Economics’ Hard Fate in the Global Economic Crisis

The crisis of mainstream economic theory has persisted for over 50 years, but recent global economic shifts have added new qualitative features, highlighting not only the theory’s lack of practical and predictive value but also the inadequacy of its cognitive tools in addressing new realities. The growing risks and challenges of global economic development, driven by the transition to a new world economic structure, are not reflected in the mainstream’s conceptual framework and potential. The dogmatism inherent in neoclassical economic theory has become self-perpetuating, rejecting even attempts at modernization within the existing paradigm. A prime example of the disconnect between neoclassical theory and real-world economics is the innovation paradox, or the failure of productivity growth theories based on innovation investments. Mainstream economists are unable to explain this phenomenon without resorting to the narrow confines of neoclassical thinking, overlooking key global economic factors. This paper summarizes the ontological discrepancies between neoclassical dogma and real economic processes, including: 1) extra-historical universalism, which disregards the stages of world economic development; 2) the inability to develop a new ontological approach to the issue of power in the economy; and 3) the lack of potential for meaningful generalizations about processes driven by the new industrial revolution. Attempts to modernize the mainstream, such as those made within the CoreEcon project, introduce additional theoretical constructs, giving the new course “Economics” the appearance of dynamism and relevance. However, these efforts largely retain the same dogmatic framework. The paper proposes ontological and methodological paths for identifying a new value core for economic theory, including: 1) rejecting the principle of methodological individualism, which is inadequate for contemporary realities; 2) abandoning the principle of ‘market supremacy’ in its various forms; and 3) rethinking the fundamental principle of economic efficiency.