Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 4930 2023-07-21 22:23:45 |
2 format -3 word(s) 4927 2023-07-24 03:25:29 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Vasin, S.M. Theories of Transformation of Society. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 12 April 2024).
Vasin SM. Theories of Transformation of Society. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 12, 2024.
Vasin, Sergey Mikhailovich. "Theories of Transformation of Society" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 12, 2024).
Vasin, S.M. (2023, July 21). Theories of Transformation of Society. In Encyclopedia.
Vasin, Sergey Mikhailovich. "Theories of Transformation of Society." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 July, 2023.
Theories of Transformation of Society

To investigate and create theories of socio-economic dynamics has always been relevant for professionals in theoretical and applied economics. These theories are urgent in periods of global and catastrophic events since, on the one hand, they can explain the emergence of critical structural changes in society, and on the other hand, they can determine the likelihood of surviving of crisis processes. However, there are some drawbacks involved therein, and the poor ability to predict unexpected and shocking events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is a key one. 

socio-economic dynamics transformation catastrophe theory theory of pathoeconomics theory of transition economy cycle theory evolutionary theory institutional theory synergetic approach civilizational approach

1. Introduction

Theories characterizing the dynamics of the development of society can be classified according to the principle of limiting the dynamic process by certain frames. Some theories explain specific changes or transitions (transformations) from one form to another (the catastrophe theory, the theory of pathoeconomics (economic pathology), the theory of transition economy, the cycle theory, etc.). Other theories describe the socio-economic dynamics in a continuous flow with stagnation and transformation, with smooth growth and decline, etc. (the evolutionary theory, the institutional theory, and synergetic and civilizational approaches).
The conducted theoretical analyses of various theories of socio-economic dynamics form the basis for understanding the features of the transformation of socio-economic systems. At the same time, it is often impossible to explain such dynamics via a single theory. Complex and informal broad views and assessments of various cases of dynamics to explain the prerequisites, the course of the process, and an increase in the level of systemic stability are inevitable. It should also be noted that the separation of theories from each other is also erroneous. The boundaries between them are blurred, and the principles are often similar. From this fact, the conclusion follows regarding the expediency of their complementarity, as well as the explanation of one theory at the expense of another.

2. The First Group of Theories: Transformation as a Distinct Process

2.1. Catastrophe Theory

The key contributors to the catastrophe theory are Thom (1975), Zeeman (1977), and Arnold (1990).
The catastrophe theory is a theory that studies the instability of various systems (Burtseva and Voronov 2016, p. 43). This theory is a synthetic science formed on the basis of topology and mathematical analysis, which studies the qualitative behaviors of nonlinear dynamic systems when changing their parameters (Borodin et al. 2015). A catastrophe is an abrupt change in the state of a system that occurs in the form of its response to a smooth, gradual change in external factors (Arnold 1990, p. 8). However, the dynamics of the economic system can be traced incrementally: from a state of equilibrium to oscillatory dynamics with increasing amplitude, leading (but not necessarily) to an abrupt change in a state (catastrophe) (Arnold 1990, pp. 21–23; Nedel’ko 2010). It is this growing dynamic that makes it possible to predict the future based on signs of minor movements. It is important to determine at what stage and how far the system is from the point of catastrophe. In other words, it is possible to determine theoretically some indirect signs: if the considered system approaches the point of catastrophe (Burtseva and Voronov 2016, p. 47) or bypasses it with uniform dynamics. Accordingly, it is possible to predict the behavior of the system and influence the trajectory. Thus, the well-known visual models of this theory (fold, cusp, swallowtail, butterfly, and various umbilics) schematically reflect the potential courses of possible events: smooth or abrupt.
Researchers have specified a number of signs of the system to approach a disaster (Burtseva and Voronov 2016, p. 48):
  • Bimodality—the emergence of several different new and stable states is observed;
  • Spasmodicity—unstable states are notable and easily modified;
  • Violation of symmetry—the system can quickly change even with a slight impact of external conditions; the choice of alternatives is ambiguous, while earlier development could result in the choice of equivalent (symmetrical) alternatives;
  • Divergence—the irreversibility of the system and the inability to return to its original position;
  • Hysteresis—an event (result) that has occurred remains in history, despite its causes perhaps disappearing;
  • Critical slowing down—many efforts, regardless of their scale, do not lead to notable changes in the situation (Chulichkov 2001).
In addition, according to Burtseva and Voronov (2016, p. 48), there are two inevitable signs of approaching disaster:
  • Expansion of noise fluctuations prior to the point of catastrophe, being observed for a short time. This phenomenon is called micro-level life, which becomes notable and significant during a crisis of the system. In turn, macro variables lose their consistency and are eliminated;
  • Slowing the rhythms characteristic of the system, and even if oscillations are artificially induced in some way, it will be possible to observe their attenuation and an increase in low frequency.
Considering the catastrophe theory in terms of the theory of the transformation of socio-economic systems, it can be noted that the cusp is the limit of the system self-organization, and if it is reached, the self-organization function can no longer keep the system within the framework of the existing equilibrium forces. In this situation, it is transformed. The development level of a new system in relation to the predecessor system depends on the level of the new self-organization limit. 
Changes (oscillations) of the system can be called deformations by analogy with elastic physical bodies, when the latter take their former shape after their deformation (deformation of a rubber ball). During deformations, the system does not lose the principles of its construction, although it undergoes the stages of progressive changes, stabilization, and regressive changes. With serious deformation of the system, when the limit of self-organization is exceeded, system transformation or an abrupt change occurs.
It should be noted that the theory does not consider the impact of sudden factors on the system, potentially leading it to catastrophe. The catastrophe theory emphasizes the opposite situation: it is the gradual impact that leads to transformation. The concept of a gradual impact implies at least a theoretical possibility of observing its development, indicating that a catastrophe can be predicted.
The catastrophe theory can be used in relation to the economy, mainly to explain the spasmodic behaviors of socio-economic systems. On the one hand, the theory contributes to identifying the causes of transformation in terms of determining the essence, nature and trajectory of subtle dynamics that lead to the transformation of the system. On the other hand, the theory can contribute to the forecasting of transformations in case of timely identification of the key dynamics of any factors of the external and internal environments.

2.2. Theory of Pathoeconomics (Economic Pathology)

The key contributors to the theory of economic pathology are Gizatullin, Luzin, Pavlov (Gizatullin and Pavlov 1995; Luzin and Pavlov 1993, 1999; Pavlov 2007), Zagaitov, Yanovsky, and Yablonovskaya (Zagaitov et al. 2009).
A characteristic feature of this relatively novel and not universally recognized theory is a predominantly negative approach to economic dynamics. In fact, it studies economic crises and their causes, although it also investigates their prevention. However, unlike other theories and concepts, this theory associates crises with the emergence and development of so-called pathologies in socio-economic systems. According to this approach, the changes caused by such pathologies should a priori be negative. The emergence of this theory coincides with the transformation of the socialist space and the socio-economic systems of the states of the former socialist bloc; therefore, the theory is of Russian origin. The system of the socialist state was recognized to be ineffective, hence the predominance of the negative orientation of the proposed theory.
Pronoza (2013) associated economic pathology exclusively with the phenomenon of pathology in medicine. In fact, by drawing the maximum analogy, the author constructed a template scheme in which he replaced medical terms and definitions with economic ones.
Pavlov (2007, p. 52) specified crisis factors, forms and types of crisis conditions, the ways, and methods of its overcoming as the research areas of economic pathology. At the same time, various types of reforms, regularities, and specifics of crisis conditions and economic problems of the analysis of emergency situations are the subjects of economic pathology research. One can regard the theory considering options for overcoming crises conditions as its positive approach to the study of economic dynamics.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that “... economic pathology is understood as a fairly long-term deterioration in the parameters that characterize the state of production systems” (Pavlov 2007, p. 54).
The question arises regarding whether the methodological apparatus of this theory can support the search for decisions on the readiness of the socio-economic system for unexpected impacts, as well as options for effective prevention of consequences.
There are numerous examples of economic pathology manifestations in the literature (Pavlov 2012; Dmitrieva 1992). However, the examples themselves do not yet form a scientific apparatus, which, has not yet been formed, and no patterns have been identified; therefore, this theory is actually present only to designate a group of problems in the economy. According to Yamilov (2015, pp. 74–75), the absence of a theoretical and methodological apparatus of economic pathology allows one to attribute this area of knowledge to transitional and crisis theories. Nevertheless, he attempted to search for the boundaries of the theory of pathoeconomics. As a result, the researcher came to the antithesis that underlies the process of defining the subject area with two opposing categories—the pathology and the norm. At the same time, the author identified the problem of defining the norm, stating that, without a clear definition of the norm, it is impossible to talk about pathoeconomics as a science.
Zagaitov et al. (2009, pp. 60–62) mentioned the relationship between the norm and the pathology, and they traced certain rules that characterize the theory of economic pathologies, in particular:
  • Pathologies never lead to the collapse of economies; in other words, economic activity has never stopped, regardless of the economic pathologies (or their combination) that affect it;
  • Local pathology can be recognized as the norm if, on a global scale, it leads to an acceleration of economic growth;
  • Economic pathologies are not synonymous with economic contradictions;
  • Criminal relations, in their pure form, do not correspond to economic pathologies.
Finally, it should be noted that the key aspects of the theory of pathoeconomics have been applied by specialists, as a rule, from the countries of the former Soviet Union. For example, Kazakh researchers have listed a number of characteristic forms and features of economic pathology in Kazakhstan (Myrzakhmetova and Khalitova 2021, pp. 25–26):
  • Low diversification of the economy due to the country’s predominant orientation toward the development of export-oriented and extractive industries and the weak development of processing industries with high added value;
  • Dependence on the world conjuncture of commodity markets and oil prices;
  • Moral and physical obsolescence of fixed assets and of material and technical bases in various industries;
  • Low quality of residential and commercial construction;
  • Underdeveloped transport infrastructure;
  • Low level of the development of education and science in comparison with developed countries;
  • High level of the shadow economy (up to 35% of the country’s economy);
  • Ubiquitous manifestations of corruption, both at the level of relations between business entities and in the highest echelons of power;
  • Instability of the national currency.
As one can see, the listed pathologies are characteristic manifestations in many countries of the former Soviet Union, and they form a broad experimental basis for the theory under consideration.
This theory can currently be used as an integral tool for some global theories covering socio-economic dynamics on a larger scale. The reason is that, in other theories, particularly the cycle theory, the scientific apparatus is described in more detail and more clearly, allowing it to be used for fundamental and applied research.

2.3. Theory of Transition Economy

The key contributors to the theory of transition economy are Buzgalin (2002), Ryazanov (1990, 2001), Kolganov (Buzgalin and Kolganov 2001), Balcerowicz (2003), Kolov (2004), Altman (2010), etc.
Like the theory of pathoeconomics, the theory of transition economy emerged in Russia and in the countries of the former socialist bloc against the backdrop of the same historical events. For a relatively long time, this theory was called upon to explain the phenomena occurring at the transition of two formational phases—from socialism to capitalism—and to help accelerate this transition with minimal losses. Currently, the theory of transition economy extends to the dynamics that conditionally lie within the boundaries between the past and present systems. In other words, the object of this theory is the state of the system when both the old form and the new one are somehow present therein. A so-called bipolar structure is formed based on the interaction of various economic orders (Brodskiy 1998). According to Ekubova (2016), the theory of transition economy studies changes that take place in the transition from one system of economic organization to another, rather than within any system. The transition represents, in fact, a major and significant stage in the transformation of systems. The key reasons studied by this theory are various kinds of contradictions.
Altman (2010) viewed the main problem of transitional systems as the inflexibility of traditional institutions to be transformed. Moreover, he noted that, in case success has been achieved, there has been active government action to shape the appropriate institutional parameters. Previously, Gubar (2000) noted that, by 2000, a significant decline in the economy had stemmed from a number of reform errors and institutional insecurity.
Kolov (2004, p. 141) specified the two types of transition economy depending on the original system. Evidently, in the first case, it is a transition from a command economy to a mixed one in the countries of the former Soviet Union; in the second case, it is a transition from a traditional economy to a mixed one in developing countries.
According to Barkovskaya (2012), in contrast to traditional systems—market or command–administrative—the transition economy is actually not an independent economic system, or rather, the transition economy does not represent any system since the command–administrative system has already ceased to exist, and the market system has not yet been formed.
However, there are similarities between a system that has encountered a sudden and unpredictable impact and a transitional system. These similarities are a high degree of uncertainty in both cases and a high risk of decision-making due to low predictability. Susjan and Redek (2007) specified such uncertainty in the case of transitional systems. According to the authors, uncertainty in the transitional economic environment is enhanced by such factors as institutional transformation, political and social instability, and legacies of the past.
Finally, it is especially important to determine the nature of the behavior of a socio-economic system in a transition economy in response to the impact of sudden factors, particularly those of a pandemic nature.
The theory of transition economy shows the barriers to economic development in the process of changing socio-economic models. Using the experience of countries that faced changes in social structure will help to avoid many erroneous decisions and problems in the process of building a more highly organized system. However, since this theory should be considered in conjunction with other theories of economic dynamics, it provides a structure for making political and economic decisions, both in the field of correcting pathologies and in terms of building an institutional environment.
It should be noted that the emergence of a state of transition economy is predictable since the change in social formations is provided for by both dialectical and civilizational approaches, as well as other theories. One can foresee the transition to a new system that eliminates current contradictions provided that the problem of social contradictions in the current system is understood. At the same time, one should not forget that a sharp transition is fraught with an excessive number of new intersystem contradictions, which can cast doubt on the very fact that a new, “targeted” way of life can be achieved by the socio-economic system.
One should remember the risks of unbalanced replacement of one order by another in the process of transition. On the one hand, a collapse is inevitable in case of a breakdown of the old system without the readiness of new institutions. On the other hand, if new institutions come into force along with functioning old ones, a serious conflict and recession can be expected until the restoration of the old system (Brodskiy 1998; Soukup and Rozmainsky 2018).

2.4. Cycle Theory

The key contributors to cycle theory are Hayek (2018), Kondratiev (2002), Lescure (1908), Schumpeter (1939), etc.
This theory combines a set of theories that characterize the wave dynamics of the development of society. The classification feature of theories is most often the period during which the full cycle of the wave passes—from the beginning of the upward period of the wave to the end of the downward period.
A number of studies have led to the emergence of models that represent relatively shallow changes that do not lead to a significant transformation of society. These changes are short Kitchin cycles of 3–3.5 (2–4) years, industrial and capitalist Juglar cycles, classic investment cycles (7–11 years), medium-term Kuznets cycles (15–25 years), etc. There are more complex models to explain and predict deeper transformations, including the change of order, formation, and civilization. These theories include Kondratiev’s theory of large cycles of economic conjuncture (47–60 years) and secular logistics cycles (150–350 years).
Evidently, these cycles are superimposed on each other, and shorter Kitchin or Juglar cycles, for instance, are naturally observed in the course of a large cycle.
It can be said that the theory of cycles justifies the objectivity of fluctuations in the process of development of society, distinguishing it from neoclassical economic theory, which claims that the economic system always strives for equilibrium (Akaev 2022, p. 14).
Many authors have argued over the causes of cyclicality, which form the basis of such theories as Hawtrey’s monetary theory, the theory of overaccumulation, the theory of underconsumption, “psychological” theories, theories linking the economic cycle with the harvest, the theory of the commercial and industrial cycle, etc. (Haberler 2005).
Kondratiev (2002) explained the large cycles of the economic conjuncture by the mechanism of “aggregation, accumulation and dispersion of capital sufficient to create new main productive forces”.
The cycle stages are characterized by the following patterns (Kondratiev 2002, p. 400):
I. Aggregation and accumulation of capital reach such a tension that it becomes possible to profitably invest capital to create the basic productive forces and radically re-equip technology;
II. An increase in the pace of economic life, which is complicated by medium-term industrial and capitalist cycles, causes aggravation of the social struggle and the struggle for the market and external conflicts;
III. The rate of capital accumulation weakens, and the process of dispersion of free capital intensifies. Strengthening of these factors causes a change in the pace of economic development and its slowdown;
IV. A slowdown in the pace of economic life causes, on the one hand, an intensification of searches in the field of improving technology and, on the other hand, the restoration of the process of capital accumulation in the hands of industrial, financial, and other groups, largely due to agriculture.
Kondratiev argued that the causes of cyclical dynamics are endogenous. In other words, the prerequisites for cyclic changes are within the system. Therefore, in fact, cyclicality is inevitable, just like deviations from the equilibrium dynamics according to neoclassical postulates (Akaev 2022, p. 14).

3. The Second Group of Theories: Transformation as Part of Socio-Economic Dynamics

3.1. Evolutionary Theory

The key contributors to the evolutionary theory are Schumpeter (2008), Nelson and Winter (1982), Veblen (2007), Mayevsky (2020), Grechko (2015), etc.
Unlike a number of theories, in which the process of changes in the development of society is indicated by a rather sharp transition, the evolutionary theory considers socio-economic dynamics as a gradual successive process, similar to that of biological evolution.
This statement has been updated with the level of development of society. Thus, the modern knowledge-based world, which has entered the stage of the “information economy”, evaluates the economy according to biological and natural laws, rather than technological ones. The provisions of the evolutionary theory are premised on the spontaneity and irreversibility of changes arising under the influence of the external and internal environment; on the mechanism of changes based on variability, inheritance, and selection; on recognizing the significant influence of institutional and other non-market factors on the activities of firms; and on causal relationships as regulators of the direction and pace of economic evolution (Akerman 2011). At the present stage of development of economic reality, the features of evolution manifest themselves in the high speed of economic processes, with dynamism being the factor of stability (Lebedev and Lebedeva 2019).
According to Grechko (2015, pp. 13–14), the evolutionary process has specific features. First, the process of system development is of a cumulative character. Accordingly, the reaction to a certain limit of savings is a qualitative transition of the system to a new level at a certain point in time. Second, the evolution of systems occurs on the basis of continuity. In other words, the new system is based on the capital of the old system, and it absorbs the most effective development mechanisms and institutions.
The author argued that, in the process of evolution, there is a change in the main parameters of the system due to the activation of the mechanism of adaptation to new challenges from external factors (Grechko 2015, p. 16). He developed a list of adaptive reactions of the economic system to the external environment challenges at the stage of post-industrial development.
It should be noted that the evolutionary theory considers not only economic but also a number of other factors crucial for the evolution of economic systems. In particular, these factors are technologies and institutions and specific sources of economic growth (Akeliev 2013). This fact inevitably confuses the understanding of the laws of evolution in general. However, numerous elements do not always lead to an increase in unpredictability, but the role of their interaction is important (Kozhevina and Tsvetkov 2005).
At the same time, the recognition of the probability of occurrence of unexpected challenges, including pandemic challenges, by the evolutionary theory is still an unresolved issue. It should be remembered that there are random genetic anomalies and mutations that are vital for biological evolution. The emergence of sudden pandemic factors that change the course of gradual evolution can be considered an analog to the socio-economic system.
The evolutionary principles in the development of socio-economic systems can justify the progressive movement in their advancement. It should be expected that the system development path can be predicted under stable and favorable conditions created by the external environment.

3.2. Institutional Theory

The key contributors to the institutional theory are Veblen (2022), Hobson (1927), Commons (2004), and Galbraith (2018).
This theory is based on the functioning of various institutions, expressed in norms and rules, both formal and informal. The effectiveness of the development of the socio-economic system largely depends on the nature of the existing institutions, their adequacy in the perception of society, and the discipline of their implementation.
Despite economic theory and institutional approaches not having a close relationship and attempts to analyze institutions using neoclassical science showing serious limitations (Pasinetti 2021), the institutional theory is not isolated from other theories of economic dynamics. Moreover, the nature of institutions can be a factor explaining the cyclical dynamics of the development of society. This relationship was shown quite clearly by Yerznkyan (2020, p. 121) in comparing “institutional structures” with wave dynamics (by analogy with technological structures that traditionally determine the Kondratiev cycles). The institutional structures change simultaneously and in combination with technological structures, and these processes are inseparable from each other; rather, they are complementary. It is in this coupling that they more reliably explain the presence of long waves.
Following the vectors established in the institutions of society allows the subject to move without any obstacles, ensuring higher economic efficiency than with the violation of accepted or recognized rules. The latter may incur economic losses of various kinds (Barkovskaya 2012). Hence, there is the manageable nature of building institutional societies and the possibility of preparing an institutional cushion for strategic and tactical plans. At the same time, unexpected factors can disrupt the established institutional structure, and the more threatening that such factors are, the greater that the discrepancy between the reaction of society and established institutions can be.
In comparison with neoclassical theory, in which price and quantity indicators were mainly used, neo-institutionalism considers a much wider range of parameters: quality, a system of penalties, conditions and consequences of deviations from the schedule of deliveries and payments, etc. Such variety makes it difficult to predict the dynamics of some influence and changes in any parameter (Shpaltakov 2018).
The key issue in neo-institutional theory is to consider the costs of interaction—transaction costs (Yerznkyan 2020, p. 122).

3.3. Synergetic Approach

The key contributors to the synergetic approach are Prigogine (1985), Haken (1985), and Zhang (1999).
The approach focuses on structural changes in the development of systems, bifurcations, and chaos, i.e., nonlinear phenomena in the evolution of socio-economic systems. According to Zhang (1999), economists use simplified approaches that take the stationary state as the main assumption, which is practically never found in the real economy. The economy most frequently faces economic cycles, irregular fluctuations, and chaos.
According to this approach, the main properties of economic systems are instability, disequilibrium, changing chaos, and self-organization. In contrast to traditional approaches within the neoclassical synthesis, synergetic economics allows for explaining and even predicting some dynamic processes, despite the primary attention paid to instability (Zhang 1999; Surkova 2019).
The synergetic approach is characterized by the following postulates (Chernyshova 2008):
  • Systems have different levels of organization; there is chaos in the transitions between levels;
  • Formation of new systems is accompanied by the spontaneous formation of new qualities;
  • Combination of system elements and subsystems into a single whole does not mean that a new formation (new system) will be equal to the sum of all the combined parts;
  • System disequilibrium is the source of the formation of a new organization;
  • Organizations of different levels are open systems;
  • Bifurcation points operate in systems under non-equilibrium conditions, etc.
Moreover, the insidiousness of synergetics lies in its uncertainty, in which the measure of responsibility for the decisions made and the formed strategy is reduced. As a result, subjective arbitrariness in actions aimed at solving objective problems is not excluded (Evstigneeva and Evstigneev 2007, p. 55).
In addition, in practice, this approach is sometimes used as a panacea, instinctively hoping that the system will find the most favorable state (the state of maximum entropy) by itself, but this feeling is deeply misleading because of the openness of the socio-economic system. External influences will constantly reduce its entropy. In addition, a favorable position for the system does not mean a positive state for all its components.

3.4. Civilizational Approach

The key contributors to the civilizational approach are Danilevsky (1991), Spengler (1998), and Toynbee (2010).
The concept of civilization is most often considered as opposed to the formational approach, the dynamics of which are based on a system of contradictions in production relations. The latter are gradually growing and, ultimately, lead to a change in formations through a revolution or peacefully. A characteristic feature that distinguishes the dynamics of the civilizational approach consists of the changes in the system of civilizational and spiritual values.
At the beginning of the 20th century, attention was paid to the civilizational concept of social development as a “theory of several researchers”. Thus, Danilevsky identified 20 cultural–historical types, Spengler recognized eight cultures that had reached maturity, and Toynbee introduced the concept of local civilization and development stages (Dibirov 2019, p. 455).
Modern researchers have dwelled on the specifics of current civilizational development and have predicted future civilizational changes. The concept of a post-industrial civilization has been introduced, and a search for solutions to global problems on the path of the development of a planetary civilization is under way (Sabden 2016, pp. 23–24). The level of current challenges highlights the issues of human survival, degradation, and the destruction of civilization. Natural anomalies, climate change, uncontrolled growth of the global population, ongoing armed conflicts, the struggle for access to limited resources, and the consumption of non-renewable resources that destroy vital ecosystems of the planet are accompanied by a fundamental crisis of ideas and principles of social organization (Arutyunov 2012).
The researchers of this approach have noted that global changes, such as earthquakes, happen everywhere. They are very difficult to predict since the place of their appearance is often unpredictable. As a result, unforeseen factors enforce taking measures in advance to smooth out potential excesses. These measures are of particular importance for influential and power structures, as they can prevent people from being distrusted in the future (Sabden 2016, p. 26).
Based on a global and planetary character, the civilizational approach poses a special challenge in resolving the problems of sudden impacts. In terms of developing the conditions for a society’s readiness for a sudden impact of unforeseen factors, the simplified classification makes it easier for people to present the reaction of the systems of various civilizations and simplifies the development of conditions for their perception of such an impact.
At the same time, the civilizational theory reveals special limitations of the process of fundamental transformations. The fact is that transformation, as a stage in the development of society, can be accompanied by rapid economic and legal changes and a change in the socio-economic structure. However, the delayed transformation of socio-cultural values, as a rule, causes a major protest of society in response to many, even most, progressive transformations. A comprehensive study of the systemic unity of the relationship of various factors in each specific territory, according to the methodology of the civilizational approach, will allow for developing strategic guidelines for the functioning and development of both global civilization and the subjects of a particular state. Meanwhile, these features limit the rapid response to the impact of sudden shocks, provided that the decisions are made on the basis of the civilizational theory. There is a high probability of failure of individual components of the social system, which most painfully react to unpredictable influences.


  1. Thom, René. 1975. Catastrophe Theory: Its Present State and Future Perspectives. In Dynamical Systems–Warwick 1974. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Edited by A. Manning. Berlin/Heidelberg and New York: Springer, vol. 468, pp. 366–89.
  2. Zeeman, Christopher. 1977. Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers, 1972–1977. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Available online: (accessed on 16 May 2023).
  3. Arnold, Vladimir I. 1990. Catastrophe Theory, 3rd ed. Moscow: Nauka. Available online: (accessed on 18 February 2023).
  4. Burtseva, Anna D., and Mikhail P. Voronov. 2016. Catastrophe theory: Approaches to research and application. International Journal of Experimental Education 8: 43–52. Available online: (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  5. Borodin, Aleksander I., Natalia N. Novikova, and Nataliya N. Shash. 2015. Application of synergetic methods and theory of accidents. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management 2: 84–90.
  6. Nedel’ko, Natalia S. 2010. Catastrophe theory and analysis of economic systems’ behaviour. Vestnik of MSTU 13: 223–27. Available online: (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  7. Chulichkov, Aleksey. 2001. Catastrophe theory and world development. Science and Life 6: 28–35. Available online: (accessed on 24 January 2023).
  8. Gizatullin, Khamid N., and Konstantin V. Pavlov. 1995. Economic pathology is the economics of crisis states. Social Sciences and Contemporary World 2: 94–98.
  9. Luzin, Gennady P., and Konstantin V. Pavlov. 1993. A Correlation between State and Market Methods of Economic Regulation during the Transition to Market Economy. Apatity: Kola Science Centre of RAS. Available online: (accessed on 13 January 2023).
  10. Luzin, Gennady P., and Konstantin V. Pavlov. 1999. Pathoeconomy, or the General Theory of Transitional, Crisis Socio-Economic Processes and States. Murmansk: Regional Book. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2023).
  11. Pavlov, Konstantin V. 2007. Pathological processes in the economy. Economic Herald of the Donbas 1: 50–60. Available online: (accessed on 18 February 2023).
  12. Zagaitov, Isaak B., Leonid P. Ianovsky, and Svetlana I. Iablonovskaya. 2009. The theory of economic pathologies as a special section of economic science. Vestnik of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation 1: 59–67. Available online: (accessed on 14 January 2023).
  13. Pronoza, Pavel V. 2013. Pathoeconomy: Essence, specific features, hypothesis. Problems of Economics 1: 7–15. Available online: (accessed on 16 March 2023).
  14. Pavlov, Konstantin V. 2012. Pathological social and economic processes at the regional level. Regional Economics: Theory and Practice 37: 2–18. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2023).
  15. Dmitrieva, Oksana G. 1992. Regional Economic Diagnostics. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg University of Economics and Finance. Available online: (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  16. Yamilov, Ramil M. 2015. Economics of situations: Identification, analysis, consequences, ways of addressing the negative economic processes on the example of agriculture in the Udmurt Republic. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law 25: 74–80. Available online: (accessed on 12 May 2023).
  17. Myrzakhmetova, Aida M., and Madina M. Khalitova. 2021. Modern pathologies of the Kazakhstan’s economy. Bulletin of the Kazakh University of Economics, Finance and International Trade 2: 22–30.
  18. Buzgalin, Aleksandr V. 2002. The socio-economic contradictions of post-industrial society. St. Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies 1: 3–13. Available online: (accessed on 22 April 2023).
  19. Ryazanov, Viktor T. 1990. Transition economy, its peculiarities and prospects. Vestnik of Leningrad University. Series: Economics 1: 8–15. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  20. Ryazanov, Viktor T. 2001. Post-industrial transformation, its socio-economic models and the fate of Russia’s economy in the 21st century. St. Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies 2: 4–24. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  21. Buzgalin, Aleksandr V., and Andrey I. Kolganov. 2001. Economy: The ‘periodical system of elements’ (On the structurization and typologization of economic systems). Voprosy Ekonomiki 12: 46–61. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  22. Balcerowicz, Leshek. 2003. Ten years of transition in comparative retrospect. St. Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies 1: 3–15. Available online: (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  23. Kolov, Yury N. 2004. Problems of transition economy. Tomsk State University Journal 283: 141–48. Available online: (accessed on 2 April 2023).
  24. Altman, Morns. 2010. Transition process via an alternative theoretical prisms: Comparative analysis of economies of Eastern European countries of former socialist camp. Terra Economicus 8: 10–34. Available online: (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  25. Brodskiy, Boris E. 1998. Transformational crises. Higher School of Economics Economic Journal 3: 322–41. Available online: (accessed on 2 May 2023).
  26. Ekubova, N. K. 2016. The theory of transition economy: Features and trends. Bulletin of Modern Science 11: 86–89. Available online: (accessed on 18 April 2023).
  27. Gubar, Aleksey I. 2000. On the conceptual framework for the reform of the transition society. Izvestiya of Altai State University Journal 2: 73–76. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  28. Barkovskaya, Olga L. 2012. Russia’s transitive economy institutional analysis. Competitiveness. Innovation. Finance 1: 7–11. Available online: (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  29. Susjan, Andrej, and Tjasa Redek. 2007. Uncertainty and growth: The case of transition economies. SCEME Working Papers: Advances in Economic Methodology 13. Available online: (accessed on 24 September 2022).
  30. Soukup, Marek, and Ivan V. Rozmainsky. 2018. Uncertainty in a transitional economy: The case of the Czech Republic in the 1990s. Terra Economicus 16: 56–73.
  31. Hayek, Friedrich. 2018. Collected Works. 19 vols. Vol. 7: Economic cycles, Part I. Translated by A. Rezvov, and Gr. Sapov. Moscow: Sotsium. Chelyabinsk: Thought. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  32. Kondratiev, Nikolai D. 2002. Long Cycles of Conjuncture and Foresight Theory. Selected Works. Moscow: Ekonomika. Available online: (accessed on 20 March 2023).
  33. Lescure, Jean. 1908. General and Periodic Industrial Crises. Translated by Nikolay Ivanovich Suvirov. Saint-Petersburg: Public Benefit. Available online: (accessed on 6 May 2023).
  34. Schumpeter, Josef Alois. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Available online: (accessed on 18 March 2023).
  35. Akaev, Askar A. 2022. Nikolai Kondratiev’s epoch-making discoveries and their impact on contemporary economic science. AlterEconomics 19: 11–39.
  36. Haberler, Gottfried. 2005. Prosperity and Depression: A Theoretical Analysis of Cyclical Fluctuations. Translated by O. G. Klesment, K. M. Osadnaya, and R. X. Khafizova. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium. Available online: (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  37. Schumpeter, Josef Alois. 2008. A Theory of Economic Development. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Moscow: Eksmo. Available online: (accessed on 12 March 2023).
  38. Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Available online: (accessed on 22 April 2023).
  39. Veblen, Thorstein. 2007. The Theory of Business Enterprise. Translated by M. Ya Kazhdan. Moscow: Delo. Available online: (accessed on 20 May 2023).
  40. Mayevsky, Vladimir I. 2020. Concept of switching mode of reproduction and evolutionary theory: Issues of methodology. Vestnik Universiteta 8: 123–26.
  41. Grechko, Mikhail V. 2015. Adaptation as the cornerstone of the evolution of economic systems. National Interests: Priorities and Security 17: 13–23. Available online: (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  42. Akerman, Yelena N. 2011. Evolutionary economic theory: New economy methodology research. Tomsk State University Journal 348: 107–9. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2023).
  43. Lebedev, Viktor I., and Inna V. Lebedeva. 2019. Evolution, Chaos, Self-Organization and Management of Socio-Economic Systems. In Priorities and Trends of Business Process Management in the Structure of Information Systems: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Stavropol: Stavropol State Agrarian University. Available online: (accessed on 16 April 2023).
  44. Akeliev, Evgeniy S. 2013. Technology gap and innovation diffusion as the most important components of economy transformation in the context of evolution theory. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin 12: 57–61. Available online: (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  45. Kozhevina, Olga V., and Vladimir V. Tsvetkov. 2005. An evolutionary approach in economics. Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University 1: 132–35. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  46. Veblen, Thorstein. 2022. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Translated by Sofia Sorokina. Moscow: Azbuka. Available online: (accessed on 28 April 2023).
  47. Hobson, John. 1927. Imperialism. Translated by V. B. Belenko. Leningrad: Priboy. Available online: (accessed on 19 April 2023).
  48. Commons, John R. 2004. Labor and Administration. Kitchener: Batoche Books. Available online: (accessed on 18 February 2023).
  49. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 2018. The Affluent Society. Moscow: Olympus-Business. Available online:Кеннет-Гэлбрейт-Общество-изобилия-Современная-экономическая-мысль-2018.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  50. Pasinetti, Luigi L. 2021. Economic theory and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 56: 438–42.
  51. Yerznkyan, Bagrat. 2020. Long-wave dynamics in the context of the development of institutional economic theory. Vestnik Universiteta 2: 120–25.
  52. Shpaltakov, Vladimir P. 2018. Institutional theory and the future problems of the Russian economy. Innovative Economics and Society 4: 26–37. Available online: (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  53. Prigogine, Ilya R. 1985. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. Moscow: Nauka. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  54. Haken, Herman. 1985. Advanced Synergetics: Instability Hierarchies of Self-Organizing Systems and Devices. Translated by Emelianov Vladimir Ivanovich. Moscow: Mir. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  55. Zhang, Wei-Bin. 1999. Synergetic Economics: Time and Change in Nonlinear Economics. Translated by N. V. Ostrovskaya. Moscow: Mir. Available online: (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  56. Surkova, Olesya A. 2019. Applying the synergy method to economics. Bulletin of Modern Research 38: 243–45. Available online: (accessed on 16 February 2023).
  57. Chernyshova, Olesya Yu. 2008. Synergy and economy: Interaction principles. Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities 10: 345–49. Available online: (accessed on 6 May 2023).
  58. Evstigneeva, Lyudmila P., and Ruben N. Evstigneev. 2007. Methodological Foundations of Economic Synergetics. Moscow: Institute of Economics of RAS. Available online: (accessed on 14 February 2023).
  59. Danilevsky, Nikolay Ya. 1991. Russia and Europe. Moscow: Kniga. Available online: (accessed on 11 April 2023).
  60. Spengler, Oswald. 1998. The Decline of the West. Essays on the Morphology of World History. Vol. 1: Gestalt and Reality; Vol. 2: Perspectives of World History. Translated by Karen Araevich Svasyan. Moscow: Mysl. Available online: (accessed on 13 April 2023).
  61. Toynbee, Arnold J. 2010. A Study of History. Translated by Evgeniy Dmitrievich Zharkov. Moscow: Airis-Press. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2023).
  62. Dibirov, Hadzhimurad M. 2019. Analysis of social evolution through the formation and civilizational concept. Eurasian Law Journal 3: 454–55. Available online: (accessed on 6 May 2023).
  63. Sabden, Orazaly S. 2016. A systemic approach to the civilizational development of humanity in the twenty-first century. Age of Globalization 4: 23–39. Available online: (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  64. Arutyunov, Yury A. 2012. Analysis of the crisis in the development of society based on civilized approach. Vestnik of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics 4: 28–33. Available online: (accessed on 23 March 2023).
Subjects: Economics
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 216
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 25 Jul 2023