Rational economic behavior, rational choice. Rational choice

test

Rational economic choice

In conditions of limited resources, a major role is played by the consumer’s choice between options for using resources. The optimality of the economic choice depends on the costs and the result obtained.

There are three main subjects in the economy: the consumer, the producer and society. In conditions of limited resources, the consumer must balance his income with his expenses. The manufacturer decides what to produce, in what quantity, also weighing all costs and income. This is how a rational economic choice is formed. That is, with a minimum of costs, maximum results are ensured.

Based on the cost of the good, which varies widely, the consumer decides what will be profitable for him to purchase. And if he chooses this or that product at a favorable price, knowing that it will bring a good result, then we can talk about a rational (optimal) economic choice. Therefore, it is associated with assessing the opportunity cost of a good.

Information support for decision-making in the management of the Federal Property Management Agency

Today, the software market offers a wide range of DBMSs, among them there are DBMSs that allow you to implement the basic functions required by a simple application that does not have high requirements for functionality...

Organizational and economic calculation of an otorhinolaryngologist’s office

The office is equipped with equipment in accordance with the equipment standard in accordance with Appendix No. 3 of the order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated November 12, 2012. N 905n "Standard for equipment of an otorhinolaryngological office"...

Organization of serving a continental lunch in the restaurant of the Mir Hotel (Kharkov) for a group of tourists from Germany

When choosing a banquet hall, you must consider: · capacity of the hall; · correspondence of the interior to the nature of your celebration; · quality of service and variety of menu; · design, decoration...

Valuation of the company OJSC Gazprom gas distribution Chelyabinsk

The comparative approach uses two types of information: stock market information on stock sales prices (Russian Trading System, MICEX, etc.)...

Consumer behavior

Consumers make rational (optimal) choices in the market, i.e. choose products in such a way as to achieve maximum satisfaction of their needs within a given limited budget...

Subject of economic theory

There are different ways to use resources and different goals that are achieved by using them. There is also the possibility of moving resources from one area of application to another. Assuming that the amount of resources (labor...

Entrepreneur as a subject of the economic process

The quality of a person’s life is largely determined by how fully he manages to satisfy his material and spiritual needs. A person cannot fail to satisfy his needs, because he, one might say...

Development of a business plan for JSC "Hermes"

Self-regulation (SRO) in the field of construction, reconstruction, major repairs of capital construction projects (construction activities) (SROS)...

Development of a business plan for an enterprise for the production of soft toys

Working capital of an enterprise represents financial resources invested in current assets (raw materials, materials, fuel, energy, etc.)...

Calculation of technical and economic indicators of the Optics enterprise

Table 9. Selection of main equipment No. Name of equipment Type, model, brand Purpose Productivity, Lenses/hour Unit cost, thousand rubles. Quantity Total cost, thousand rubles...

Improving the methodology for forming safety stock at industrial enterprises

Traditionally, stocks are divided into transport, preparatory, technological, current, seasonal and insurance (Buffer stock - BS). The components of all inventories (except for insurance and seasonal) are calculated in this way...

Creation of an online store of chocolate sweets

Our potential buyers are residents of Moscow and the Moscow region. Our market segment is people of the middle strata of society who live within the city...

Consumer choice theory

Consumer behavior in the market, especially when purchasing expensive goods (for example, real estate), is associated with a situation that can be called uncertainty. The consumer is at some risk...

Characteristics of the economic and commercial activities of the enterprise "Vesna"

The importance of choosing a supplier is explained not only by the functioning of a large number of suppliers of the same material resources in the modern market, but also by the fact that it must be, first of all...

Pricing policy of the organization

Pricing policies and strategies must be consistent with the organization's defined marketing strategy. The purpose of such a strategy may be: 1) penetration into a new market; 2) development of the product market...

The general provisions of numerous varieties of rational choice theory are:

- assumption of intentionality;
- assumption of rationality;
- the distinction between “complete” and “incomplete” information and, in the latter case, between “risk” and “uncertainty”;
- distinguishing between “strategic” and “interdependent” actions.

Rational choice theory assumes intentionality. Rational choice explanations are really a subset of “intentional explanations.” Intentional explanations do not simply assume that the individual acts intentionally; rather, they explain social practices by appealing to the respective beliefs and wishes of individuals. Often, intentional explanations are accompanied by a search for unexpected (or so-called “aggregate”) consequences of people’s intentional actions. In contrast to functionalist modes of explanation, unexpected effects of social practices are not used to explain the sustainability of these very practices. Rational choice theorists pay particular attention to two types of negative unexpected consequences or “social contradictions”: counter-completeness and suboptimality.

Countercompletion is associated with a “failure of composition,” which occurs whenever people act under the mistaken assumption that what is optimal for any individual in a particular situation is also necessarily optimal for all individuals in that situation ( , 106; , 95).

Suboptimality refers to individuals who, in the context of interdependent choices, choose a particular strategy, aware that other individuals are doing the same, and also aware that each has at least as much to gain if a different strategy is adopted ( , 122). A striking example of suboptimality for two is the so-called prisoner's dilemma, which will be discussed later.

Second, in addition to intentionality, rational choice theories presuppose rationality. Rational choice explanations are really a subset of intentional explanations; they attribute, as the name suggests, rationality in social action. Rationality means, roughly speaking, that in acting and interacting, an individual has an appropriate plan and strives to maximize the totality of satisfactions of his preferences, while minimizing the corresponding costs. Thus, rationality presupposes a “relatedness assumption,” which states that the individual involved has a complete “order of preferences” regarding various options. From these preference orders, social scientists can talk about a utilitarian function that assigns a number to each option according to its rank within the preference order. For a person to be rational, her order of preferences must satisfy certain requirements. The principle of transitivity is an obvious example of such a necessary condition: preferring X over Y and Y over Z must imply a preference for X over Z. In the case where relatedness and transitivity are simultaneously involved, rational choice theorists speak of a “weak order of preference.”

Rational choice explanations relate individual behavior to that individual's subjective beliefs and preferences rather than to the objective conditions and opportunities facing him. Thus, it is possible for someone to act rationally based on false beliefs that are opposed to the best ways to achieve one's goals or desires. However, to call someone rational, he/she must gather, within the bounds of the possible, enough information for his/her beliefs to be justified. Endlessly gathering information can also be a sign of irrationality, especially if the situation is an emergency. For example, in the face of immediate military attack, prolonged exploration of possible strategies will have devastating consequences.

Third, there are differences between uncertainty and risk. People are assumed to know with some certainty the consequences of their actions. But in reality, people often have only partial information about the relationship between specific actions and consequences. Some theorists even take the position that there are no real-life situations in which people are able to rely on complete information, because, as Burke wrote two centuries ago, “you can never plan the future based on the past.” There is a difference in the framework of “incomplete information” between “uncertainty” and “risk” - this distinction was first made by M. Keynes, and rational choice theory seeks to study choice under uncertainty as choice under risk.

When faced with risk, people are able to attribute the likelihood of various outcomes, while when faced with uncertainty, they are unable to do so. Rational choice theorists tend to focus on risk for two reasons: either because they believe that situations of uncertainty do not exist, or because they believe that when such situations do exist, rational choice theory will not be able to help people in their actions. In the face of risk, rational risk theory assumes that people are able to calculate the “expected utility” or “expected value” of each action.

Fourth, there is a distinction between strategic and parametric choices. Excluding the above two types of social contradiction (indicative of “strategic” or “interdependent” elections), let us turn to parametric elections. They refer to the choices that individuals face in environments independent of their choices. Suboptimality and counterfinality are examples of strategic choices in which individuals must take into account the choices made by others before determining their own course of action. Another example: people who buy and sell stocks on the stock exchange seek to consider the choices of others before making their own decisions. Part of the theory of rational action, game theory deals with the formalization of interdependent or strategic choices. She constructs ideal-type models that involve the rational decision of each player in a game where other players also make choices, and where each player must take into account the choices of others.

Norwegian sociologist Ottar Brox (b. 1932) set out to show what rational basis local adaptations ("customs") have, which society considers as traditional or traditionalist . As an example, he analyzes the institution of the “fish pot”. On the northern coast of Norway, once traditional for many, there was an outlet in the fjord to catch fish for dinner, as they said, “catch with a pot.” Often fishermen could catch more fresh fish than they could use, then the excess had to be given to neighbors, friends or acquaintances. However, such “generosity” was not a manifestation of altruistic values, but an exchange within the framework of a barter economy. Later, the donor himself will receive the fish and other goods, or he will be helped in other ways when he needs it. This system of exchange relations was supported by customs and social norms. However, with the advent of the refrigerator, it became more profitable to store fish than to “give” it away. Such new latent forms of action were used by people willing to violate norms and not sensitive to sanctions. In this way, they can function as entrepreneurs who change the existing system of interdependence.

Another prominent Scandinavian theorist in this area is Gudmund Hernes (b. 1941), a student of Coleman who studied problems of education and inequality, and applied rational choice theory to the study of problems of power and anarchy. On his initiative and under his leadership, a large-scale study of power relations in modern Norwegian society was carried out, commissioned and paid for by the Norwegian government. Hernes and his colleagues created a model for analyzing the processes occurring in a negotiated economy and in mixed administration .

The central concepts of the Hernes model are power, interest And exchange. Actor A has power over B because A controls something that interests B, and vice versa. This mutual dependence forms the basis of exchange, since actors can make decisions while facing each other. Actors may give up control over something of lesser interest to them in order to gain control over something of greater importance. Hernes summarizes the mutual dependence, power and bargaining power of the parties with the following formula:

Direct power of A over B = control of A over subject X + interest of B in subject X = direct dependence of B on A ( , 14,).

A and B are not necessarily individuals, but rational actors cooperating in groups to achieve their own benefit. Parliamentarians make laws and can therefore create exchange relationships with those who value parliamentary votes. Farmers control food production and thus have leverage over authorities and consumers. Unions can exercise power through strike action. Henry Milner dealt with the problems of studying the relationship between social democratic politics and rational choice theory.

From the point of view of J. Elster, it is necessary to reject the functional explanation and replace them with combinations of intentional and causal explanations. Instead of positing classes as collective actors, one should analyze the ways in which rational individuals unite in action to achieve a common goal. Game theory, according to Elster, is acceptable in order to give the macrotheories of Marxism microfoundations.

The main height of the crisis of behaviorism, structural-functional analysis and other main methodological directions occurred in the 60-70s. These years were full of attempts to find a new methodological basis for further research. Scientists have tried to do this in different ways:

1. update “classical” methodological approaches (the emergence of post-behavioural methodological directions, neo-institutionalism, etc.);

2. create a system of “middle level” theories and try to use these theories as a methodological basis;

3. try to create an equivalent to a general theory by appealing to classical political theories;

4. turn to Marxism and create various kinds of technocratic theories on the basis of this.

These years are characterized by the emergence of a number of methodological theories that claim to be the “grand theory”. One of these theories, one of these methodological directions was the theory of rational choice.

The theory of rational choice was intended to overcome the shortcomings of behaviorism, structural-functional analysis and institutionalism, creating a theory of political behavior in which a person would act as an independent, active political actor, a theory that would allow one to look at a person’s behavior “from the inside”, taking into account the nature of his attitudes, choice of optimal behavior, etc.

The theory of rational choice came to political science from economics. The “founding fathers” of the theory of rational choice are considered to be E. Downs (formulated the main provisions of the theory in his work “The Economic Theory of Democracy”), D. Black (introduced the concept of preferences into political science, described the mechanism of their translation into results of activity), G. Simon (substantiated the concept of bounded rationality and demonstrated the possibilities of using the rational choice paradigm), as well as L. Chapley, M. Shubik, V. Rykera, M. Olson, J. Buchanan, G. Tulloch (developed “game theory”). It took about ten years before rational choice theory became widespread in political science.

Proponents of the theory of rational choice proceed from the following methodological premises:

First, methodological individualism, that is, the recognition that social and political structures, politics and society as a whole are secondary to the individual. It is the individual who produces institutions and relationships through his activity. Therefore, the interests of the individual are determined by himself, as well as the order of preferences.

Secondly, the individual’s selfishness, that is, his desire to maximize his own benefit. This does not mean that a person will necessarily behave like an egoist, but even if he behaves like an altruist, then this method is most likely more beneficial for him than others. This applies not only to the behavior of an individual, but also to his behavior in a group when he is not bound by special personal attachments.

Proponents of rational choice theory believe that a voter decides whether to go to the polls or not, depending on how he evaluates the benefit of his vote, and also votes based on rational considerations of benefit. He can manipulate his political attitudes if he sees that he may not get a win. Political parties in elections also try to maximize their benefits by winning the support of as many voters as possible. Deputies form committees, guided by the need to pass this or that bill, their people into the government, etc. The bureaucracy in its activities is guided by the desire to increase its organization and its budget, etc.

Third, the rationality of individuals, that is, their ability to arrange their preferences in accordance with their maximum benefit. As E. Downs wrote, “every time we talk about rational behavior, we mean rational behavior initially aimed at selfish goals.” In this case, the individual correlates the expected results and costs and, trying to maximize the result, tries to simultaneously minimize costs. Since rationalizing behavior and assessing the balance of benefits and costs requires the possession of significant information, and its acquisition is associated with an increase in total costs, we speak of the “bounded rationality” of the individual. This bounded rationality has more to do with the decision-making procedure itself than with the essence of the decision itself.

Fourth, exchange of activities. Individuals in society do not act alone; there is an interdependence of people's choices. The behavior of each individual is carried out in certain institutional conditions, that is, under the influence of the actions of institutions. These institutional conditions themselves are created by people, but the starting point is people’s consent to exchange activities. In the process of activity, individuals rather than adapt to institutions, but try to change them in accordance with their interests. Institutions, in turn, can change the order of preferences, but this only means that the changed order turned out to be beneficial for political actors under given conditions.

Most often, the political process within the framework of the rational choice paradigm is described in the form of public choice theory or in the form of game theory.

Proponents of the theory of public choice proceed from the fact that in a group an individual behaves selfishly and rationally. He will not voluntarily make special efforts to achieve common goals, but will try to use public goods for free (the “hare” phenomenon in public transport). This occurs because the nature of collective goods includes characteristics such as non-excludability (that is, no one can be excluded from using the public good) and non-rivalry (consumption of the good by a large number of people does not reduce its utility).

Proponents of game theory proceed from the fact that the political struggle for winning, as well as the assumptions of rational choice theory about the universality of such qualities of political actors as selfishness and rationality, make the political process similar to a zero or non-zero sum game. As is known from the course of general political science, game theory describes the interaction of actors through a certain set of game scenarios. The purpose of such an analysis is to search for such game conditions under which participants choose certain behavioral strategies, for example, beneficial to all participants at once.

This methodological approach is not free from some shortcomings. One of these shortcomings is the insufficient consideration of social and cultural-historical factors influencing individual behavior. The authors of this textbook are far from agreeing with researchers who believe that the political behavior of an individual is largely a function of social structure or with those who argue that the political behavior of actors is incomparable in principle because it occurs within the framework of unique national conditions and etc. However, it is obvious that the rational choice model does not take into account the influence of the sociocultural environment on the preferences, motivation and behavioral strategy of political actors, and does not take into account the influence of the specifics of political discourse.

Another shortcoming relates to the assumption made by rational choice theorists about the rationality of behavior. The point is not only that individuals can behave as altruists, and not only that they may have limited information and imperfect qualities. These nuances, as shown above, are explained by the theory of rational choice itself. We are talking, first of all, about the fact that people often act irrationally under the influence of short-term factors, under the influence of passion, guided, for example, by momentary impulses.

As D. Easton correctly notes, the broad interpretation of rationality proposed by the supporters of the theory under consideration leads to the erosion of this concept. A more fruitful solution to the problems posed by representatives of the theory of rational choice would be to distinguish types of political behavior depending on its motivation. In particular, “socially oriented” behavior in the interests of “social solidarity” differs significantly from rational and egoistic behavior.

In addition, rational choice theory is often criticized for some technical contradictions arising from its basic provisions, as well as for its limited explanatory capabilities (for example, the applicability of the model of party competition proposed by its proponents only to countries with a two-party system). However, a significant part of such criticism either stems from an incorrect interpretation of the works of representatives of this theory, or is refuted by representatives of the theory of rational choice themselves (for example, using the concept of “bounded” rationality).

Despite the noted shortcomings, the theory of rational choice has a number of advantages, which determine its great popularity. The first undoubted advantage is that standard scientific research methods are used here. The analyst formulates hypotheses or theorems based on a general theory. The analysis technique used by proponents of rational choice theory proposes the construction of theorems that include alternative hypotheses regarding the intentions of political actors. The researcher then subjects these hypotheses or theorems to empirical testing. If reality does not disprove a theorem, the theorem or hypothesis is considered relevant. If the test results are unsuccessful, the researcher draws appropriate conclusions and repeats the procedure again. Using this methodology allows the researcher to infer what human actions, institutional structures, and exchange activity outcomes will be most likely under certain conditions. Thus, the theory of rational choice solves the problem of verifying theoretical positions by testing scientists' assumptions regarding the intentions of political actors.

As the famous political scientist K. von Boime rightly notes, the success of the theory of rational choice in political science can generally be explained by the following reasons:

1. “neopositivist requirements for the use of deductive methods in political science are most easily satisfied with the help of formal models, on the use of which this methodological approach is based

2. the approach from the standpoint of the theory of rational choice can be applied in the analysis of any type of behavior - from the actions of the most selfish rationalist to the infinitely altruistic activities of Mother Teresa, who maximized the strategy of helping the disadvantaged

3. directions of political science, located at an intermediate level between micro- and macro-theories, are forced to recognize the possibility of an approach based on the analysis of activity ( political subjects– E.M., O.T.) actors. The actor in the concept of rational choice is a construct that allows one to avoid the question of the real unity of the individual

4. rational choice theory promotes the use of qualitative and cumulative ( mixed - E.M., O.T.) approaches in political science

5. The approach from the standpoint of rational choice theory acted as a kind of counterbalance to the dominance of behavioral research in previous decades. It can be easily combined with multi-level analysis (especially when studying the realities of the European Union countries) and with ... neo-institutionalism, which became widespread in the 80s.”

The theory of rational choice has a fairly wide scope of application. It is used to analyze voter behavior, parliamentary activity and coalition formation, international relations, etc., and is widely used in modeling political processes.

Discursive approach.

The concept of discourse is very polysemantic (from the Latin – discourse– reasoning, argument, argument), it is often used as a synonym for the word “text”. Moreover, the text was sometimes understood not only as a specific product of speech activity, but also as the widest range of phenomena of reality, structured in a special way and carrying a semantic load.

There are many in science definitions of concepts"discourse", "political discourse". Given their diversity, we can distinguish two main approaches .

The first approach is broader, and here under discourse are understood fragments of reality that have temporal extension, logic and represent a complete composition formed on the basis of the organization of meanings (a completed “work”, for example, in the form of a text) using a semantic code (dictionary, etc.).

Representatives of another, narrower approach interpret discourse as a special type of communication: "Discourseis a communicative event that occurs between a speaker, a listener (observer, etc.) in the process of communicative action in a certain time, space, etc. context. This communicative action can be verbal, written, and have verbal and nonverbal components.» .

If we apply this approach to the analysis of social and political phenomena, then discourse will define not interpersonal dialogue as a “speech event”, but “social dialogue occurring through and through social institutions between individuals, groups and also between the social institutions themselves involved in this dialogue."

In general, representatives of discourse theory highlight two aspects of this phenomenon:

1. discourse - frame, “generative system” (J. Pocock, K. Skinner). To denote this phenomenon, the terms “language” and “ideology” are often used; It is in this sense that they speak of the discourse of liberalism, conservatism, etc.

2. specific discourse - a discourse-work that has a specific plot, for example, the discourse of the 2000 presidential elections in the Russian Federation.

In the applied, “technical” sense, discourse means the written, speech or figurative manifestation of an object (broad interpretation of discourse), or communication (narrow interpretation). In this case, speeches, texts, interviews, conversations, debates, etc. are analyzed.

Discourse theory is a relatively new approach in political science, although it has deep roots in the philosophical tradition. In the twentieth century, the concept of discourse became widely used in linguistic sciences. Since the mid-50s. the intensive use of the term begins in philosophy, and later in other social sciences, including political sciences. This process was facilitated deepening interest in linguistics and language problems at all.

This interest is explained by two groups factors: external to science (objective social needs) and internal (the logic of the development of science itself).

External factors were associated with the expansion of the sphere of language in the public sphere, incl. political life. Thanks to the development of the media, language permeates all areas of social life, becoming a real social force, a powerful instrument of influence and manipulation. In addition, the increased interest in language was influenced by the nature of social processes: rethinking of linguistic issues is usually characteristic of periods of social upheaval, such as the 60-70s. Socio-political transformations, as a rule, are accompanied by changes in the attitude of various social groups to words, language, and culture. The changes that have taken place require reflection. Traditional ideas cannot explain the new reality, and therefore there is a need for a new worldview, new concepts and terminology.

Internal The factor was the accumulation of new empirical data, which contributed to a change in attitude towards language in the humanities. Traditionally, language was viewed as a product of culture that arises in the course of mastering reality; as a coordinator of activities, a translator of experience and knowledge between generations (language - an object culture). Gradually, a different idea emerges, in which language acts not only as a product, but also condition culture, its means, which is not only subject to external influence, but also has a reverse effect, shapes and structures the environment (language turns into subject culture).

The foundations of the theory of political discourse were laid by representatives of the Cambridge and Oxford philosophical schools in the 50s. 20th century, who analyzed the linguistic context of social thought. One of the first studies of political discourse was the serial publication of P. Lasle “Philosophy, Politics and Society”, begun in 1956. In the 70s. the term “discourses” is beginning to be widely used in the analysis of political processes. In the 80s a center of semiotic research associated with discourse analysis emerges. It centers around T. Van Dyck. The center's researchers are beginning to pay attention not only to the content aspects, but also to the technique of analyzing political discourse. From this moment we can talk about the formation of an independent methodological approach to the analysis of political processes.

To study political discourse, representatives of this methodological direction widely use methods of semiotic analysis (the study of discourse-framework), as well as rhetoric and literary criticism (analysis of a specific discourse-work).

When studying the discourse frame (languages), scientists identify different levels of organization of the political discourse frame. In particular, such levels are considered to be dictionaries, a simple language that allows the existence of one point of view on a phenomenon and a generally accepted meaning, a complex language that allows the existence of multiple points of view and subjective meanings, as well as myth.

One of the most developed areas of analysis within the framework of this approach is the contextual analysis of political discourse, or rather its individual components. As a result of such contextual analysis, the peculiarities of the meanings of individual components of political discourse are revealed, formed under the influence of factors external to it (socio-economic, cultural and political conditions). At the same time, it is recognized that discourse is not a simple reflection of processes occurring in other areas of the social world, for example, in the economy. It unites semantic elements and practices from all spheres of public life. The concept of articulation is used to explain the process of its construction. Combining, heterogeneous elements form a new construction, new meanings, a new series of meanings or discourse. For example, the Labor government that came to power in England in the 50s built its program using various ideological components: the welfare state, promises of universal employment, the Keynesian model of management, the nationalization of certain industries, support for entrepreneurship, the Cold War. This strategy was not simply an expression of the interests of certain social strata of society, a response to changes in the economy; it was the result of the combination of different political, ideological and economic models, as a result of which a new discourse was constructed.

When analyzing a discourse-work, turning to the achievements of rhetoric and literary criticism presupposes, first of all, the use of methods related to plot analysis. Here there are well-established schemes and models that allow you to present individual political events and processes (rally, election process, etc.) as a discourse with its own plot, meanings and other parameters and predict its development. Much attention is paid to the study of alternative plots based on one initial model, as well as the study of plots with open ends. This technique and technology allows one to obtain good results when analyzing the political process as a dynamic characteristic of politics.

The practical application of discourse theory can be demonstrated by the example of the analysis of Thatcherism (S. Hall). The Thatcherism project consisted of two, largely mutually exclusive, spheres of ideas and theories: elements of neoliberal ideology (the concepts of “personal interests”, “monetarism”, “competition” were articulated), and elements of conservative ideology (“nation”, “family” , “duty”, “authority”, “power”, “traditions”). It was based on a combination of free market policies and a strong state. Around the term “collectivism,” which did not fit into the framework of this project, the ideologists of Thatcherism built a whole chain of associations, which led to the emergence of social rejection of this concept. Collectivism in the mass consciousness has become associated with socialism, stagnation, ineffective management, and the power of trade unions rather than the state to the detriment of state interests. The result of this policy was the introduction of the idea that social institutions, built in accordance with the ideology of “collectivism,” are responsible for the crisis state of the economy and prolonged stagnation in society. Thatcherism became associated with individual freedoms and personal entrepreneurship, the moral and political rejuvenation of British society, and the restoration of law and order.

One of the areas of analysis of political discourse is the postmodern approach. It is impossible not to mention postmodernism in discourse analysis due to the fact that this direction is becoming increasingly widespread in the social sciences, including political science, and is considered one of the “fashionable” areas of social and political analysis. Let us dwell briefly on its characteristics.

When analyzing political discourse, postmodernists proceed from the following parcels. They deny the possibility of a single, shared image of reality that can be accurately studied and explained. The world around us is created by the beliefs and behavior of people. As ideas spread, people begin to believe in them and act on them. Being enshrined in certain rules, norms, institutions and mechanisms of social control, these ideas thereby create reality.

Most representatives of this direction believe that meanings must be sought not in the external world, but only in language, which is a mechanism for creating and transmitting individual ideas. Therefore, the study of language is declared the main task of science. The need to understand how the formation and construction of objects of reality occurs; the only way to achieve this goal is considered to be the interpretation of language through text. At the same time, language is often considered as an exclusive subject that shapes people's understanding of the world around them.

According to representatives of the postmodern movement, to understand the discourse it is enough to analyze only the text itself. At the same time, the conditions of its writing, its history, personality, knowledge of the author’s abilities, etc. are ignored. That is, the meanings and meanings contained in the text belong neither to the context, nor to the author, nor to the reader, nor to history, but only to the text. Most postmodernists believe that anyone reading a text is capable of offering a reliable interpretation; the reliability of the interpretation depends solely on subjective perception. As D. Easton rightly notes, “this perspective destroys both objectivity and subjectivity; the text speaks for itself, the dialogue is not between people, not between the author and the reader.”

Some postmodernists, believing that all meaning is in the text, argue that there is no reality outside of language. Thus, the existence of a basis external to the researcher on which scientific knowledge can be based is rejected.

Although this position seems to apply only to language, many postmodernists use it to analyze behavior. They believe that human behavior is “constructed” as text; we “read” the behavior as well as the sentence. Behavior contains meaning in and about itself. In this case, the actor’s intentions do not affect the meaning of his behavior, just as the author’s intentions do not relate to the text. The circumstances under the influence of which the action is carried out are also not taken into account. There is no analysis of the socio-economic context, motivation, cultural orientations, social structure and other variables that explain behavior. Thus, the possibilities for an authentic “reading” of action within the framework of postmodernism also turn out to be at a low level, as are the possibilities for “reading” texts.

Thus, within the framework of postmodernism, there is no full-fledged analysis of political discourse, since only its subjective meanings obtained by researchers are analyzed. In this regard, it is significant that within the framework of postmodernism the concept of discourse is not even defined, although the term itself is used quite widely. In general, the postmodern approach to the analysis of political discourse cannot be considered particularly fruitful, although there is no doubt that within the framework of this direction a lot of factual material is analyzed, the appeal to which is of undoubted interest for further studies of political discourse.

Related information.

The problem of choice is one of the central ones in economics. The two main actors in the economy - the buyer and the producer - are constantly involved in choice processes. The consumer decides what to buy and at what price. The manufacturer decides what to invest in and what goods to produce.

One of the basic assumptions of economic theory is that people make rational choices. Rational choice means the assumption that a person's decision is the result of an orderly thought process. The word “orderly” is defined by economists in strict mathematical terms. A number of assumptions about human behavior are introduced, which are called axioms of rational behavior.

Provided that these axioms are true, a theorem is proven about the existence of a certain function that establishes human choice - a utility function. Usefulness is the value that is maximized by a person with rational economic thinking in the selection process. We can say that utility is an imaginary measure of the psychological and consumer value of various goods.

Decision-making problems involving consideration of utilities and probabilities of events were the first to attract the attention of researchers. The formulation of such problems is usually as follows: a person chooses some actions in a world where the resulting result (outcome) of the action is influenced by random events that are beyond the control of a person, but having some knowledge about the probabilities of these events, a person can calculate the most advantageous combination and order of his actions. actions.

Note that in this formulation of the problem, action options are usually not assessed according to many criteria. Thus, a simpler (simplified) description of them is used. Not one, but several sequential actions are considered, which makes it possible to build so-called decision trees (see below).

A person who follows the axioms of rational choice is called in economics a rational person.

2. Axioms of rational behavior

Six axioms are introduced and the existence of a utility function is proved. Let us give a meaningful presentation of these axioms. Let us denote by x, y, z the various outcomes (results) of the selection process, and by p, q - the probabilities of certain outcomes. Let's introduce the definition of a lottery. A lottery is a game with two outcomes: outcome x, obtained with probability p, and outcome y, obtained with probability 1-p (Fig. 2.1).

Fig.2.1. Lottery presentation

An example of a lottery is tossing a coin. In this case, as is known, with probability p = 0.5 heads or tails appear. Let x = $10 and

y = - $10 (i.e., we get $10 when heads come up and pay the same amount when tails come up). The expected (or average) price of a lottery is determined by the formula рх+(1-р)у.

Let us present the axioms of rational choice.

Axiom 1. Outcomes x, y, z belong to the set A of outcomes.

Axiom 2. Let P stand for strict preference (similar to the relation > in mathematics); R - loose preference (similar to relation ³); I - indifference (similar to attitude =). It is clear that R includes P and I. Axiom 2 requires the fulfillment of two conditions:

1) connectivity: either xRy, or yRx, or both;

2) transitivity: xRy and yRz imply xRz.

Axiom 3. The two shown in Fig. 2.2 lotteries are in a relationship of indifference.

Rice. 2.2. Two lotteries in a relation of indifference

The validity of this axiom is obvious. It is written in standard form as ((x, p, y)q, y)I (x, pq, y). Here on the left is a complex lottery, where with probability q we get a simple lottery, in which with probability p we get outcome x or with probability (1-p) - outcome y), and with probability (1-q) - outcome y.

Axiom 4. If xIy, then (x, p, z) I (y, p, z).

Axiom 5. If xPy, then xP(x, p, y)Py.

Axiom 6. If xPyPz, then there is a probability p such that y!(x, p, z).

All the above axioms are quite simple to understand and seem obvious.

Assuming that they are satisfied, the following theorem was proven: if axioms 1-6 are satisfied, then there is a numerical utility function U defined on A (the set of outcomes) and such that:

1) xRy if and only if U(x) > U(y).

2) U(x, p, y) = pU(x)+(l-p)U(y).

The function U(x) is unique up to a linear transformation (for example, if U(x) > U(y), then a+U(x) > > a+U(y), where a is a positive integer) .

Economy is the sphere of social life that covers the interaction of production and consumption.

Economics is a science that studies the behavior of participants in the process of economic activity. It is also a way of organizing people’s activities aimed at creating the benefits they need.

This scientific discipline is divided into two sections: microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Microeconomics involves the analysis of the economic actions of individuals, individual households, firms and industries.

This test will examine some of the components of microeconomics.

Rarity (limited) resources

Any production is usually a targeted expenditure of resources to obtain some results and satisfy needs. If we analyze the economic organization of production, we can say that people live in a world of limited opportunities. People's resources (material, financial, labor, etc.) have qualitative and quantitative limitations.

The scarcity of resources in the modern economy is divided into two types: absolute (lack of resources to satisfy all needs at the same time) and relative (when there are resources to satisfy any part of the needs).

Economic resources are rare or in limited supply, but the needs of society and its members are limitless. Therefore, society is forced to constantly solve the problem of choice, to decide which goods and services should be produced and which to refuse. At the same time, it is necessary to achieve the most appropriate and effective use of rare resources to fully satisfy the needs of society and its members.

Rational economic choice

Household as a market subject

A household is a unit consisting of one or more people. It operates in the consumer sector. Households sell their labor and the goods they own on the market in the form of individual types of goods and services, as well as in the form of land, capital, and property. Most households would like to increase the quantity and quality of goods and services they consume, depending on how limited their income is.

Typical for a household:

· Manual labor;

· Old technology;

· Slow pace of development;

· Traditional production methods.

The household economy has developed since ancient times of the slave, feudal system, and collective farms. Today it can be divided into three main types: urban, rural and country.

In modern society there are two main forms of farming: subsistence and commercial.

In the natural form of economy, the production of material goods and services is carried out for consumption within the economic unit itself.

The commodity form of the economy is a form in which material goods and services are produced by separate commodity producers, each of which specializes in the production of one product, one service, and therefore, in order to satisfy social needs, the need arises for the purchase and sale of goods on the market. The commodity form can be divided into simple production (manual labor) and capitalist production (machine labor).

Today, it is impossible to clearly distinguish between an absolutely natural or an absolutely commodity economy, since usually part of the created material goods and services is consumed within the economic unit itself, and the other part goes for purchase and sale on the market.

There are certain commodity-money relations between the market and the household:

· Purchase of goods and services by households from producers;

· Sales by enterprises of goods and services to the public that were produced by the household;

· Sale by households and people of resources, factors of production - land, labor, capital to enterprises and firms;

· Payment by enterprises and firms to the population and households of appropriate income (wages, profits, interest, etc.)

A household cannot relate entirely to the commodity or natural form, as well as comply with all the conditions for the implementation of commodity-money relations.

A household can produce products both for personal consumption and for sale. At the same time, it, as a market subject, uses personal labor. Although in some cases, a household acquires special household appliances for the production of goods and services, or hires specialists in a particular production area. This will already be called hired labor within the household.

The household acts on the market not only as a buyer of consumer goods. Often he also acts as a supplier of resources to manufacturers or the market.

Thus, the household, as a market subject, is characterized by the fact that it places demand for consumer goods and supplies resources.

Theory of consumer behavior

Total and marginal utility.

Society consists of consumers who have the right to independently choose the product and volume of purchase. He dictates his desires and preferences (freedom of consumer choice), which must be taken into account by the manufacturer. It happens that with the help of advertising, the consumer succumbs to suggestion and purchases an unnecessary product.

There are two main aspects of consumer behavior - their preferences and capabilities. Given the given opportunities, the buyer wants to find a set of goods that would bring him maximum utility and greatest satisfaction.

People consume goods and services because they have the property of being a source of pleasure (useful). The cost of a product is determined not by the labor costs for its production, but by the beneficial effect that it can bring to the consumer. Moreover, each additional unit of goods brings the consumer additional (marginal) utility, which is of a decreasing nature. That is, the greater the number of units of a good consumed, the lower the marginal utility extracted from the consumption of each subsequent unit of this good. Also, three equal factors take part in the creation of utility - labor, capital and land.

Marginal utility is the amount of additional utility obtained from an increase in the amount of consumption of a good by an additional unit, all other things being equal.

Subjective utility presupposes the rarity of a good, the limited size of its supply. It depends on the nature of consumption of goods. As a rule, a commodity producer does not make expenses if they are not justified by the purpose, results, and usefulness of future benefits. But at the same time, obtaining a result, achieving utility is unthinkable without costs.

Overall utility is the rational option that most consumers strive for. It forms consumer equilibrium. That is, by consuming a certain number of units of a good, a person receives total utility, which consists of the sum of diminishing marginal utilities.

Thus, most consumers seek to maximize total utility.

By maximizing the difference between total and marginal utility, the consumer can benefit or save his resources, since a unit of a good purchased by a person will have neither marginal nor total utility for him unless the person purchases the good or service in large quantities. The consumer's response is influenced by changes in income, so his choice may be unpredictable. It turns out that when maximizing the difference between total and marginal utility, he does not receive satisfaction. And this will not be allowed by the manufacturer himself, who will try to lure the buyer with discounts, advertising and other means.

The consumer will not maximize marginal utility, since according to the theory of consumer behavior it can be assumed that he will look for the optimal solution in conditions of limited resources. But it is impossible to maximize both types of utility, since these concepts are incompatible.

In order to obtain maximum utility from the consumption of a given set of goods over a limited period of time, each of them must be consumed in such quantities that the marginal utility of all consumed goods will be equal to the same value. Thus, the consumer strives to obtain the same (total) utility from each product.

Perfect competition

This type of competition exists in areas of activity where many producers offer a similar product, but none of them is able to influence the price of the product.

In a real economy, a perfectly competitive market practically does not occur. It represents the ideal structure that modern markets can only aspire to (the first statement is true). Although, if we compare the point of view that V.M. Kozyrev put forward in his textbook. "Fundamentals of Modern Economics", then we can assume that such markets existed.

Due to the great shortcomings of this type of competition, in the process of developing a market economic system, it gives way to imperfect competition. Even if the market is very similar to the relations of perfect competition, then one of its main characteristic features is necessarily not observed or not fully fulfilled:

· A large number of sellers and buyers;

· The product sold is the same for all manufacturers, and the buyer can choose any seller of the product to make a purchase;

· The inability to control the price and volume of purchase and sale creates conditions for constant fluctuations of these values under the influence of changes in market conditions;

· All buyers and sellers have the same and complete information about the market (no one knows more);

· Complete freedom to “enter” and “leave” the market.

In a competitive market, manufacturers strive to reduce production costs per unit of output to maximize profits. As a result, the price can be reduced, which increases sales and income for the manufacturer. So the price of this producer’s product cannot be equal to his marginal revenue (the second statement is false).

There is a method in economics that allows you to quickly determine the nature of competition: this is the nature of the price response to changes in supply and demand. For the demand for the products of an individual firm under perfect competition, price is a given value. Neither the buyer nor the seller can influence its change, since if the seller asks for a higher price, then buyers will switch to his competitors. If he asks for a lower price, he will not satisfy all demand (the share of his product on the market is not large). Thus, adaptation to the market under conditions of perfect competition is expressed in the volume of sales and the volume of purchases.

The manufacturer sells its product at the existing market price. The demand curve under perfect competition is perfectly elastic and horizontal. 3

(third statement is incorrect)

Perfect competition is, of course, the most effective of all market structures, since at all times competition will always give rise to concern for the manufacturer for his product. He will constantly change its components, its assortment, update it, which is very important for the buyer, at the same time monitor his competitors, open new points, expand his business, attracting new specialists. The income of such a manufacturer will grow, outpacing the demand for its product or services.

Conclusion

Every person is essentially an economist. All his life he has felt the limitations of his resources and tries to combat this through savings. He strives to maximize the benefits he needs, as a result making rational economic choices.

The market is a huge system of constant interaction between the buyer and the manufacturer. Any seller will always try to attract more consumers than his competitor, by any known means. The manufacturer must take into account the desires of the consumer and his capabilities.

New subjects and objects of commodity relations constantly appear in the market system. And some relationships that exist and change over time, such as the household, will not become a thing of the past, since it is one of the foundations of the economy.

Literature

1. Eletsky N.D., Kornienko O.V. Economic theory. Rostov-on-Don, 2002.

2. Ilyin S.S., Marenkov N.L. Fundamentals of Economics. M., 2004.

3. Kozyrev V.M. Fundamentals of modern economics. M., 1999.

4. Modern economics, ed. Mamedova O.Yu., student allowance. Rostov-on-Don, 1998.

5. Economic theory, textbook, ed. Belokrylova O.S. Rostov-on-Don, 2006.