The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 6/2023. Issues of Economic theory.

Petr A. Orekhovsky

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-2816-1298



Размер файла109-133  Размер файла  364.37 KB Размер файла Full text


Structuralism is a relatively young area of economic research, but it already has its own history in Russia. The first debates over the rates and proportions of the Soviet economy began back in the 1920s. The discussions between “geneticists” and “teleologists” were quite open then. Geneticists defended the traditionalist approach, relying on the exhaustion of the restoration impulse and the need to return the country to “normal”, average world growth rates and the accumulation rate of 16-18%. Teleologists relied on the “law of socialist accumulation” and the “theory of two regulators”. They were confident in the possibilities of accelerated development; even the “starting version” of the 1st Five-Year Plan provided for achieving an accumulation rate of more than 20%. And in the end, despite the monstrous mistakes the Bolshevik leadership made during collectivization, the teleologists turned out to be right. The 2nd Five-Year Plan was more successful — the planned savings rate was reduced, the production of consumer goods was increased, and it was possible to switch from cards to planned trade turnover. The idea of accelerated development and the discovery of the law of socialist accumulation belonged to E. Preobrazhensky, but its implementation, including through planned calculations, was carried out by S. Strumilin, and starting from the 3rd Five-Year Plan — by N. Voznesensky.

The end of the post-war period and the death of I. Stalin marked the end of “adaptive modernization”. The 8th Five-Year Plan, which aimed for faster growth of Group B industries over Group A, failed to be fulfilled. By the end of the 1970s the Soviet economy fell into inevitable stagnation. Economists of that time gave alarmist forecasts about the decline in growth rates, and proposed measures to overcome the crisis, but all of those were palliative in nature. The structuralist theory of multi-level economy by Yu. Yaremenko appeared at the same time. This theory contained a number of provisions that could be called heretical, contradicting both Marxism and the neoclassical mainstream. Despite its fruitfulness, it was ignored by both planners and Soviet leaders.

Keywords: structuralism, NEP, geneticists, damping curve, teleologists, structural crisis, multilevel economy.

JEL: B14, B15, B31, B59, N14




  1. Bethell T. Property and Prosperity. M.: IRISEN, 2008. (In Russ.).
  2. Van der Wee G. History of the World Economy. 1945–1990. M.: Nauka, 1994. (In Russ.).
  3. Voznesensky N.A. Academician N.A. Voznesensky. Essays. 1931–1947. M.: Nauka, 2018. (In Russ.).
  4. Voznesensky N.A. Marxism and Counter-Revolutionary Idealism of Rubin. About I. Rubin’s Article in the Fifth Book of the “Marx and Engels Archive” // Voznesensky N.A. Academician N.A. Voznesensky. Essays. 1931–1947. M.: Nauka, 2018. Pp. 21–30. (In Russ.).
  5. Galushka A., Niyazmetov A., Okulov M. Crystal of Growth Towards the Russian Economic Miracle. M.: Nashe zavtra, 2021. (In Russ.).
  6. Glazyev S.Yu. Theory of Long-Term Technical and Economic Development. M.: VlaDar, 1993. (In Russ.).
  7. Groman V.G. On Some Patterns Empirically Detected in Our National Economy // Planning Economy. 1925. No. 1. Pp. 88–101. (In Russ.).
  8. Groman V.G. On Some Patterns Empirically Detected in Our National Economy // Planning economy. 1925. No. 2. Pp. 125–141. (In Russ.).
  9. Kornai J. Deficit. M.: Nauka, 1990. (In Russ.).
  10. Kotkin S. Armageddon averted. The Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1970 – 2000. M.: New Literary Review, 2018. (In Russ.).
  11. Kritsman L. The Heroic Period of the Great Russian Revolution (Experience in Analyzing the So-Called “Military Communism”). M.–L.: State publishing house, 1925. (In Russ.).
  12. Orekhovsky P.A. Left Utopia in the 21st Century // Social sciences and modernity. 2020. No. 2. Pp. 162–175. DOI: 10.31857/S086904990009214-7. (In Russ.).
  13. Preobrazhensky E.A. New Economics (Theory and Practice): 1922–1928 M.: Publishing House of the Main Archive of Moscow, 2008. (In Russ.).
  14. Sapov G. Three interviews with E.B. Ershov (February–March 1999). (date of access: 04.11.2023). (In Russ.).
  15. Sokolov A.S. Between Cards and Trade Turnover: The Second Soviet Five-Year Plan // Issues of theoretical economics. 2021. No. 2. Рp. 102–110. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2021_2_102_110. (In Russ.).
  16. Strumilin S.G. Problems of Planning in the USSR. L.: Academy of Sciences USSR, 1932. (In Russ.).
  17. Khlevnyuk O. Corporation of Impostors. Shadow Economy and Corruption in the Stalinist USSR. M.: New Literary Review, 2023. (In Russ.).
  18. Shiller R. Irrational Optimism: How Reckless Behavior Drives Markets. M.: Alpina Publisher, 2013. (In Russ.).
  19. Erlich A. Discussions about Industrialization in the USSR. 1924–1928. M.: Delo, 2010. (In Russ.).
  20. Yaremenko Yu.V. Theory and Methodology for Researching Multi-Level Economics. M., Nauka, 1997. (In Russ.).
  21. Yaremenko Yu.V. Economic Conversations. Recorded by S.A. Belanovsky. M.: Center for Research and Statistics of Science, 1999. (In Russ.).
  22. Lewis W.A. The Theory of Economic Growth. N.Y.: Routledge, 1959.

Manuscript submission date: 01.11.2023

For citation:

Orekhovsky P.A. Soviet Structuralism: E. Preobrazhensky, S. Strumilin, N. Voznesensky, Yu. Yaremenko // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2023. № 6. Pp. 109-133. (In Russ.). EDN: LFGKKN

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 2/2023. Issues of Economic theory.

Oleg Yu. Boldyrev

Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor at the Department of Political Economy of the Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University;

Assistant at the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law of the Faculty of Law of Lomonosov Moscow State University;

Leading Researcher at the Institute for Economic Policy and Economic Security Problems of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia


Размер файла73-85 Размер файла  351.02 KB  Open .pdf


The article presents a brief summary of the development of political economy. The fundamental differences between the methodology of political economy and the methodology of economics are briefly described. It is shown that modern political economy is not reduced to either Marxism or the "new political economy" of J. Buchanan. The relevance of research within the framework of institutional political economy, which is capable of developing the achievements of classical political economy, traditional institutionalism and institutional evolutionary theory, is substantiated. It is proposed to develop constitutional political economy within the framework of this particular area of political and economic research.

Keywords: constitutional political economy, constitutional economics, political economy, institutional political economy, traditional institutionalism, methodology of economic science.

JEL: А12, А13, В1, В2, В4, В52, К00.




  1. Alle M. Economics as a science. M., 1995. (In Russ).
  2. Arrighi J. Adam Smith in Beijing. What did the 21st century inherit. M.: Institute of public design. 2009. (In Russ).
  3. Barenboim P.D. Russian school of constitutional economics (constitutional political economics, constitutional legal economics). Phantoms, myths and terms of constitutional economic theory // Yearbook of Constitutional Economics. 2018 / Managing editors S.A. Avakyan, P.D. Barenboim, V.V. Komarov. Compiled by P.D. Barenboim. M.: LUM. 2018. Рр. 7–18. (In Russ).
  4. Boldyrev O.Yu. The Political Economic Analysis of Law and Constitutional Political Economy as an Alternative to “Economic Imperialism” // Issues of Political Economy. 2023. No. 1. Рр. 94–108. (In Russ).
  5. Boldyrev O.Yu. Constitutional reform-2020 and the economic development of Russia // Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2020. No. 5. Pр. 94–107. (In Russ).
  6. Boldyrev O.Yu. Economic sovereignty of the state and the constitutional and legal mechanisms of its protection: monograph / scientific. ed. A. Avakyan. Moscow: Prospect. 2018. (In Russ).
  7. Boyer R., Brousseau E., Kaye A., Favreau O. Toward the establishment of institutional political economy // Economic sociology. 2008. T. 9. No. 3. Рр. 17–25. (In Russ).
  8. Buzgalin A.V., Kolganov A.I., Moskovsky A.I. Marxism and institutionalism: a comparative study // Moscow University Bulletin. Series 6: Economics, 2012. No. 5. Рp. 3–18. (In Russ).
  9. Weiskopf T.E. Reflections on the fifty-year history of radical political economy // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Economy. 2015. Ser. 5. Issue. 1. Р. 69–84. (In Russ).
  10. Walras L. Elements of pure political economy. M.: Izograph. 2000. (In Russ).
  11. Voeikov M.I. Political economy in the Russian tradition: from Pososhkov to Abalkin / IV Russian Economic Congress “REK-2020”. Volume I. Thematic Conference “Political Economy” (collection of materials) / Compiled by D. A. Veselov, G. D. Gloveli, A. M. Libman. M. 2020. Р. 27–29. (In Russ).
  12. Gloveli G.D. Geopolitical Economy in Russia from Discussions of Identity to Global Models (19th century – first third of the 20th century). SPb.: Aletheia. 2009. (In Russ).
  13. Desai R. Geopolitical Economy: After American Hegemony, Globalization and Empire: Monograph / Radika Desai; scientific ed. Russian edition of S.D. Bodrunov. M.: INIR im. S.Yu. Witte: Center catalogue, 2020. (In Russ).
  14. Dzarasov S.S. Where is Keynes calling Russia? M.: Algorithm. 2012. (In Russ).
  15. Efimov V.M. Economics in question: different methodology, history and research practices. Monograph. M.: COURSE: INFRA-M. 2016. (In Russ).
  16. Zhid Sh. The emergence and development of social economy in the XIX century. / Problems of the economy: From the history of social economy to the question of small-scale agriculture. Lectures by professors of the Russian Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris. Ed. Stereotype. M.: LENAND. 2022. (In Russ).
  17. Kirdina-Chandler S.G. Radical institutionalism and fake economy in the 21st century // Journal of Institutional Studies, 2017. Vol. 9. No. 4. Pр. 6–16. (In Russ).
  18. Maevsky V.I. On the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm in economics / Essays on economic synergetics / Ed. IN AND. Mayevsky, S.G. KirdinaChandler, M.A. Deryabina. M.: IE RAN, 2017. Рp. 9–17. (In Russ).
  19. Mairowski F. Physics and “marginalist revolution” // TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2012. Vol. 10. No. 1. Pр. 100–116. (In Russ).
  20. Mill J.S. Fundamentals of political economy and some aspects of their application to social philosophy. M.: Progress Publishing House. 1980. Vol. 1. (In Russ).
  21. Moskovsky A.I. Institutionalism: theory, decision-making basis, method of criticism // Questions of Economics. 2009. No. 3. Рp. 110–124. (In Russ).
  22. Myrdal G. Modern problems of the “third world”. M.: Progress Publishing House. 1972. (In Russ).
  23. Nureev R.M. Political Economy: Old and New // Journal of Institutional Studies. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 3. Pр. 4–10. (In Russ).
  24. Oleinikov A.A. Political economy of the national economy. / Rev. ed. O.A. Platonov. M.: Institute of Russian 2010. (In Russ).
  25. Ryazanov V.T. Russian school of economic thought: universal-general and nationalspecial // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. 2010. Ser. 5. № 4. Р. 66–84. (In Russ).
  26. Sismondi S. New principles of political economy or wealth in relation to population. M.: State socio-economic publishing house. 1937. (In Russ).
  27. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations [per. from English. P. Klyukina]. M.: Eksmo. 2016. (In Russ).
  28. Sorokin D.E. Russian political and economic thought: main features and traditions // Questions of Economics, 2001. No. 2. Pр. 18–27. (In Russ).
  29. Whitehead A. Selected Works in Philosophy. M., 1990. (In Russ).
  30. Fedotova V.G., Kolpakov V.A. The evolution of economic theory: from A. Smith to neo-Smithism // World of Changes. 2010. № 4. Рp. 9– 25. (In Russ).
  31. Khudokormov A.G. Amartya Sen is a representative of the left-wing reformist direction of modern institutional theory (on the work of an Indian economist – Nobel Prize winner in economics) // Russian Economic Journal. 2008. No. 5–6. Рp. 45–69. (In Russ).
  32. Chernavsky D.S. On the mathematical apparatus of evolutionary economics / Evolution of economic theory: reproduction, technology, institutions. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Evolutionary Economics and Methodological Seminar on Institutional and Evolutionary Economics. SPb.: Aleteyya, 2015. Рр. 294–300. (In Russ).
  33. Schumpeter J. Ten great economists from Marx to Keynes [Text] / transl. from English. N. V. Avtonomova, I. M. Osadchey, N. A. Rozinskaya; under scientific ed. V.S. Avtonomov. M.: Ed. Gaidar Institute. 2011. (In Russ).
  34. Ha-Joon Chang Breaking the Mould: An Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and the State // Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2002, February. Pp. 539–559.
  35. Luttwak E. From Geopolitics to Geo economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce. The National Interest. 1990.№20. Рp. 17–24.

Manuscript submission date: 01.03.2023

For citation:

Boldyrev O.Yu.  On the issue of constitutional political economy in the framework of «Institutional political economy» // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2023. № 2. Pp. 73-85. (In Russ.). EDN: QCYHNA

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 1/2023. Issues of Economic theory.

Maltsev Andrey A.

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russia

Chichilimov Sergey V.

graduate student, Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, Russia


Размер файла 21-39 Размер файла  328.55 KB  Open .pdf


The 20th century was marked by the emergence and formation of new economic centers of power in the world economy. This is where a combination of factors came into play. Firstly, with the acceleration of economic development and the massification of industry and consumption in the 1920s, the need to find new markets increased. Secondly, fundamental technical, economic and social shifts in society brought to life the first (1870–1913) and second (1950–2010) waves of globalization. Thirdly, the process of decolonization of the world economy, which ended by 1975, formed the demand for a self-sufficient and independent economic policy of the Third World countries. As a result, the Great Modern Stage (GMS, 1920s–2020s) took shape, its main distinguishing feature, according to the authors, being coexistence of free trade and protectionism, which had previously successively replaced each other in the world economic practice.

Keywords: globalization, international trade, world economy, protectionism, free trade, hidden protectionism, economic thought.

JEL: F02, F41, F55.





  1. Alabuzhin I. Europe is in dire need of energy, but it cannot openly admit it // Expert. 2021. No. 44. Pp. 50–53. (In Russ.).
  2. Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society. Experience of social forecasting. M: Academia, 2004. (In Russ.).
  3. The White House called the terrifying fact that the number of victims of covid in the United States approached 700 thousand // RBC. 2021, October 2. (In Russ.).
  4. Brunet A., Guichard J. The Geopolitics of Mercantilism: A New Perspective on the World Economy and International Relations. M.: New Chronograph, 2012. (In Russ.).
  5. Veselov V.A. Transformation of the parameters of strategic stability: the role of the technological factor // Bulletin of the Moscow University. 2015. No. 3. Pp. 23–56. (In Russ.).
  6. Gurova T., Mamedyarov Z. The West “ate” the resources of the Eastern bloc, but the energy crisis did not resolve // Expert 2022. No. 11. Pp. 70–75. (In Russ.).
  7. Derlugyan G. M. The Soviet Revolution of 1905–1945: theses for the first century // Emergency reserve. 2017. No. 5. Pp. 80–96. (In Russ.).
  8. Dynkin A.A. International turbulence and Russia // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2020. Vol. 90. No. 3. Pp. 208–219. (In Russ.).
  9. Kolodko G.V. Deficitflation 3.0: Wartime Economy—State Socialism—Crisis Against the Background of the Pandemic // Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2021. No. 10. Pp. 5–26. (In Russ.).
  10. Konstantinov A. Second quantum revolution // Expert. 2021. No. 47. Pp. 70–74. (In Russ.).
  11. Kudiyarov S. Closed the composite chain // Expert. 2021. No. 49. Pp. 22–24. (In Russ.).
  12. Leybin V. Artificial intelligence: what can and what can not // Expert. 2021. No. 49. Pp. 42–47. (In Russ.).
  13. Leybin V., Sysoev T. Without a consumer society, the scientific and technical backwardness of the USSR was inevitable // Expert. 2021. No. 48. Pp. 84–89. (In Russ.).
  14. Maltsev A.A. Sources and consequences of the “technological stagnation” of the global economy // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Ser. 5. 2014. Issue. 3. Pp. 67–85. (In Russ.).
  15. Mises L. Liberalism in the classical tradition. Moscow: Nachala-Press, 1994. (In Russ.).
  16. Minaev S. Crash, Britain. Kommersant, 2017. (In Russ.).
  17. Pushkov A. “Afghan syndrome” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2021. September 21. No. 216. (In Russ.).
  18. Rifkin J. The third industrial revolution: How horizontal interactions are changing energy, the economy and the world as a whole. M.: Alpina non-fiction, 2014. (In Russ.).
  19. Smirnov A. Biden: a year of vanished illusions // Expert. 2021. No. 45. Pp. 58–61. (In Russ.)
  20. Stepanov A.S. American experts on the confrontation between the USA and China // USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture. 2021. No. 9. Pp. 89–105. (In Russ.).
  21. Topchy I. The American fleet is weakening. China gets a historical chance // Expert. 2021. No. 47. Pp. 76–80. (In Russ.).
  22. Torkanovskiy E.P. Avtarkia 2.0: the global environmental agenda, the COVID-19 pandemic and the new normal // Economic relations. 2020. No. 3. Pp. 663–682. (In Russ.).
  23. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. M.: Eksmo, 2016. (In Russ.).
  24. Acemoglu D. Understanding the New Nationalism. Project Syndicate.
  25. Balassa В. The New Protectionism and the International Economy // Journal of World Trade Law. 1978. No. 5. Pp. 408–436.
  26. Balassa В. The Theory of Economic Integration. Homewood: R.D. Irwin, 1961.
  27. Collected Works of Michal Kalecki: Volume I edited by Osiatynnsky J. New-York: Oxford University press, 1990.
  28. Douglas P., Director A. The Problem of Unemployment. New York: Macmillan Company, 1931. P. 498.
  29. Fukuyama F. The End of History? // The National Interest. 1989. № 3. Рp. 3–18.
  30. Fukuyama F. The future of American power // The Economist. 2021. 18 August.
  31. Galbraith J. K. The End of Normal: The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth. New York: Free Press, 2014.
  32. Irwin D. A. Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
  33. Keynes J. M. National Self-Sufficiency // The Yale Review. 1933. No. 4. Рp. 755–769.
  34. Keynes J. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1936.
  35. Krugman. P. Increasing returns, monopolistic competition // Journal of Economic Theory. 1979. No. 9. Pp. 369–479.
  36. Krugman P. In Praise of Cheap Labor. 1997.
  37. Linder S. Аn Essay on Trade and Transformation. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells boktrycker, 1961.
  38. List F. American Political Economy. Philadelphia: Printed by Samuel Parker, 1827.
  39. Maddison A. The World Economy. Development Centre Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2006.
  40. Melitz М., Ottaviano G. Market Size, Trade, and Productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 2008. Рp. 295–312.
  41. Perry M. Animated chart of the day: World’s top ten manufacturing nations, 1970 to 2017 // American Enterprise Institutе. 
  42. Pilisuk M., Rountry J. Who benefits from global violence and war: uncovering a destructive system. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.
  43. Reinert E. How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. London: Constable & Robinson, 2008.
  44. Reinert E., Reinert S. Mercantilism and Economic Development: Schumpeterian Dynamics, Institution Building, and International Benchmarking. Oikos, 2011. Vol. 10. No. 1. Pp. 8–37.
  45. Samuelson P. International Trade and the Equalisation of Factor Prices // The Economic Journal. 1949. No. 7. Рp. 163–184.
  46. Stolper W., Samuelson P. Protection and Real Wages // The Review of Economic Studies. 1941. No. 9. Рp. 58–73.
  47. The Global Risks Report 2021. WEF.
  48. The project for the new American century. About PNAC.
  49. The World Bank Data.
  50. Vernon R. Trade Policy in Crisis. Essays // International Finance. 1958. No. 28.
  51. Widdig B. Culture and inflation in Weimar Germany. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
  52. Williamson J. Outline of speech at the Center for Strategic & International Studies Washington, DC. Did the Washington Consensus Fail?
  53. World Trade Report 2013. WTO.

Manuscript submission date: 07.11.2022

For citation:

Maltsev A.A., Chichilimov S.V. To the question of the evolution of the opposition of free trade and protectionism in the 20th and 21th century // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2023. № 1. Pp. 21-39. DOI: EDN: CXEVFE

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 1/2023. Issues of Economic theory.

Vinokurov Stepan S.

Cand. Sci. (Econ.), associate professor, Department of general economics and history of economic thought, Saint Petersburg State University of Economics (UNECON), Saint Petersburg, Russia


Размер файла 40-57 Размер файла  403.04 KB  Open .pdf


The author explores the possibility of generalizing the main results of behavioral economics (importance of the status-quo and notions of justice for decision-making, endowment effect, transactional utility, mental accounting, dynamic inconsistency and the lack of self-control, social preferences) based on the assumption of costly choices and the ability to refuse choice and maintain the status-quo, using the formalization of the rational inattention concept. The author shows that costly choices may explain why behavioral biases remain within economic logic, even in the case of a utility-maximizing individual. Some remarks on economic policy are made as a result.

Keywords: bounded rationality, behavioral economics, nudging, rational inattention.

JEL: D01, D11, D83, D9.




  1. Danilov V.I. Beyond Classical Rationality: Two-Stage Rationalization // Journal of the New Economic Association. 2015. No. 2. Pp. 12–35. (In Russ.).
  2. Shastitko A. Behavioral Antitrust // Economic Policy. 2014. No. 6. Pp. 76-91. (In Russ.).
  3. Bhargava S., Loewenstein G. Behavioral economics and public policy 102 // Beyond nudging. American Economic Review. 2015. Vol. 105. No. 5. Pp. 396–401. DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20151049.
  4. Bordalo P., Gennaioli N., Shleifer A. Salience theory of choice under risk // The Quarterly journal of economics. 2012. Vol. 127. No. 3. Pp. 1243–1285. DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjs018.
  5. Bordalo P., Gennaioli N., Shleifer A. Salience in experimental tests of the endowment effect // American Economic Review. 2012. Vol. 102. No. 3. Pp. 47–52. DOI: 10.1257/aer.102.3.47.
  6. Camerer C., Issacharoff S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism” // University of Pennsylvania law review. 2003. Vol. 151. No. 3. Pp. 1211–1254. DOI: 10.2307/3312889.
  7. Farhi E., Gabaix X. Optimal taxation with behavioral agents // American Economic Review. 2020. Vol. 110. No. 1. Pp. 298–336. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20151079.
  8. Fehr E., Rangel A. Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice – Recent Advances // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2011. Vol. 25. No. 4. Pp. 3–30. DOI: 10.1257/jep.25.4.3.
  9. Gerasimou G. Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice // Theory and Decision. 2016. Vol. 80. No. 2. Pp. 295–312. DOI: 10.1007/s11238-015-9499-7.
  10. Gigerenzer G. On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism // Review of philosophy and psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp. 361–383. DOI 10.1007/s13164-015-0248-1.
  11. Hausman D. M., Welch B. Debate: To nudge or not to nudge // Journal of Political Philosophy. 2010. Vol. 18. No. 1. Pp. 123–136. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x.
  12. Hébert B., Woodford M. Rational inattention and sequential information sampling. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2017. No. w23787. DOI: 10.3386/w23787.
  13. Maćkowiak B., Matějka F., Wiederholt M. Dynamic rational inattention: Analytical results // Journal of Economic Theory. 2018. Vol. 176. Pp. 650–692. DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2018.05.001.
  14. Matějka F., McKay A. Rational inattention to discrete choices: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model // American Economic Review. 2015. Vol. 105. No. 1. Pp. 272–298. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20130047.
  1. Mitchell G. Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron // Northwestern University Law Review. 2004. Vol. 99. No. 3. Pp. 1245–1259.
  2. Sims C. Implications of rational inattention // Journal of monetary Economics. 2003. Vol. 50. No. 3. Pp. 665-690. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00029-1.
  3. Sims C. Rational inattention: Beyond the linear-quadratic case // American Economic Review. 2006. Vol. 96. No. 2. Pp. 158–163. DOI: 10.1257/000282806777212431.
  4. Steiner J., Stewart C., Matějka F. Rational Inattention Dynamics: Inertia and Delay in Decision-Making // Econometrica. 2017. Vol. 85. No. 2. Pp. 521–553. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA13636.
  5. Thaler R. Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. WW Norton & Company, 2015.
  6. Thaler R., Sunstein C. Libertarian paternalism // American economic review. 2003. Vol. 93. No. 2. Pp. 175-179. DOI: 10.1257/000282803321947001.
  7. Thaler R., Sunstein C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008.
  8. Woodford M. Stochastic choice: An optimizing neuroeconomic model // American Economic Review. 2014. Vol. 104. No. 5. Pp. 495 –500. DOI: 10.1257/aer.104.5.495.

Manuscript submission date: 05.12.2022

For citation:

Vinokurov S.S. Behavioral «anomalies» and the cost of decision-making // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2023. №. 1 Pp. 40-57. DOI: EDN: GMIPQL

  Creative Commons 4.0

© Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk, 2021 - 2024

32, Nakhimovskiy Prospekt, Moscow, Russia 117218, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Phone.: +7 (499) 724-13-91, E-mail: