|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Transactions in science in comparative perspective
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-9-52-69
Abstract
The article develops a transactional approach to studying science. Two concepts play a particularly important role: the institutional environment of science and scientific transaction. As an example, the North-American and Russian institutional environments of science are compared. It is shown that structures of scientific transactions (between peers, between the scholar and the academic administrator, between the professor and the student), transaction costs and the scope of academic freedom differ in these two cases. Transaction costs are non-zero in both cases, however. At the same time, it is hypothesized that a greater scope of academic freedom in the North American case may be a factor contributing to a higher scientific productivity.
About the Author
A. N. Oleinik
Memorial University of Newfoundland (St. John’s, Canada); Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Russian Federation
Moscow.
Russian Federation
Moscow.
References
1. [Abalkina A. A. et al. (2014). Plagiarism in science: A roundtable, June 11. Sociologicheskoe Obozrenie, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 193—218. (In Russian).]
2. [Afanasiev M. N. (2000). Clientelism and Russian statehood. Moscow: MONF. (In Russian).]
3. [Kleiner G. B. (2001). Particularities of emergence and evolution of socio‑ economic institutions in Russia (Preprint No. WP/2001/126). Moscow: CEMI RAS. (In Russian).]
4. [Kleiner G. B. (2004). Evolution of institutional systems. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).]
5. [Kleiner G. B. (2008). Russia: Science’s destiny and science as a destiny. Vlast, No. 8, pp. 33—35. (In Russian).]
6. [Kleiner G. (2015). Sustainability of Russian economy in the mirror of the system economic theory (P. I). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 107—123. (In Russian).]
7. [Kleiner G. (2016). Sustainability of Russian economy in the mirror of the system economic theory (P. II). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 117—138. (In Russian).]
8. [Kolchinsky E. I. (ed.) (2003). Science and crises: Historical‑comparative essays. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin. (In Russian).]
9. [Kuvalin D. B. (2017). Academic journal in today’s Russia: Alternatives of development strategies. Ekonomicheskaya Politika, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 218—227. (In Russian).]
10. [Kuzminov Ya., Yudkevich M. (2007). Universities in Russia and the US: Differences in academic conventions. Voprosy Obrazovaniya, No. 4, pp. 141—158. (In Russian).]
11. [Latour B. (2013). Science in action. St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg. (In Russian).]
12. [ Makarenko V. P. (2004). Science and state: The context of a social history of science . Izvestiya Vysshykh Uchebnykh Zavedeniy. Pravovedenie, No. 6, pp. 211—230. (In Russian).]
13. [Makarenko V. P. (2007). State control of science: Soviet experience. Ekonomicheskiy Vestnik Rostovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, No. 5, pp. 86—110. (In Russian).]
14. [Makarenko V. P. (2015). Gift theory and problems of organization of science. Terra Economicus, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 107—118. (In Russian).]
15. [Ménard C. (2005). Theory of organizations: The diversity of arrangements in a developed market economy. In: A. Oleinik (ed.). Institutional economics. M.: Infra-M, pp. 191—241. (In Russian).]
16. [North D. (1997). Institutional change: An analytical framework. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 3, pp. 6—17. (In Russian).]
17. [Oleinik A., Kirdina S., Popova I., Shatalova T. (2013). How scientists read one another: Foundations of a theory of academic reading and its empirical verification. Sociologicheskie Issledovaniya, No. 8, pp. 30—41. (In Russian).]
18. [Pivovarov Yu. S. (2006). Russian political tradition and the current situation. Moscow: INION RAS. (In Russian).]
19. [Sonin K., Khovanskaya I., Yudkevich M. (2008). Building a research university: Sources of financing and employment of professors. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 72—83. (In Russian).]
20. Adorno Th. W., Frenkel-Brunswik E., Levinson D. J., Sanford R. N. (1950). The autho‑ ritarian personality . New York: Harper & Row. Boltanski L.,
21. Chiapello E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard. Bourdieu P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
22. Coleman J. S. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: W.W. Norton. Coleman J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
23. Commons J. R. (1959 [1924]). Legal foundations of capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
24. Commons J. R. (1931). Institutional economics. American Economic Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 648—657.
25. Cooper R., Gupta M., Wilkes M., Hoffman J. (2006). Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices of peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 12, pp. 1248—1252.
26. Dasgupta P., David P. A. (2002). Toward a new economics of science. In: Ph. Mirowski, E.-M. Sent (eds.). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 219—248.
27. Eiszler Ch. F. (2002). College students’ evaluations of teaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 483—501.
28. Ellis L., Burke D. M., Lomire P., McCormack D. R. (2003). Student grades and average ratings of instructional quality: The need for adjustment. Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 35—40.
29. Etzioni A. (1971). The need for quality filters in information systems. Science. New series, Vol. 171, No. 3967, Jan. 15, p. 133.
30. Gupta P., Kaur G., Sharma B., Shah D., Choudhury P. (2006). What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process decision making, and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatrics, Vol. 43, pp. 479—489.
31. Hofstede G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
32. Krücken G. (2003). Learning the ‘new, new thing’: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, Vol. 46, pp. 315—339.
33. North D. C. (1981). Structure and change in economic history. New York: W.W. Norton.
34. Osipian A. L. (2010). Corrupt organizational hierarchies in the former Soviet Bloc. Transition Studies Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 822—836.
35. Roth W.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education , Vol. 32, pp. 215—240.
36. Schotter A. (1994). Microeconomics: A modern approach. London: Harper Collins.
37. Swedberg R. (2003). Principles of economic sociology. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
38. Veblen Th. (1957). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. New York: Sagamore Press.
39. Walzer M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.
40. Wartenberg T. E. (1990). The forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia, PH: Temple University Press.
41. Williamson O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 269—296.
Review
For citations:
Oleinik A.N. Transactions in science in comparative perspective. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2018;(9):52-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-9-52-69
Views:
789
Email this article 
