Политические идеи и научный анализ
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Тамбовцев В. Л. Политические идеи и научный анализ // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2025. Том 7. № 3. С. 203-215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2025.7.3.15 EDN: TCOWXX
Аннотация
Взаимодействие науки и политики не может не интересовать учёных, поскольку от политики государства зависит, каковы будут материальные возможности проводить те исследования, которые интересны учёным, а обеспечение таких возможностей государством зависит от того, отвечает ли наука на его запросы. В рамках этой широкой темы есть и более узкая проблематика – воздействие научных исследований на политические идеи, и именно её анализу посвящена эта статья. После уточнения понятий, важных для анализа, таких как политика, политическая проблема и политическая идея, в статье очерчиваются возможности науки по разработке новых политических идей и анализу уже реализуемых, а также критерии оценки предлагаемых результатов политиками, как уже действующими в системе власти, так и теми, кто претендует на такие позиции. Тем самым разработан и представлен вариант аналитического аппарата, который можно использовать в конкретных областях исследований для выявления возможностей продуктивного взаимодействия науки и политических идей.
Ключевые слова:
политика, проблемная ситуация, проблема, политическая идея, исследование политических идей
Литература
1. Sartori G. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review. 1970;64(4):1033–1053. DOI 10.2307/1958356.
2. Sartori G., ed. Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA ; London ; New Delhi : Sage Publications; 1984. 455 p. ISBN 0-8039-2177-2.
3. Gerring J. What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity. 1999;31(3):357–393. DOI 10.2307/3235246. EDN GZLPVL.
4. Collier D., Hidalgo F. D., Maciuceanu A. O. Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies. 2006;11(3):211–246. DOI 10.1080/13569310600923782.
5. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. DOI 10.1007/BF01405730.
6. Gallie W. B. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1956;56(1):167–198. DOI 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167.
7. Tambovtsev V. L. On political policy [O politicheskoy politike]. In: Zaostrovtsev A. P., ed. Economic theory and political science: Disregard, competition, or cooperation? [Ekonomicheskaya teoriya i politologiya: ignorirovaniye, konkurentsiya ili sotrudnichestvo?] : Proceedings of the anniversary 15th annual conference from the cycle “Leontief Readings”. St. Petersburg : International Centre for Social and Economic Research “Leontief Centre”; 2016. P. 61–72. (In Russ.). EDN XVKRPV.
8. Milgrom P., Roberts J. An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94(1S):S154–S179.
9. Chay Y.-W., Aryee S. Potential moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist orientation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999;20(5):613–623. DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<613::AID-JOB979>3.0.CO;2-A.
10. Sabatier P. A., Jenkins-Smith H. C., eds. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO : Westview Press; 1993. xii, 290 p. ISBN 0-8133-1648-0.
11. Hall P. A., ed. The political power of economic ideas: Keynesianism across nations. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press; 1989. vi, 406 p. ISBN 0-691-07799-1.
12. Hall P. A. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics. 1993;25(3):275–296. DOI 10.2307/422246.
13. Fisher F., Forester J., eds. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham ; London : Duke University Press; 1993. viii, 327 p. ISBN 0-8223-1354-5.
14. Garcé A. Policy ideas. In: van Gerven M., Rothmayr Allison C., Schubert K., eds. Encyclopedia of public policy. Cham : Springer; 2024. P. 1–6. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_84-1.
15. Newell A., Shaw J. C., Simon H. A. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review. 1958;65(3):151–166. DOI 10.1037/h0048495.
16. Bruner G. C., Pomazal R. J. Problem recognition: The crucial first stage of the consumer decision process. Journal of Services Marketing. 1988;2(3):43–53. DOI 10.1108/eb024733.
17. Dewey J. How we think. Boston ; New York ; Chicago : D. C. Heath & Co Publishers; 1910. vi, 228 p.
18. Runco M. A., Chand I. Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In: Runco M. A., ed. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ : Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1994. P. 40–76.
19. Hill C. J. The nature of problem recognition and search in the extended health care decision. Journal of Services Marketing. 2001;15(6):454–479. DOI 10.1108/EUM0000000006100.
20. Abdulla A. M., Cramond B. The creative problem finding hierarchy: A suggested model for understanding problem finding. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications. 2018;5(2):197–229. DOI 10.1515/ctra-2018-0019.
21. Tkachenko S. B. Moscow – unrealised garden city in “New Moscow” plan. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2019;(2):232–250. (In Russ.). EDN KQVEUA.
22. Kermack W. О., McKendrick A. G. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. 1927;115(772):700–721.
23. Rogers E. M. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York : Free Press; 1995. xvii, 519 p. ISBN 0-0287-4074-2.
24. Tambovtsev V. L. Ideas, narratives and economic change. Terra Economicus. 2019;17(1):24–40. (In Russ.). DOI 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-1-24-40. EDN VZIFTR.
25. Schroeder T. Desire: Philosophical issues. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010;1(3):363–370. DOI 10.1002/wcs.3.
26. Fried I., Haggard P., He B. J., Schurger A. Volition and action in the human brain: Processes, pathologies, and reasons. Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;37(45):10842–10847. DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2584-17.2017.
27. Braun D., Gilardi F. Taking ‘Galton’s problem’ seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2006;18(3):298–322. DOI 10.1177/0951629806064351.
28. Nicholson-Crotty S., Carley S. Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion: Or “Can we make that work for us?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 2015;16(1):78–97. DOI 10.1177/1532440015588764.
29. Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–478. DOI 10.2307/30036540.
30. Marangunić N., Granić A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2015;14(1):81–95. DOI 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
31. Taffesse A. S., Tadesse F. Pathways less explored – locus of control and technology adoption. Journal of African Economies. 2017;26(suppl_1):i36–i72. DOI 10.1093/jae/ejx013.
32. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. DOI 10.1007/BF01405730.
33. Head B. W. Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. vii, 176 p. ISBN 978-3-030-94579-4. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0.
34. Head B. W. Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):180–197. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797.
35. Lönngren J., van Poeck K. Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2021;28(6):481–502. DOI 10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415.
36. Turnbull N., Hoppe R. Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):315–337. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796.
37. Peters B. G. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society. 2017;36(3):385–396. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633.
38. Pretorius C. Exploring procedural decision support systems for wicked problem resolution. South African Computer Journal. 2017;29(1):191–219. DOI 10.18489/sacj.v29i1.448.
39. Finlayson A. Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society. 2004;33(4):528–549. DOI 10.1080/0308514042000285279.
40. Prewitt K. Political ideas and a political science for policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2005;600(1):14–29. DOI 10.1177/0002716205276660.
41. Eulriet I. Analysing political ideas and political action. Economy and Society. 2008;37(1):135–150. DOI 10.1080/03085140701760916.
42. Dobbins M., Rosenbaum P. L., Plews N., Law M., Fysh A. Information transfer: What do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implementation Science. 2007;2(1):20. DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-2-20.
43. Edler J., Karaulova M., Barker K. Understanding conceptual impact of scientific knowledge on policy: The role of policymaking conditions. Minerva. 2022;60(2):209–233. DOI 10.1007/s11024-022-09459-8.
44. Cao Z., Zhang L., Huang Y., Sivertsen G. How does scientific research influence policymaking? A study of four types of citation pathways between research articles and AI policy documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2025, forthcoming. DOI 10.1002/asi.25006.
45. Moore G., Redman S., Haines M., Todd A. L. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: A review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2011;7(3):277–305. DOI 10.1332/174426411X579199.
46. Dagenais C., Laurendeau M.-C., Briand-Lamarche M. Knowledge brokering in public health: A critical analysis of the results of a qualitative evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2015;53:10–17. DOI 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.003.
47. White J., Grant K., Sarkies M., Haines T., Evidence Translation in Allied Health (EviTAH) Group. Translating evidence into practice: A longitudinal qualitative exploration of allied health decision-making. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021;19:38. DOI 10.1186/s12961-020-00662-1.
48. Nutley S. M., Walter I., Davies H. T. O. Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol : Policy Press; 2007. xii, 363 p. ISBN 978-1-847-42232-3. DOI 10.56687/9781847422323.
49. Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policy making. London : Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. xv, 137 p. ISBN 978-1-137-51780-7. DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4.
50. Kelstrup J. D., Jørgensen J. V. Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries. Policy Sciences. 2024;57(2):257–280. DOI 10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6.
51. Jørgensen J. V. Knowledge Utilisation Analysis: Measuring the utilisation of knowledge sources in policy decisions. Evidence & Policy. 2024;20(2):205–225. DOI 10.1332/174426421X16917585658729.
52. White K. L., Murnaghan J. H. Health care policy formation: Analysis, information and research. International Journal of Health Services. 1973;3(1):81–91. DOI 10.2190/P39K-XH92-EUVF-9VFK.
53. Orosz E. The impact of social science research on health policy. Social Science & Medicine. 1994;39(9):1287–1293. DOI 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90360-3.
54. Fafard P., Cassola A., de Leeuw E., eds. Integrating science and politics for public health. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. xviii, 345 p. ISBN 978-3-030-98984-2. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-98985-9.
55. Keynes J. M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. Moscow : Eksmo; 2007. 957, [1] р. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-699-20989-7. EDN QSKYFV.
56. Frey B. S. Does economics have an effect? Towards an economics of economics. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik. 2000;1(1):5–33.
57. Frey B. S. How influential is economics? De Economist. 2006;154(2):295–311. DOI 10.1007/s10645-006-9005-2.
58. Rubin P. H. Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal. 2003;70(1):157–171. DOI 10.2307/1061637.
59. Różycka-Tran J., Boski P., Wojciszke B. Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a social axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2015;46(4):525–548. DOI 10.1177/0022022115572226.
60. Swedberg R. Folk economics and its role in Trump’s presidential campaign: An exploratory study. Theory and Society. 2018;47(1):1–36. DOI 10.1007/s11186-018-9308-8.
61. Hellström T., Jacob M. Scientification of politics or politicization of science? Traditionalist science-policy discourse and its quarrels with Mode 2 epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. 2000;14(1):69–77. DOI 10.1080/02691720050199315.
62. Bolsen T., Druckman J. N. Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication. 2015;65(5):745–769. DOI 10.1111/jcom.12171.
2. Sartori G., ed. Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA ; London ; New Delhi : Sage Publications; 1984. 455 p. ISBN 0-8039-2177-2.
3. Gerring J. What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity. 1999;31(3):357–393. DOI 10.2307/3235246. EDN GZLPVL.
4. Collier D., Hidalgo F. D., Maciuceanu A. O. Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies. 2006;11(3):211–246. DOI 10.1080/13569310600923782.
5. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. DOI 10.1007/BF01405730.
6. Gallie W. B. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1956;56(1):167–198. DOI 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167.
7. Tambovtsev V. L. On political policy [O politicheskoy politike]. In: Zaostrovtsev A. P., ed. Economic theory and political science: Disregard, competition, or cooperation? [Ekonomicheskaya teoriya i politologiya: ignorirovaniye, konkurentsiya ili sotrudnichestvo?] : Proceedings of the anniversary 15th annual conference from the cycle “Leontief Readings”. St. Petersburg : International Centre for Social and Economic Research “Leontief Centre”; 2016. P. 61–72. (In Russ.). EDN XVKRPV.
8. Milgrom P., Roberts J. An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94(1S):S154–S179.
9. Chay Y.-W., Aryee S. Potential moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist orientation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999;20(5):613–623. DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<613::AID-JOB979>3.0.CO;2-A.
10. Sabatier P. A., Jenkins-Smith H. C., eds. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO : Westview Press; 1993. xii, 290 p. ISBN 0-8133-1648-0.
11. Hall P. A., ed. The political power of economic ideas: Keynesianism across nations. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press; 1989. vi, 406 p. ISBN 0-691-07799-1.
12. Hall P. A. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics. 1993;25(3):275–296. DOI 10.2307/422246.
13. Fisher F., Forester J., eds. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham ; London : Duke University Press; 1993. viii, 327 p. ISBN 0-8223-1354-5.
14. Garcé A. Policy ideas. In: van Gerven M., Rothmayr Allison C., Schubert K., eds. Encyclopedia of public policy. Cham : Springer; 2024. P. 1–6. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_84-1.
15. Newell A., Shaw J. C., Simon H. A. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review. 1958;65(3):151–166. DOI 10.1037/h0048495.
16. Bruner G. C., Pomazal R. J. Problem recognition: The crucial first stage of the consumer decision process. Journal of Services Marketing. 1988;2(3):43–53. DOI 10.1108/eb024733.
17. Dewey J. How we think. Boston ; New York ; Chicago : D. C. Heath & Co Publishers; 1910. vi, 228 p.
18. Runco M. A., Chand I. Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In: Runco M. A., ed. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ : Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1994. P. 40–76.
19. Hill C. J. The nature of problem recognition and search in the extended health care decision. Journal of Services Marketing. 2001;15(6):454–479. DOI 10.1108/EUM0000000006100.
20. Abdulla A. M., Cramond B. The creative problem finding hierarchy: A suggested model for understanding problem finding. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications. 2018;5(2):197–229. DOI 10.1515/ctra-2018-0019.
21. Tkachenko S. B. Moscow – unrealised garden city in “New Moscow” plan. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2019;(2):232–250. (In Russ.). EDN KQVEUA.
22. Kermack W. О., McKendrick A. G. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. 1927;115(772):700–721.
23. Rogers E. M. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York : Free Press; 1995. xvii, 519 p. ISBN 0-0287-4074-2.
24. Tambovtsev V. L. Ideas, narratives and economic change. Terra Economicus. 2019;17(1):24–40. (In Russ.). DOI 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-1-24-40. EDN VZIFTR.
25. Schroeder T. Desire: Philosophical issues. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010;1(3):363–370. DOI 10.1002/wcs.3.
26. Fried I., Haggard P., He B. J., Schurger A. Volition and action in the human brain: Processes, pathologies, and reasons. Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;37(45):10842–10847. DOI 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2584-17.2017.
27. Braun D., Gilardi F. Taking ‘Galton’s problem’ seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2006;18(3):298–322. DOI 10.1177/0951629806064351.
28. Nicholson-Crotty S., Carley S. Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion: Or “Can we make that work for us?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 2015;16(1):78–97. DOI 10.1177/1532440015588764.
29. Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–478. DOI 10.2307/30036540.
30. Marangunić N., Granić A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2015;14(1):81–95. DOI 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
31. Taffesse A. S., Tadesse F. Pathways less explored – locus of control and technology adoption. Journal of African Economies. 2017;26(suppl_1):i36–i72. DOI 10.1093/jae/ejx013.
32. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973;4(2):155–169. DOI 10.1007/BF01405730.
33. Head B. W. Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. vii, 176 p. ISBN 978-3-030-94579-4. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0.
34. Head B. W. Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):180–197. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488797.
35. Lönngren J., van Poeck K. Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2021;28(6):481–502. DOI 10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415.
36. Turnbull N., Hoppe R. Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society. 2019;38(2):315–337. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796.
37. Peters B. G. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society. 2017;36(3):385–396. DOI 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633.
38. Pretorius C. Exploring procedural decision support systems for wicked problem resolution. South African Computer Journal. 2017;29(1):191–219. DOI 10.18489/sacj.v29i1.448.
39. Finlayson A. Political science, political ideas and rhetoric. Economy and Society. 2004;33(4):528–549. DOI 10.1080/0308514042000285279.
40. Prewitt K. Political ideas and a political science for policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2005;600(1):14–29. DOI 10.1177/0002716205276660.
41. Eulriet I. Analysing political ideas and political action. Economy and Society. 2008;37(1):135–150. DOI 10.1080/03085140701760916.
42. Dobbins M., Rosenbaum P. L., Plews N., Law M., Fysh A. Information transfer: What do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implementation Science. 2007;2(1):20. DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-2-20.
43. Edler J., Karaulova M., Barker K. Understanding conceptual impact of scientific knowledge on policy: The role of policymaking conditions. Minerva. 2022;60(2):209–233. DOI 10.1007/s11024-022-09459-8.
44. Cao Z., Zhang L., Huang Y., Sivertsen G. How does scientific research influence policymaking? A study of four types of citation pathways between research articles and AI policy documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2025, forthcoming. DOI 10.1002/asi.25006.
45. Moore G., Redman S., Haines M., Todd A. L. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: A review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2011;7(3):277–305. DOI 10.1332/174426411X579199.
46. Dagenais C., Laurendeau M.-C., Briand-Lamarche M. Knowledge brokering in public health: A critical analysis of the results of a qualitative evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2015;53:10–17. DOI 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.003.
47. White J., Grant K., Sarkies M., Haines T., Evidence Translation in Allied Health (EviTAH) Group. Translating evidence into practice: A longitudinal qualitative exploration of allied health decision-making. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021;19:38. DOI 10.1186/s12961-020-00662-1.
48. Nutley S. M., Walter I., Davies H. T. O. Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol : Policy Press; 2007. xii, 363 p. ISBN 978-1-847-42232-3. DOI 10.56687/9781847422323.
49. Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policy making. London : Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. xv, 137 p. ISBN 978-1-137-51780-7. DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4.
50. Kelstrup J. D., Jørgensen J. V. Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries. Policy Sciences. 2024;57(2):257–280. DOI 10.1007/s11077-024-09529-6.
51. Jørgensen J. V. Knowledge Utilisation Analysis: Measuring the utilisation of knowledge sources in policy decisions. Evidence & Policy. 2024;20(2):205–225. DOI 10.1332/174426421X16917585658729.
52. White K. L., Murnaghan J. H. Health care policy formation: Analysis, information and research. International Journal of Health Services. 1973;3(1):81–91. DOI 10.2190/P39K-XH92-EUVF-9VFK.
53. Orosz E. The impact of social science research on health policy. Social Science & Medicine. 1994;39(9):1287–1293. DOI 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90360-3.
54. Fafard P., Cassola A., de Leeuw E., eds. Integrating science and politics for public health. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. xviii, 345 p. ISBN 978-3-030-98984-2. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-98985-9.
55. Keynes J. M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. Moscow : Eksmo; 2007. 957, [1] р. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-699-20989-7. EDN QSKYFV.
56. Frey B. S. Does economics have an effect? Towards an economics of economics. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik. 2000;1(1):5–33.
57. Frey B. S. How influential is economics? De Economist. 2006;154(2):295–311. DOI 10.1007/s10645-006-9005-2.
58. Rubin P. H. Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal. 2003;70(1):157–171. DOI 10.2307/1061637.
59. Różycka-Tran J., Boski P., Wojciszke B. Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a social axiom: A 37-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2015;46(4):525–548. DOI 10.1177/0022022115572226.
60. Swedberg R. Folk economics and its role in Trump’s presidential campaign: An exploratory study. Theory and Society. 2018;47(1):1–36. DOI 10.1007/s11186-018-9308-8.
61. Hellström T., Jacob M. Scientification of politics or politicization of science? Traditionalist science-policy discourse and its quarrels with Mode 2 epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. 2000;14(1):69–77. DOI 10.1080/02691720050199315.
62. Bolsen T., Druckman J. N. Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication. 2015;65(5):745–769. DOI 10.1111/jcom.12171.
Статья
Поступила: 25.06.2025
Опубликована: 25.09.2025
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Тамбовцев, В. Л. (2025). Политические идеи и научный анализ. Управление наукой: теория и практика, 7(3), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2025.7.3.15
Раздел
Культурно-исторический контекст и стратегии научно-технологического развития
