Omsk, Omsk, Russian Federation
VAC 5.2.5 Мировая экономика
UDK 33 Экономика. Народное хозяйство. Экономические науки
UDK 330.3 Динамика народного хозяйства. Экономическое развитие
UDK 330.34 Экономическое развитие
The need for the development of new approaches to the study of property relations is one of the central topics in the discussion about the change in the development model of the modern economy. The article shows that when considering relatively stable forms of interactions of subjects regarding property objects, an explicitly or implicitly neoconstituent or unorthodox institutional approach based on the selfish version of the interpretation of economic motives is clearly or implicitlysubjects, which generates the need to use eclectic and fragmentary theoretical constructions. In a general form of interaction of subjects regarding property objects in accordance with the liberal concept of property dominant, neoinstitutional economists describe within the following scheme: the economic interests of the owner - the institutional structure of the “bunch” of rights property - economic behavior - result. Supporters of the concept of the social function of ownership proposed using an unorthodox institutional approach in the form of a logical scheme: national interests (interests of society) - the institutional structure of the “beam” of property rights - economic behavior - result.To revise the traditional paradigm of studying the economic relations of property, it is proposed to proceed from the cognitive approach to the analysis of the socio-economic nature of property that has developed in the classical political economy. On this basis, the need to consider society as the supreme owner and the phenomenon of the property inherently, the co-owners of which are the co-owners of which are all its subjects of the economy, is argued. At the same time, the features of the design of the balance of private and public interests determine the specifics of the formation of economic relations of property. The developed research perspective provides for a paradigm revision of the prevailing ideas about the problem field and helps to find the methods of transformation of the economy corresponding to national interests, taking into account the fact that the phenomenon of public
property concepts, private property, social function of property, public property, “bunch” of property rights, the supreme subject of property, the obligation of the owner
1. Tolkachev S.A. Ciklicheskie zakonomernosti transformacii ekonomicheskoy ortodoksii // Terra Economicus. – 2024. – № 22(3). S. 6–20.
2. Rodrik D., Tyson L., Fricke Th. From the Washington Consensus to the Berlin Declaration // Project Syndicate. – 2024. – June 27. https://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/washington-consensus-gives-way-to-berlin-declaration-by-dani-rodrik-et-al-2024-06 (accessed on July 24, 2024).
3. Biryukov V. Paradigmal'nye osobennosti razrabotki institucional'nyh strategiy issledovaniya sovremennoy ekonomiki // Obschestvo i ekonomika. – 2022. – №10. – S. 33–49.
4. Gegel' G. V. F. Filosofiya prava. M.: Mysl', 1990. 524 s.
5. Nort D., Uollis Dzh., Vayngast B. Nasilie i social'nye poryadki: Konceptual'nye ramki dlya interpretacii pis'mennoy istorii chelovechestva. M.: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara, 2011. 408 s.
6. Shmoller G. Spravedlivost' v narodnom hozyaystve. Razdelenie truda. M.: Librokom, 2012. 216 s.
7. Dyugi L. Obschie preobrazovaniya grazhdanskogo prava so vremeni kodeksa Napoleona / per. s franc. M. M. Siversa; pod red. i s predisl. prof. A. G. Goyhbarga. M.: Gos. izd-vo, 1919. 110 s.
8. Mizes L. Liberalizm i klassicheskie tradicii. M.: Delo, 1995. 284 s.
9. Robilant A. Property: A Bundle of Sticks or a Tree? // Vanderbilt Law Review.–2013. –Vol. 66 (3).– P. 869 – 932.
10. Lametti D. The Concept of Property: Relations Through Objects of Social Wealth // University of Toronto Law Journal. – 2004. –Vol. 53(4). – P. 325 – 378.
11. Alexander G. S. The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law // Cornell Law Faculty Publications.– 2009. – Vol. 94. – P. 745 –822.
12. Crawford C. The Social Function of Property and the Human Capacity To Flourish // Fordham Law Review. – 2011. – Vol. 80. – P.1089–1134.
13. Mirow M. C. The Social-Obligation Norm of Property: Duguit, Hayem, and Others // Florida Journal of International Law. – 2010. – Vol. 22. – P. 192 – 225.
14. Mayer C. The future of the Corporation and the economics of purpose // Journal of Management Studies. – 2021. –Vol.58(3).– P. 887–901.
15. Busch T., Barnett M. L., Burritt R. L., Cashore B. W., Freeman R. E., Henriques I., Husted B. W., Panwar R., Pinkse J., Schaltegger S., York J. Moving beyond “the” business case: How to make corporate sustainability work // Business Strategy and the Environment.– 2024. – Vol. 33(2). – P. 776–787.
16. Lokk Dzh. Sochineniya: V 3 t. T. 3. M.: Mysl', 1988. S. 137–405.
17. Smit A. Issledovanie o prirode i prichinah bogatstva narodov. M.: Social'no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo, 1962. 684 s.
18. Marks K. Kapital. T. 3. Ch. 2. M.: Politizdat, 1986. 1080 c.
19. North D.C., Thomas R.P. The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973. 170 p.
20. Kurdanova M. H. Sovremennaya konstitucionnaya reforma v kontekste real'nogo narodovlastiya // Gosudarstvo i pravo. – 2021. – №7. S. 183−189.
21. Eliseev V. N. Osnovnoy vopros politicheskoy ekonomii kak sostavnoy chasti marksizma v ego sistemnoy logicheski zavershennoy celostnosti // Journal of Economic Regulation. – 2024. – №15(1).– S. 6–43.
22. Ryazanov V. T., Osadin, N. N. Obschestvennaya sobstvennost' i ee rol' v formirovanii rynochnoy modeli ekonomiki Rossii // Problemy sovremennoy ekonomiki. – 2006. – №1/2 (17/18).– S. 54 – 59.
23. Kovtun S. P. Civilitarnoe pravo i grazhdanskaya sobstvennost' v libertarno-yuridicheskoy teorii prava V. S. Nersesyanca // Social'no-ekonomicheskoe upravlenie: teoriya i praktika. – 2023. –№ 2(19). – S. 49–59.
24. Nersesyanc V. S. Filosofiya prava: monografiya. M.: Norma, 2001. 652 s.
25. Biryukov V.V. Razvitie nacional'noy ekonomiki kak slozhnoy sistemy: pereosmyslenie roli gosudarstva // AlterEconomics. – 2024. – №2(21). – S. 230–252.
26. Mattei C. The Capital Order. How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. 480 p.
27. Bondarenko N. L. Social'naya funkciya prava sobstvennosti v kontekste konstitucionnogo principa ee neprikosnovennosti // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo.– 2018.– № 28. – S. 106 – 118.
28. Schennikova L. V. Veschnoe pravo v otrazhenii zarubezhnoy civilistiki // Gosudarstvo i pravo. – 2022. – №12.– S.145−151.
29. Denisova E. L., Borisova I. D. Evolyuciya ponimaniya principa neprikosnovennosti chastnoy sobstvennosti v sovremennom prave // Obrazovanie i pravo. – 2023. – №7. – S. 128 – 132.
30. Simancheva M. G. Social'naya funkciya sobstvennosti i ee sovremennoe znachenie // Permskiy yuridicheskiy al'manah.– 2022. – № 5.– S. 204 – 216.
31. Medvedev S.N. Social'naya funkciya prava sobstvennosti v Chili // Leningradskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. – 2013.– № 2(32).– S. 102–108.
32. Saudahanov M. V. Social'naya funkciya chastnoy sobstvennosti: ponyatie i soderzhanie v konstitucionnom prave Rossii i zarubezhnyh gosudarstv // Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba i kadry. – 2021. – № 5. – S. 101–105.
33. Ford G. Moya zhizn', moi dostizheniya. M.: Finansy i statistika, 1989. 186 s.
