The schools of economic thoughts and sustainable development problems: a free-market approach

Ol&#039;ga Buchinskaya

THE SCHOOLS OF ECONOMIC THOUGHTS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS: A FREE-MARKET APPROACH The schools of economic thoughts and sustainable development problems: a free-market approach

АА Аа

Published in Theoretical economics · Pages 28–41 · Rubric: ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF THEORETICAL ECONOMY

Received: 12.01.2022 Accepted: 23.01.2022 Published: 31.01.2022

Authors

Ol'ga Buchinskaya

Academic degree: candidate of economic sciences

Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences Ural Branch starshiy nauchnyy sotrudnik

ABSTRACT

Most of the proposals of economic changes used in modern reforms have support from theoretical recommendations, developed by the school of economic thought to which the authors of a particular development concept have adhered. A paradigm of these schools largely defines the tools used to analyse the economic reality and approaches to achieve scientific and practical objectives. The sustainable development goals established by the modern global community had led to the development of various methods of solving sustainability problems, arising from the perception of economic reality from the point of view of different economic schools. With the vast amount of diversity of approaches to economic development, the schools of economic thought can be approximately divided into schools, that believe in the dominant role of the state in solving the problems of sustainability, and the free-market proponents, who trust in the power of the market mechanism in achieving sustainable development. The purpose of this work is to study the methods of free market wing of schools of economic thought, used to analyse the sustainable development problems, the identification of general features and differences in the tools recommended achieving sustainable development goals. The study method comprises the works of J. Schumpeter followers, neoclassical school, as well as institutionalists. As a result of the analysis, we allocated the primary objectives of the economic policy for the achieving of sustainable development goals for each school; the school’s toolkit was analysed. This study revealed the primary objectives of sustainable development in the scope of analysis of the studied schools of economic thoughts, demonstrated the advantages and disadvantages of approaches, showed the restrictions for the qualitative achievement of sustainable development goals by using certain economic school recipes. The results of this study can be applied to improve national and international policies to achieve sustainable development goals, developing the design of economic and legal institutions of national states, the evolution of integrated systems of environmentally friendly economic and social development of Russia, both at the national level and at the level of individual regions.

KEYWORDS

sustainable development goals; economic growth; green economy; economic schools; economic policies; neoclassical school; institutionalism; Schumpeterians.

1. Phillimore J. Schumpeter, Schumacher and the greening of technology //Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. – 2001. – Vol. 13. – №. 1. – P. 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320120040428.

2. Hanusch H., Pyka A. Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics //Cambridge Journal of Economics. – 2007. – Vol. 31. – №. 2. – P. 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel018

3. Dees G. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship” [Elektronnyy resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: http:// www.redalmarza.cl/ing/pdf/TheMeaningofsocial Entrepreneurship.pdf (data obrascheniya: 28.05.2021).

4. Rahdari A., Sepasi S., Moradi M. Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises //Journal of Cleaner Production. – 2016. – Vol. 137. – P. 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159

5. Smith B. R., Stevens C. E. Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value //Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. – 2010. – Vol. 22. – №. 6. – P. 575-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.488405

6. Bergman M. M., Leisinger, K. M., Bergman, Z., & Berger, L. An analysis of the conceptual landscape of Corporate Responsibility in academia //Business and Professional Ethics Journal. – 2015. – Vol. 34. – №. 2. – P. 165-193. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej20157728

7. Andersen M. M. Eco-innovation Dynamics-Creative Destruction and Creative accumulation in green Economic Evolution //Schumpeter Conference 2010, Aalborg June 21-24. – 2010. – P. 21-24.

8. Lipieta A., Malawski A. Eco-mechanisms within economic evolution: Schumpeterian approach //Journal of Economic Structures. – 2021. – Vol. 10. – №. 1. – P. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-021-00234-8

9. Mathews J. A. Schumpeterian economic dynamics of greening: propagation of green eco-platforms //Journal of Evolutionary Economics. – 2020. – Vol. 30. – №. 4. – P. 929-948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00669-5

10. Chen J., Han L., Qu G. Citizen innovation: Exploring the responsibility governance and cooperative mode of a “post-schumpeter” paradigm //Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. – 2020. – T. 6. – №. 4. – P. 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040172

11. Arici H. E., Uysal M. Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: a systematic review //The Service Industries Journal. – 2021. – P. 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2021.1964482

12. Thurbon E., Kim S. Y., Mathews J. A., & Tan H. More ‘Creative’Than ‘Destructive’? Synthesizing Schumpeterian and Developmental State Perspectives to Explain Mixed Results in Korea’s Clean Energy Shift //The Journal of Environment & Development. – 2021. – Vol. 30. – № 3. – P. 265–290. https://doi. org/10.1177/10704965211013491

13. Palmås K. Re‐assessing Schumpeterian assumptions regarding entrepreneurship and the social//Social Enterprise Journal. – 2012. – Vol. 8(2), P. 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211252855

14. Waelde H. Demasking the impact of microfinance. 2011. [Elektronnyy resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://download.uni-mainz.de/RePEc/pdf/Discussion_Paper_1115.pdf (data obrascheniya: 28.05.2021).

15. Khan W., Shaorong S., Ullah I. Doing business with the poor: the rules and impact of the microfinance institutions //Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja. – 2017. – Vol. 30. – №. 1. – P. 951-963. https://doi. org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1314790

16. Davies G. R. Appraising weak and strong sustainability: Searching for a middle ground //Consilience. – 2013. – №. 10. – P. 111-124.

17. Ekins P., Simon S., Deutsch L. M., Folke C., De Groot R. A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability //Ecological economics. – 2003. – Vol. 44. – №. 2-3. – P. 165-185. https://doi.org/10.

18. Bondarenko O. Yu., Veselov D. A. Optimal'noe nakoplenie kapitala v resursnoy ekonomike //Nauchnye doklady laboratorii makroekonomicheskogo analiza GU VShE. – M: Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki. – 2009. – S. 4-12.

19. Hotelling H. The economics of exhaustible resources //Journal of political Economy. – 1931. – Vol. 39. – №. 2. – P. 137-175.

20. Jacobs M. Sustainability and markets: On the neoclassical model of environmental economics //New Political Economy. – 1997. – Vol. 2. – №. 3. – P. 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563469708406313

21. Magalhães N. The green investment paradigm: Another headlong rush //Ecological Economics. – 2021. – Vol. 190. – P. 107209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107209

22. Brahmana R. K., Kontesa M. Does clean technology weaken the environmental impact on the financial performance? Insight from global oil and gas companies //Business Strategy and the Environment. – 2021. – Vol. 30. – №7. – P. 2845-3423 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2810

23. Dziwok E., Jäger J. A Classification of Different Approaches to Green Finance and Green Monetary Policy //Sustainability. – 2021. – Vol. 13. – №. 21. – P. 11902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111902

24. Falcone P. M. Environmental regulation and green investments: The role of green finance // International Journal of Green Economics. – 2020. – Vol. 14. – №. 2. – P. 159-173. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJGE.2020.109735

25. Ghazinoory S., Narimani M., Tatina S. Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: convergence of policy implications Evolutionary Economics. – 2017. – Vol. 27. – №. 3. – P. 555-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z

26. Daly H. E. From Adjustment to Sustainable Development: The Obstacle of Free Trade //Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. – 1992. – Vol. 15. – №. 1. – P. 33-44.

27. Platje J. An analysis of trends and requirements for the development of sustainable agriculture in Poland //Ecological Agriculture and Rural Development in Central and Eastern Europe–NATO Science Series V: Science and Technology Policy. – 2004. – Vol. 44. – P. 15-37.

28. Griffiths A., Zammuto R. F. Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: An integrative framework //Academy of Management Review. – 2005. – Vol. 30. – №. 4. – P. 823842.

29. Platje J. “Institutional capital” as a factor of sustainable development‐the importance of an institutional equilibrium//Technological and Economic Development of Economy. – 2008. – Vol. 14. – №. 2. – P. 144-150.

30. Jennings P. D., Zandbergen P. A. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach //Academy of management review. – 1995. – Vol. 20. – №. 4. – P. 1015-1052. https://doi.org/10.2307/258964

31. Alexander E. Institutional design for sustainable development //Town Planning Review. – 2006. – Vol. 77. – №. 1. – P. 1-28.

32. Breuer A., Leininger J., Tosun J. Integrated policymaking: Choosing an institutional design for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). – Discussion Paper, 2019. – №. 14/2019. https:// doi.org/10.23661/dp14.2019

33. Aldieri, L., Barra, C., Ruggiero, N., & Vinci, C. P. Green Energies, Employment, and Institutional Quality: Some Evidence for the OECD //Sustainability. – 2021. – Vol. 13. – №. 6. – P. 3252. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13063252

34. Forcadell F. J., Aracil E. Can multinational companies foster institutional change and sustainable development in emerging countries? A case study //Business Strategy & Development. – 2019. – Vol. 2. – №. 2. – P. 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.45

35. Brandtner C., Suárez D. The structure of city action: Institutional embeddedness and sustainability practices in US cities //The American Review of Public Administration. – 2021. – Vol. 51. – №. 2. – P. 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020930362

36. Ye, Q., Zhou, R., Anwar, M. A., Siddiquei, A. N., & Asmi, F. Entrepreneurs and environmental sustainability in the digital era: Regional and institutional perspectives //International journal of environmental research and public health. – 2020. – Vol. 17. – №. 4. – P. 1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041355

37. Kivimaa P., Laakso, S., Lonkila, A., & Kaljonen, M. Moving beyond disruptive innovation: A review of disruption in sustainability transitions //Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. – 2021. – Vol.

38. – P. 110-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.001