| Summary: | Objective: To compare the specifics of the “public protection responses” to the deepening of marketisation in Russia andChina and to the strengthening of “market fundamentalism” in Western countries.Methods: The methodology is based on the concept of “double movement”, developed in the works of Karl Polanyi, and on the categorical apparatus of the author’s theory of institutional X - and Y -matrices.Results: It is shown that since the 1980s, in most countries of the world, a process of liberalisation of national economies has been taking place, including the active introduction of market institutions in various spheres of social life. In Russia and China, this process is known as post-socialist “market reforms”. However, after the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-2008, which showed once again the instability of the market economy and the continuous growth of social inequality, there have been widespread and continuing attempts to strengthen public control over spontaneous market forces. A similar process took place in the 1930s in Europe and the United States after the Great Depression, and Karl Polanyi then called it a “double movement” or “countermovement”. He described it as a public response to the expansion of the market, “aimed at protecting human life and nature”. The “double movement” has both its positive perspectives and risks. The main risks as Polanyi noticed were the spread of populist ideologies in societies, including fascism, and the associated threat of social instability. The consideration of the Polanyian approach with the categorical apparatus of the theory of institutional X - Y -matrices revealed the specificity of the “double movement” in Russia and China compared to the capitalist countries of the West. It is shown that in Russia and China, the scale of state participation in the economy and social control over the market, compared with Western countries, is significantly higher, which makes the economic development of these two countries more stable and predictable in the context of the continuing “era of uncertainty.” The specific risks of “double movement” for these countries were also identified associated with excessive strengthening of the unitary principle in the political system and an “overdose” of collectivist ideas to the detriment of personal aspirations and values.Scientific novelty: Identification of the specific features of the “public response” to excessive marketisation in countries where either X - or Y -institutional matrices dominate.Practical significance: The results obtained can be used as theoretical and illustrative material in courses on institutional economics and economic sociology, as well as for examining the implications of various and differing institutional designs of national economic policies.
|
|---|