About some problems of trends’ classification in modern economic theory

The ideas of the impossibility of a universal economic theory are criticized: based on the principle of the unity of the world. If the world is united, then particular theories describing some of its fragments (aspects) should, in principle, be reducible to a general theory. Many critics of universal theories themselves are their bearers, and statements in the style of «the flow of data makes the scientific method obsolete» are nothing more than a methodological regression to naive empiricism, in the spirit of positivism of the late 19th century. It is shown that works classifications are found in many economic with the allocation of classes on multiple grounds, which is logically unacceptable. Economic theory as a scientific discipline should deal with the analysis of the internal structure of economic theories. The problem is: the explication of the list of principles accepted in the construction of the theory is the exception rather than the rule. The thesis is criticized in many cases the methodology determines the choice of axiomatics, and not vice versa. The axiomatic of a theory cannot depend on methods, because tasks define methods, and not vice versa. It is shown that the primary basis of the neoclassical revolution was not the ultimate analysis, but the adoption of the ontological principle of subjectivism. The meaning of the concept of «paradigm» was clarified. If we interpret the concept of a paradigm in the spirit of T. Kuhn, then different paradigms are not just any two theories that differ in some principles (even if the theories are fundamental). Two different paradigms are two belief systems (a priori principles and basic models) regarding the subject area of a scientific discipline that are incompatible with each other. With this understanding, only two paradigms stand out in economic theory: classical and neoclassical. The issue of integrating two economic paradigms is, in the essence, the synthesis of micro- and macroeconomics. It is shown that two principal strategies are possible: (A) considering the equilibrium situation as a general case, and striving to include non-equilibrium macroeconomics in this general description as a special case. (B) Considering the situation of lack of equilibrium as a general case, and including microeconomic equilibrium in the macrotheory as a special case (and also to complete the micro-­foundations for a non-equilibrium macrotheory). The thesis is substantiated that the basis of paradigmatic synthesis in economics should be strategy (B).