Проводимо набір статей до публікації у науковому фаховому журналі
"Зовнішня торгівля: економіка, фінанси, право" з економічних та юридичних наук 


UDC 330.101   DOI: https://doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2019(103)06

E-mail: Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.
ORCID: 0000-0001-8632-5460
  Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor,
Associate Professorof the Department of Economic Theory and Competition Policy
of the Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
19, Kyoto str., Kyiv, 02156, Ukraine


Background. The study of the process of evolution of the subject of economic theory is primarily due to the need to identify the subject of the contemporary economic theory, which requires correction in connection with the rising problems of the modern economy and the need for their adequate assessment and analysis.
The aim of the article is to study the evolution of the subject of economic theory and its coverage in contemporary economic studies of domestic and foreign scientists.
Materials and methods. The research is based on the works of domestic and foreign scientists on theoretical analysis of changes in the modern economy and its reflection in the scientific economic literature. The methods of analysis and synthesis, the system approach and historical approach in the study of changes in the economy and the economic theory of modernity have been applied.
Results. The article analyzes the evolution of the subject of the study of economic theory on the basis of the historical method, and outlines three main directions of contemporary economic thought: neoclassicism, Keynesianism, and institutionalism. Subject of the study of the contemporary economic theory has been proposed, which is the process of development of open dynamic economic systems, which are based on network links between economic subjects operating in an adaptive way, combining limited economic resources.
The distinctions of modern knowledge economy from the economy of industrial society are distinguished. The modern researches of domestic and foreign economists on changes in the economy of the XXI century and its reflection in economic science are analyzed and systematized.
The crisis of economic theory and the neoclassical paradigm of economic researches are stated, and the causes of such a crisis are determined.
Conclusion. It is established that the dominant neoclassical paradigm is obsolete and does not correspond to the modern knowledge economy. Today’s economy is a complex adaptive system that is constantly changing, which differs significantly from the model analyzed within the neoclassical paradigm, by the following parameters: the economy is an open dynamic system, that is not in equilibrium; the economy consists of heterogeneous economic subjects who do not make optimal decisions, but are able to learn and adapt over time; economic subjects interact using different networks; macro models arise from the interaction of economic entities in the micro level, which in turn influence the construction of macro model; information and knowledge change the production process, becoming one of its main factors.
Keywords: paradigm of economic science, subject of economics, environmental economics, behavioral economics, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, knowledge economy. 


  1. Bazylevych, V. (2016). Ekonomichna nauka ta osvita v epohu systemnyh transformacij: novi vyklyky i zapyty do fundamental'noi' teorii' [Economic science and education in the era of systemic transformations: new challenges and requests to fundamental theory]. Ekonomika Ukrai'ny – Ukraine economy, 8. 78-93 [in Ukrainian].
  2. Gejec', V. (2015). Polityko-ekonomichni zasady doslidzhennja suchasnogo suspil'stva [Political and economic principles of research of modern society]. Ekonomichna teorija – Economic theory, 3, 5-13 [in Ukrainian].
  3. Grycenko, A. (2015). Politychna ekonomija rozdileno-spil'nogo svitu: istorija i suchasnist' [Political economy of a divided, common world: history and modernity]. Ekonomichna teorija – Economic theory, 3, 14-29 [in Ukrainian].
  4. Zajcev, Ju., & Moskalenko, M. (2018). Politychna ekonomija globalizovanogo suspil'stva [Political economy of a globalized society]. Problemy ekonomiky ta politychnoi' ekonomii' – Problems of economy and political economy, 1, 95-113 [in Ukrainian].
  5. Lagutin, V. (2018). Mozhlyvosti instytucijnogo analizu suspil'noi' stabil'nosti ta rozvytku [Possibilities of institutional analysis of social stability and development]. Visnyk Kyi'vs'kogo torgovel'no-ekonomichnogo universytetu – Herald of the Kyiv University of Trade and Economics, 3 (119), 37-52 [in Ukrainian].
  6. Umanciv, Ju., & Minjajlo, O. (2018). Ekonomichna polityka derzhavy v umovah global'nyh transformacij – Economic policy of the state in the conditions of global transformations. Ekonomika Ukrai'ny – Ukraine economy, 9, 37-49 [in Ukrainian].
  7. Ayres, Robert U., C. J., Jeroen, M. van den Bergh, Lindenberger, Dietmar, & Warr, Benjamin (2013). The underestimated contribution of energy to economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 79-88. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.07.004 [in English].
  8. Fanning, A. L., & O'Neill, D. W. (2019). The Wellbeing-Consumption paradox: Happiness, health, income, and carbon emissions in growing versus non-growing economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 810-821 [in English].
  9. Malmaeus, J. Mikael, & Alfredsson, Eva C. (2017). Potential Consequences on the Economy of Low or No Growth – Short and Long Term Perspectives. Ecological Economics, 134, 57-64 [in English].
  10. Cosme, I., Santos, R., and O'Neill, D. W. Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017, 149, 321-334 [in English].
  11. Weiss, Martin, & Cattaneo, Claudio (2017). Degrowth – Taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm. Ecological Economics, 137, 220-230 [in English].
  12. Foxon, Timothy J. (2013). Responding to the financial crisis: Need for a new economics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 6, 126-128 [in English].
  13. Common, M., & Stagl, S. (2005). Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press [in English].
  14. Jackson, T., & Victor, P. (2012). Towards an Ecological Macroeconomics, INET Annual Plenary Conference: Paradigm Lost: rethinking economics and politics, Berlin, April. Retrieved from https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/victor-peter-berlin-paper-draft-w-Tim-Jackson.pdf [in English].
  15. Heikkinen, T. (2015). (De)growth and welfare in an equilibrium model with hetero­geneous consumers. Ecological Economics, 116, August, 330-340 [in English].
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux [in English].
  17. North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press [in English].
  18. Griethuysen, P. (2012). Bona diagnosis, bona curatio: How property economics clarifies the degrowth debate. Ecological Economics, 84, 262-269 [in English].
  19. Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As times goes by. From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford University Press [in English].
  20. Zajcev, Ju., & Savchuk, V. (2009). Suchasna paradygma metodologii' doslidzhen' postindustrial'nogo suspil'stva [Modern paradigm of the methodology of post-industrial society research]. Vcheni zapysky – Scientific notes, 11, 3-13 [in Ukrainian].
  21. Lebedeva, L. V. (2014). Nova politychna ekonomija – teoretychna koncepcija doslidzhennja postindustrial'nogo suspil'stva. Formuvannja rynkovoi' ekonomiky [New political economy – the theoretical concept of the study of post-industrial society. Formation of a market economy]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac' – Collection of scientific works, 31, 306-314 [in Ukrainian].
  22. Lebedeva, L. V. (2013). Pro metodologiju doslidzhennja postindustrial'noi' ekonomiky [On the Methodology for the Study of Post-Industrial Economics]. Visnyk Kyi'vs'kogo torgovel'no-ekonomichnogo universytetu – Herald of the Kyiv University of Trade and Economics, (88), 28-39 [in Ukrainian].