradigm), 71, 121-134 (in Ukr.).
  17. Duglos,J.-Y., Sahn, D. E., & Younger, S. D. (2006). Robust Multidimensional Poverty Comparisons. The Economic Journal, 116(514), 943-968.
  18. Greenwood, D., & Holt, R. (2008). Institutional and Ecological Economics: The Role of Technology and Institutions in Economic Development. JOURNAL of ECONOMIC ISSUES, XLII(2), 445-451.
  19. Devereux, M. P. (2008). Business taxation in a globalized world. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(4), 625-638.
  20. Burlachuck, V. (2009). Image of authorities in modern globalization theories. Sotsiolohia: teoria, metody, marketyng (Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing), 3, 46-61 (in Ukr.).
  21. Tsokur, E. (2010). General model and specifics of political power legitimization. Politychnyi menedzhment (Political Management), 1, 61-67 (in Ukr.).
  22. Fraser,N. (2010). Injustice at Intersecting Scales: «Social Exclusion» and the «Global Poor». European Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 363-371.
  23. Porokhovskiy, A. (2012). Political economy is the foundation and core of economic theory. Ekonomist (Economist), 1, 61-73 (in Russ.).
  24. Maliuk,A. (2012). Theoretic and methodological problems of the modern global crisis research. Sotsiolohia: teoria, metody, marketing (Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing), 4, 22-50 (in Ukr.).

Received 02.09.2013

View Full TextDownload PDF
In, , , , ,

More Papers