On misuse of the term “institutionalist” in the analysis of Russian academic economics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: the case of Michail Tugan-Baranovsky (1865-1919)
Anna Klimina () (University of Saskatchewan, St. Thomas More College)
Abstract
The paper questions the appropriateness of using an “institutionalist” label regarding the analysis of Michail Tugan-Baranovsky’s (1865-1919) theoretical legacy. It is argued that Tugan-Baranovsky’s views cannot be considered either the Russian type of Institutionalism or the national version of the German Historical School (Barnett, 2004) due to their ideological eclecticism and serious methodological distinctions from the heterodox schools of thought mentioned above. In particular, the paper discusses Tugan’s views on the course of societal dynamics which, in the author’s opinion, represent an example of teleological evolutionarism and lie outside the framework of institutionalist paradigm, and Tugan’s approach to the value theory as it was summarized in his last (1919) methodological article, and is ideologically shared with neoclassical economics. It is concluded that Tugan-Baranovsky should be branded not as an institutionalist or historical economist but as an eclectic one.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Economics Bulletin in its journal Economics Bulletin.
Find related papers by JEL classification: B1 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 B3 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Thought: Individuals