Search results

Contents -- List of Figures -- Chapter 1: After the Turn: How the Performativity of Economics Matters -- 1.1 Explaining the Turn -- 1.2 Some Prehistory and Basic Ideas -- 1.3 What Does This Volume Do: An Overview of Individual Contributions -- 1.4 What Next? Debating Performativity and Looking Ahead -- References -- Chapter 2: Performativity Rationalized -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Austin on Performativity -- 2.3 Coordination and Convention -- 2.4 Economic Models as Coordination Devices: The Case of Option Pricing -- Box 2.1 -- 2.5 Performativity, Arbitrariness, and Failure

Abstract
This article tells the story of the first international topological conference in Moscow (1935), an outstanding event that, for the first time, brought together the most notable American, European, and Soviet mathematicians, including those who would later play decisive roles in the mathematization of economics: John von Neumann, Leonid Kantorovich, and Albert W. Tucker. The fact that Kantorovich was in contact with von Neumann and his closest colleagues, Solomon Lefschetz and Garrett Birkhoff, is hardly appreciated in the histories of mathematics and mathematical economics. Their brief academic exchange was interrupted by the increasing international isolation of Soviet mathematics and by the wars that ensued. The article provides a historical account of the conference and traces the intellectual and personal affinities of Soviet and non-Soviet mathematicians, as well as their conceptual innovations. It argues that the conference, as a singular event linking several research communities, mattered for the development of various formal frameworks and their dissemination, contributing to the intellectual landscape in which postwar mathematical economics could emerge. The article calls for a deeper analysis of conceptual affinities and motivations in applying mathematics to economics and for a more nuanced narrative linking these motivations to social and political contexts of economic modeling.

It is noted that legal and cognitive sciences underestimate the importance of the factor of individual analysis of materials by the judge-rapporteur and the degree of its influence on the adoption of the final procedural decision in the collegial consideration of the case. At the same time, the thesis has not been formulated in relation to the field of law, according to which the sole consideration of cases by the courts is within the scope of most of the laws of collective cognition of reality. The activity of the law enforcer related to decision-making is based not only on the analysis of the law and the circumstances of the incident, but also on their interpretations by the persons involved in the case. This means that the cognition of reality by the court is not only collective, but also multi-stage, multilevel, mediated. The connection of the outcome of the case with the subjective assessment of the events by its participants and the proposed versions of what happened, on the one hand, and the emergence of a new scientific paradigm in cognitive neuroscience and epistemology, in which knowledge of the world is considered as the fruit of collective activity, raises the question of the need to clarify the scientific and practical understanding of the legal principle of the immediacy of judicial proceedings, including in order to clarify the status of the judge-speaker, other speakers of cases within the framework of existing procedures.

In diesem Buch wird Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes als ein literarischer Text gedeutet, der seine Überzeugungskraft aus der Lektüre anderer Texte schöpft. Untersucht werden die politischen und ästhetischen Konsequenzen dieser Interpretation. Das dialektische Philosophieren ist ein Bedürfnis, die vergangenen Gedankensysteme - die Texte - in ihrer eigenen Logik als mangelhafte aufzuweisen und zu überwinden, um dadurch die letzte spekulative Synthese zu etablieren. Aber dieselbe Operation macht - so die Hauptthese des Buches - das Spekulative selbst verwundbar, das damit in seiner unselbständigen Verfassung und in seinem Scheitern aufgewiesen wird. Die im Buch dargestellten Gesten des Anleihens und der Affinität sind nicht nur für Hegels Stil prägend. Sie können auch das Dialektische selber neu bestimmen - als eine verschwindende, fast unmögliche Stimme, eine Bemühung, aus der Verschränkung unvereinbarer, konfligierender Diskurse einen Sinn zu gewinnen.

In the postwar USSR, there were a few scattered research groups engaged in research most closely resembling "Western" mainstream economics. Inspired by the new sciences of the artificial, these groups were able to make important contributions to various fields of economic theory. This article focuses on the story of one group created by the control engineer Mark Aizerman at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow. It discusses the origins and the outstanding diversity and dynamics of the group's research agenda, reconstructs the factors that made Aizerman turn from the cybernetics of mechanical or biological systems to the abstract theory of choice and rationality, and demonstrates how the group was related to—and communicated with—the scholars doing work in social choice, mechanism design, and formal political theory. It also speculates on one missed research opportunity of doing experimental economics—something that, given the ideological and intellectual constraints Aizerman was facing, was hardly possible in the Soviet context, but could have been a synthesis of economics and engineering. The article also discusses a research culture Aizerman created and nurtured in his lab by encouraging research collaboration, sharing ideas, and freely moving across various disciplines.

The latest phase of globalization and global crisis processes actualize and exacerbate the problem of economic sovereignty of national States. Mechanisms for its provision and protection are enshrined in country legislative systems and their constitutional components. Based on this, the author of the article, first of all, characterizes the constitutional and legal mechanisms that are rarely covered in the domestic literature, tested in the foreign experience that is instructive for Russia. Moreover, it is proposed to draw lessons from the negative elements of this experience: constitutional acts are sometimes late and either do not sufficiently protect certain elements of economic sovereignty (for example, in the scientific, industrial, technological and information spheres), or protect them only from «classic» threats, without reflecting new challenges (this applies, in particular, to ensuring resource-energy and financial sovereignty). Secondly, it proposes to make the analysis of economic sovereignty issues (as well as related issues of economic security) interdisciplinary and advocates the development of scientific areas that integrate economic and legal knowledge.