Econotronics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2018-1-2Keywords:
development dynamics, economic institutions, social entrepreneurship, social innovation, crowdfunding, fundraisingAbstract
For the economic description of the social driving forces in modern society at the regional level, the author offers his concept of econotronics. It is considered as a section of social sciences, which is focused on the dynamics of the development of economic institutions of interaction between actors and society in the digital economy. The initial data used for the research are the investigations of foreign scientists and the author’s findings. The subject matter of the research is the forces driving the development of the public sector of the economy. The purpose of this study is to develop the principles and ideas of institutional modeling of the processes of public goods production in the framework of the author’s conception of econotronics. It is shown that the successful development of modern public goods is determined by network interactions between economic agents of the public sector. Institutional simulation of the production of local public goods should be based on the matrix of the current state in the coordinates of the «dynamics of the number of consumers - the dynamics of financing.» The rapid development of modern social projects depends on the application of advanced economic tools such as social innovation, crowdfunding, fundraising, etc. The development of social entrepreneurship is provided by formal and informal economic institutions adopted in the society. Creation of social innovations begins with the idea of potential innovators of how to solve a social problem, then moves to the development of a socially innovative project and concludes by the approbation of the project by the society. The establishment of the institutional atlas determines the role and place of social innovation projects in addressing market failures in social services. Economic efficiency of the implementation of a social project depends on the implementation of the commercial and public benefits. This efficiency can be determined within the matrix of the performance evaluation of social innovations. The obtained results give the opportunity for a comprehensive institutional modeling of the public sector in modern conditions to predict the further development of its driving forces.References
Etzioni, A. (1988). The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: The Free Press, 350.
Gouldner, A. W. (1976). Dialectics of Ideology and Technology. New York: The Free Press, 415.
Abel, C. F. (2014). How Public Administration might be informed by Catholic Social Theory. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 36(4), 466–488.
Miller, S. (2010). The Moral Foundation of Social Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 371.
Amaral, A. & Magalhas, A. (2007). Market Competition, Public Good and Institutional Governance: Analyses of Portugal’s Experience. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(1), 63–76.
Hayami, Y. (2009). Social Capital, Human Capital and the Community Mechanism: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Economists. Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 96–123.
Stone, R. W., Slantchev, B. L. & London, T. R. (2008). Choosing How to Cooperate: A Repeated Public-Goods Model of International Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 335–362.
Florenzano, M. (2010). Government and the Provision of Public Goods: from Equilibrium Models to Mechanism Design. European Journal of History of Economic Thought, 17(4), 1047–1077.
Pigou, A. (1920). Economic of Welfare. London: Macmillan, 450.
Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(2), 387–390.
Bakhshi, H. & Throsby, D. (2012). New Technologies in Cultural Institutions: Theory, Evidence and Police Implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(2), 205–222.
Currie, G. & Stanley, J. (2008). Investigating Links between Social Capital and Public Transport. Transport Reviews, 28(4), 529–547.
Books, G., Raub, W., Selten, R. & Tazelaar, F. (2000). How Inter-Firm Co-operation Depends on Social Embeddedness: A Vignette Study. Acta Socilologica, 43(1), 123–137.
Sawyer, S., Crowstone, K., Wigand, R. T. & Allbritton, M. (2003). The Social Embeddedness of Transactions: Evidence from the Residential Real-Estate Industry. The Information Society, 19(1), 135–154.
Popov, E. V. (2016). Seti [Networks]. Ekaterinburg: AMB Publ., 168. (In Russ.)
Doward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J. & Poulton, C. (2005). Institutions, Markets and Economic Co-ordination: Linking Development Police to Theory and Praxis. Development and Change, 36(1), 1–25.
Sevastyanova, E. A. (2018). Diagnostika institutsionalnoy sredy lokalnykh obshchestvennykh blag [Diagnosis of the institutional environment of local public goods]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii [Journal of Economic Theory], 15(1), 158–164. (In Russ.)
Henninger, M. (2013). The Value and Challenges of Public Sector Information. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 5(3), 75–95.
Popov, E., Stoffers, J., Omonov, Z. & Veretennikova, A. (2016). Analysis of Civic Initiatives: Multiparameter Classification of Social Innovations. American Journal of Applied Science, 13(11), 1136–1148.
Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks and the Timing of Investment Decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274.
Sturgis, P., Read, S., Hatemi, P. K., Zhu, G., Trull, T., Wright, M. J. & Martin, N. G. (2010). A Genetic Basis for Social Trust. Political Behavior, 32(1), 205–230.
Fafchamps, M. (2006). Development and Social Capital. Journal of Development Studies, 42(7), 1180–1198.
Hajli, M. N., Shanmugam, M., Hajli, A., Khani, A. H. & Wang, Y. (2015). Health Care Development: Integrating Transaction Cost Theory with Social Support Theory. Information Health Social Care, 40(4), 334–344.
Popov, E. V., Veretennikovam A. Yu. & Kozinskaya, K. M. (2017). Sotsialnoye predprinimatelstvo kak obekt institutsionalnogo analiza [Social entrepreneurship as an object of institutional analysis]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta [Perm University Herald. Economy], 12(3), 360–374. (In Russ.)
Mair, J. & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2008). Re-envisioning Success in the Cultural Sector. Cultural Trends, 17(4), 233–246.
Srivastava, S. K. & Barmola, K. C. (2012). Social Support and Adjustment of Students. Social Science International, 28(2), 303–317.
Levine, P. (2011). Seeking Like a Citizen: The Contributions of Elinor Ostrom to “Civic Studies”. The Good Society, 20(1), 3–14.
Oto-Peralias, D. & Romero-Avilo, D. (2013). Tracing the Link between Government Size and Growth: The Role of Public Sector Quality. Kyklos, 66(2), 229–255.
Popov, E. V. (2015). Instituty [Institutions]. Ekaterinburg: Institut ekonomiki UrO RAN Publ., 712. (In Russ.)
Knowles, S. & Owen, D. (2010). Which Institutions are Good for Your Health? The deep Determinations of Comparative Cross-country Health Status. Journal of Development Studies, 46(4), 701–723.
Sandler, D. (2007). Place and Process: Culture, Urban and Social Exclusion in San Paulo. Social Identities, 13(4), 491–493.
Lettice, F. & Parekh, M. (2010). The Social Innovation Process: Themes, Challenges and Implications for Practice. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 139–150.
Novy, A. & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social Innovation and the Dialectical Relationship of State and Civil Society. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023–2036.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51.
Popov, E. V., Veretennikova, A. Yu. & Omonov, Zh. K. (2017). Evolyutsionnyy kontur razvitiya sotsialnykh innovatsiy [Evolutionary contour of development of social innovations]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 8(226), 24–31. (In Russ.)
Popov, E. V., Veretennikova, A. Yu. & Omonov, Zh. K. (2016). Institutsionalnyy mekhanizm formirovaniya sotsialnykh innovatsiy [Institutional Mechanism for Shaping Social Innovation]. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialnyye peremeny. Fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast], 5, 57–75. (In Russ.)
Kortov, S. V. (2003). Evolyutsionnoye modelirovanie zhiznennogo tsikla innovatsiy [Evolutionary modeling of the innovation life cycle]. Ekaterinburg: IE UrO RAN Publ., 342. (In Russ.)
Popov, E. V. (2011). Institutional Atlas. Atlantic Economic Journal, 39(4), 445–446.
Veretennikova, A. Yu. & Omonov, Zh. K. (2015). Institutsionalnyye podkhody k modelirovaniyu obshchestvennogo sektora [Institutional approach to modeling of public sector]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii [Journal of Economic Theory], 4, 163–167. (In Russ.)
Sheehy, B. & Feaver, D. (2015). Designing Effective Regulation: A Normative Theory. UNSW Law Journal, 38(1), 392–425.
Booth, D. (2011). Aid, Institutions and Governance: What Have We Learned? Development Policy Review, 29, ss. Supplement S1, S5-S26.
Campos, L. P. (2014). A Transactional Analytic View of War and Peace. Transactional Analysis Journal, 44(1), 68–79.
Popov, E. V., Veretennikova, A. Y. & Omonov, J. K. (2017). A Social Innovation Impact Assessment Matrix. Digest Finance, 22(4), 365–378.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Evgeny Vasilyevich Popov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
