|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Micro level of economic coordination processes
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-2-127-144
Abstract
Economic agents (humans) exchange information and thus can consider each other’s activities. This allows them to coordinate their activities. This study identifies three basic forms of coordination, depending on the communication options between agents: 1) the contractual form, which is possible with direct communications between agents; 2) the stigmergy, possible with indirect communications; 3) the common rulesbased action form, possible in the absence of communications. The presentation of the observed processes of economic coordination as various combinations of these three basic forms corresponds to their description at micro level. Such a micro level representation has signs of a fundamental one, since the proposed three basic forms of coordination fully reflect the diversity of a person’s natural abilities to consider the activities of other people. As an illustration, a description of the known methods of economic coordination (market, hierarchical and network) is presented as combinations of basic forms of coordination. Within the framework of this micro level approach, the features of economic activity are analyzed, which determine the structure and main characteristics of the system of economic coordination processes. The analysis showed that, at the micro level, the processes of economic coordination are a complex hybrid of the three basic forms of coordination. This approach creates a unified methodological basis for the analysis of diverse methods of coordination used in the economy. The results obtained allow one to explore directions for improving coordination processes in the economy.
About the Author
S. I. Parinov
Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Alchian A., Demsetz H. (2004). Production, information costs, and economic organi zation. In: Y. I. Kuzminov et al. (eds.). The origins: The economy in the context of history and culture, Iss. 5. Moscow: HSE Publ., pp. 166—207. (In Russian).]
2. Vlasova N. Y., Molokova E. L. (2019). Mechanisms for coordinating stakeholders of the higher education market: Theoretical approaches to identification. Upravlenets — The Manager, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 21—30. (In Russian).] http://doi.org/10.29141/2218500320191023
3. Dementiev V. E., Evsukov S. G., Ustyuzhanina E. V. (2017). Hybrid forms of business organization: The interfirm cooperation perspective. Russian Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 89—122. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu18.2017.105
4. Parinov S. (2021). Foundation of a general theory of socioeconomic coordination. MPRA Paper, No. 110667. (In Russian).] https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/110667/
5. Parinov S. (2022a). Economic coordination as a coordinating behavior of human agents. MPRA Paper, No. 112190. (In Russian).] https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/112190/
6. [Parinov S. (2022b). Coordination behavior of human agents: Clarification of the content and the structure of coordination processes in an economy. Digital Economy, No. 2, pp. 5—14. (In Russian).] http://doi.org/10.34706/DE20220201
7. Parinov S. (2022c). New approaches to the improvement of coordination mechanisms. Foresight and STI Governance, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 82—89. (In Russian).] http://doi.org/10.17323/25002597.2022.4.82.89
8. Polterovich V. M. (2018). Towards a general theory of socioeconomic development. Part 1. Geography, institutions, or culture? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, рр. 5—26. (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.32609/00428736201811526
9. [Ustyuzhanina E. V. (2022). Creating the theory of economic interaction and coordination: The main issues. Journal of Institutional Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 25—35. (In Russian).] http://doi.org/10.17835/20766297.2022.14.1.025035
10. Hayek F. (2006). Law, legislation and liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Moscow: IRISEN. (In Russian).]
11. Khodakov V. E., Sokolova N. A., Kirijchuk D. L. (2014). Coordination theory of complex systems. Problemi Іnformatsіynikh Tekhnologіy, No. 2, pp. 12—21. (In Russian).]
12. Hodgson G. (2008). Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Terra Economicus, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 8—21. (In Russian).]
13. Adler P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 215—234. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117
14. Chandler A. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
15. Crowston K., Rubleske J., Howison J. (2007). Coordination theory: A tenyear retrospective. In: P. Zhang, D. F. Galletta (eds.). Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations. New York: Routledge, pp. 134—152.
16. Crowston K., Osterlund C. S., Howison J., Bolici F. (2017). Work features to support stigmergic coordination in distributed teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2017, No. 1, article 14409. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.14409abstract
17. Elliot M. (2006). Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. M/C Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2. https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2599
18. Elliott M. (2016). Stigmergic collaboration: A framework for understanding and designing mass collaboration. In: U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, H. Jeong (eds.). Mass collaboration and education (Computersupported collaborative learning series, Vol. 16). Cham: Springer, pp. 65—84. http://doi.org/10.1007/9783319135366_4
19. Heylighen F. (2016). Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components. Cognitive Systems Research, Vol. 38, pp. 4—13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.002
20. Malone T. W., Crowston K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 87—119. https://doi.org/10.1145/174666.174668
21. Marsh L., Onof C. (2008). Stigmergic epistemology, stigmergic cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 1—2, pp. 136—149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.009
22. Ménard C. (2004). The economics of hybrid organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 1—32. https://doi.org/10.1628/0932456041960605
23. Mintzberg H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 322—341. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322
24. Powell W. W. (1991). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In: B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings (eds.). Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 295—336.
25. Provan K. G., Kenis P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 229—252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
26. Weigand H., van der Poll F., de Moor A. (2003). Coordination through communication. In: H. Weigand, G. Goldkuhl, A. de Moor (eds.). Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, pp. 115—134.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Parinov S.I. Micro level of economic coordination processes. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2023;(2):127-144. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-2-127-144
Views:
885
Email this article 
