Economic indicators as instruments of the rhetoric of science

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

ECONOMIC INDICATORS AS INSTRUMENTS OF THE RHETORIC OF SCIENCE

I.V. Timoshenkov

D.Sc. (Econ.), associate professor, professor at the International Business and Economic Theory Dept. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

O. М. Nashchekina

Cand. Sc. (Phys. & Math.), associate professor, associate professor at the Management and Taxation Dept. National technical university «Kharkiv polytechnic institute»

I.V. Shkodina

D.Sc. (Econ.), associate professor, professor at the International Business and Economic Theory Dept. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Abstract

The paper discusses the meaning of economic indicators as of a system of quantitative characteristics describing the functioning and development of an economy. The role and significance of economic indicators both in the system of economic sciences and in economic, political and socio-cultural practices of a society are revealed. The dual nature of economic indicators is exposed. It is shown that, on the one hand, they constitute the information base for making and implementing economic and political decisions by economic actors, thus representing a factor that reduces uncertainty and minimizes risks of their activities. On the other hand, economic indicators may give a distorted picture of the reality and/or be used as means of external pressure on actors aimed at realizing not the actors” interests but rather the interests of those who generated the information. Based on that, it is suggested that the most productive methodological framework for examining and interpreting economic indicators is a rhetorical approach to economics. Examples of applying the most common rhetorical techniques (devices) for using and interpreting economic indicators are given and discussed.

Key words: economic indicators, economic data presentation, economic methodology, rhetoric of economics, cross-disciplinary social science research.

Аннотация

Экономические индикаторы как риторический инструментарий науки. И. В. Тимошенков, доктор экономических наук, доцент, профессор кафедры международного бизнеса и экономической теории Харьковского национального университета имени В. Н. Каразина, Украина, г. Харьков. О. Н. Нащекина, кандидат физико-математических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры менеджмента и налогообложения Национального технического университета «Харьковский политехнический институт», Украина, г. Харьков. И. В. Шкодина, доктор экономических наук, доцент, профессор кафедры международного бизнеса и экономической теории Харьковского национального университета имени В. Н. Каразина, Украина, г. Харьков

Раскрыто содержание экономических индикаторов как системы количественных характеристик, описывающих функционирование и развитие экономической системы. Определены их роль и значение, как в системе экономических наук, так и в хозяйственно-политической и социально-культурной практике общества. Раскрыта их двойственная природа. Определено, что, с одной стороны, они формируют информационную основу выработки и реализации хозяйственных и политических решений экономических акторов, то есть выступают в качестве факторов снижения неопределенности и минимизации рисков их деятельности. В то же время, с другой стороны, они могут искажать реальную действительность и/или служить средством внешнего давления на акторов в целях реализации не их интересов, а интересов продуцентов информации. Исходя из этого, обоснован общий вывод о том, что наиболее продуктивной методологической основой исследования и интерпретации экономических индикаторов является риторическая концепция метода экономической науки. Проанализированы и проиллюстрированы на примерах наиболее распространенные риторические приемы, связанные с использованием и интерпретацией экономических индикаторов.

Ключевые слова: экономические индикаторы, презентация экономических данных, экономическая методология, экономика как риторика, междисциплинарные исследования в социальных науках.

economic indicator political science

Анотація

Економічні індикатори як риторичний інструментарій науки. І. В. Тимошенков, доктор економічних наук, доцент, професор кафедри міжнародного бізнесу та економічної теорії Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна, Україна, м. Харків. О. М. Нащекіна, кандидат фізико-математичних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри менеджменту та оподаткування Національного технічного університету «Харківський політехнічний інститут», Україна, м. Харків. І. В. Шкодіна, доктор економічних наук, доцент, професор кафедри міжнародного бізнесу та економічної теорії Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна, Україна, м. Харків

Розкрито зміст економічних індикаторів як системи кількісних характеристик, що описують функціонування і розвиток економічної системи. Визначено їх роль і значення, як у системі економічних наук, так і у господарсько-політичній та соціально-культурній практиці суспільства. Розкрито їх двоїсту природу. Визначено, що, з одного боку, вони формують інформаційну основу щодо вироблення та реалізації господарських та політичних рішень економічних акторів, тобто виступають факторами зниження невизначеності та мінімізації ризиків діяльності акторів. У той же час, з другого боку, вони можуть спотворювати реальну дійсність та / або використовуватися як засіб зовнішнього тиску на акторів з метою реалізації не їхніх особистих інтересів, а у власних інтересах продуцентів інформації. Виходячи з цього, обґрунтований загальний висновок про те, що найбільш продуктивною методологічною основою дослідження і інтерпретації економічних індикаторів є риторична концепція методу економічної науки. Проаналізовані та проілюстровані на прикладах найбільш поширені риторичні прийоми, які пов'язані з використанням та інтерпретацією економічних індикаторів.

Постановка проблеми. Будучи неодмінним і обов'язковим атрибутом будь-якого економічного дослідження, економічні індикатори прийнято вважати такою системою кількісних характеристик об'єкта дослідження, що надає про нього достовірне уявлення. Тобто індикатори мають сформувати надійну інформаційну основу щодо вироблення та реалізації господарських та політичних рішень економічних акторів, і, таким чином, виступають факторами зниження невизначеності та мінімізації ризиків діяльності акторів. У той же час, з іншого боку, економічні індикатори можуть викривлювати реальну дійсність та/або використовуватися як засіб зовнішнього тиску на акторів з метою реалізації не їхніх особистих інтересів, а власних інтересів продуцентів інформації.

Аналіз останніх досліджень і публікацій. У статті проаналізовано сучасні напрями критики існуючих наразі підходів і методик щодо економічних вимірювань і розрахунку індикаторів:

- з точки зору міжнародної практики порівняльних досліджень соціально-економічного розвитку країн (критика методики визначення та розрахунку ВВП, а також його похідних у Доповіді Комісії, створеної на замовлення Ніколя Саркозі (Nicolas Sarkozy), з нобелівських лауреатів Джозефа Стігліца (Joseph E. Stiglitz), Амартья Сена (Amartya Sen) і Жана-Поля Фітуссі (Jean-Paul Fitoussi);

- з точки зору макроекономічних оцінок збалансованості і пропорцій розвитку країн (оцінки нобелівського лауреата Василя Леонтьєва (Wassily Leontief);

- з точки зору економетрики (погляди Крістофера Догерті (Christopher Dougherty);

- з точки зору практики моніторингу та аудиту фінансово-господарської діяльності суб'єктів господарювання на різних рівнях - від окремої фірми до держави в цілому (власні висновки авторів).

Формулювання цілей. Виходячи з цього, розкриття двоїстої природи економічних індикаторів, аналіз їх ролі і значення як у системі економічних наук, так і у господарсько-політичній та соціально-культурній практиці суспільства, можна віднести до важливих і актуальних проблем економічної науки, що і визначило вибір проблематики цієї публікації.

Виклад основного матеріалу. У статті послідовно обґрунтовується положення про те, що найбільш адекватною методологічною основою дослідження і інтерпретації економічних індикаторів є риторична концепція методу економічної науки, що була запропонована американським методологом економічної науки Дейдрою Макклоскі (Deirdre N. McCloskey).

Проаналізовані та проілюстровані на прикладах найбільш поширені риторичні прийоми, які пов'язані з використанням та інтерпретацією економічних індикаторів.

Надано порівняльні характеристики фінансування вищої освіти в різних країнах світу і доведено, що, інтерпретуючи результативність і ефективність фінансування вищої освіти, можна дійти протилежних - альтернативних висновків щодо того, ефективно чи, навпаки, неефективно здійснюється фінансування освіти у тій чи іншій країні.

На прикладі «аудиторського скандалу XXI століття», в якому були замішані найбільша американська енергетична компанія «Енрон» (Enron Corporation) і одна з п'яти провідних американських консалтингових і аудиторських фірм «Артур Андерсен» (Arthur Andersen & Co) розглянуто, як вміле маніпулювання показниками, процедурами і регламентами фінансового аудиту дозволило протягом декількох років абсолютно невірно представляти перед акціонерами «Енрона» реальний стан компанії з метою особистого збагачення керівництва «Енрона» і представників компанії-аудитора.

На основі аналізу фінансової кризи в Росії (1998) продемонстровано, як використання усталених в усьому світі методик оцінки фінансової стійкості банків може призводити до отримання абсолютно недостовірних результатів, що викривлюють реальну дійсність. Визначено, що методики вводили громадськість в оману, оскільки першими збанкрутували ті банківські установи, які за оціночними індикаторами цих методик було визначено як найбільш надійні та стійкі.

Висновки. На основі аналізу теорії і практики використання економічних індикаторів обґрунтовано загальний висновок про те, що економічні індикатори можуть і розраховуватися, і інтерпретуватися по-різному, аж до альтернативних висновків. Тобто на практиці індикатори виступають як інструменти риторики - переконання, впливу на осіб, що приймають рішення у фінансово-господарській діяльності, у бажаному для продуцентів інформації (розробників індикаторів) напряму.

Ключові слова: економічні індикатори, презентація економічних даних, економічна методологія, економіка як риторика, міждисциплінарні дослідження в соціальних науках.

Problem setting

The search for quantitative characteristics describing economic performance and general regularities in the functioning and development of economic systems has always been a central issue of economics.

At the same time, there have been numerous controversies and debates regarding this problem throughout the history of economic science.

For example, representatives of different branches of economic science show remarkable differences in their assessments of the famous Economic Table (Tableau dconomique) constructed by Francois Quesnay in 1758-1759, which is considered the first attempt in economics to provide a systematic description of the economy. From the Marxist point of view, it represented a brilliant attempt to analyze the social reproduction in terms of the achievement of definite proportions between material and cost elements of the social product (Nikitin, 1975), whereas for neoclassical economists it is “a drastic simplification of the economic system”, as Blaug (1990) put it (p. 25). In his turn, a well-known representative of modern economic methodology Maki (2013) describes Blaug's radical remark as unrealistic for a realistic economy.

Recent research and publication analysis

If we compare the unquestioned achievements with unsolved issues and controversies in the field of methodology of design and calculation of economic indicators using imaginary weighing scales, the bowl with unsolved problems would apparently outweigh. The other bowl of the scales - with the results recognized at least by the majority of researchers - would be almost empty. What does it contain today? Perhaps only the recognition that the measurement of the real-world economic indicators matters, and is by no means secondary or inferior to economic theorizing. As Dougherty (2011) states, “There used to be a view that microeconomics and macroeconomics comprised the core training of an economist and that econometrics was an optional extra to be pursued by those with a flair for numbers and an inclination to get their hands dirty with data... That view is long gone. Microeconomic and macroeconomic theories are generally considered to be of little interest if they are not supported by econometric analysis” (pp. 1-2).

As far as the unsolved methodological problems are concerned, they are plentiful. Methodological problems connected with designing meaningful economic indicators are rooted in the more fundamental issues of economic methodology - the use of oversimplified economic models of the real world and the overreliance on deductive reasoning instead of paying more attention to hard data and recognizing the multidimensionality of human behavior and social phenomena.

Let us quote a few scholars who raised some principal issues concerning the methodology of economic science.

Leontief (1982) points out the deficiencies in economic research stemming from the detachment of economic theory from the reality and the resulting lack of discipline in data collection. In his opinion, if economic models are devoid of meaning, then data collection based on those models will also fail to yield meaningful information on an economic system's functioning.

Criticism of the methodology also comes from representatives of other social sciences, sociologists in particular. As Hamilton and Feenstra (2001) put it, “Most theories of economic organization, regardless of discipline, involve sleight of hand”. Referring to the unrealistic assumptions about the behavior of decision-making individuals, they write: “Economic organization, when theorized in this fashion, is pulled, like a rabbit from a hat, out of aggregated individual decisions” (p. 153).

Imperfect theoretical models of an economy pose problems for empirical research, in particular for designing indicators measuring economic performance. A benchmark event for the development of modern views on the substance and the problems of computation of economic indicators was the creation of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEP- SP) established in February 2008 by Sarkozy, then the President of the French Republic. Dissatisfied with the state of the statistical information about the economy and the society, Sarkozy asked prominent economists Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi (2018) to create the Commission with a view toward identifying “the limits of GDP as an indicator of economic performance and social progress, including the problems with its measurement; to consider what additional information might be required for the production of more relevant indicators of social progress; to assess the feasibility of alternative measurement tools, and to discuss how to present the statistical information in an appropriate way” (p. 7). By that time, economists had been well aware of the gap between the image of economy provided by conventional macroeconomic indicators and people's perceptions of both their own wellbeing and that of society as a whole (OECD, 2018).

The final report of the Commission contained principal remarks and recommendations concerning radical changes in the existing system of economic indicators which is used practically in all countries.

The Commission pointed out that the economic indicators we devise and measure have impact on our decisions: “What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted”. In particular, if GDP is treated as a comprehensive indicator of the society's economic health, it is just logical to design policies that would maximize it. However, the consequence of such policies may be environmental degradation, which is not included in the measurement of economic performance. Thus, environmentally conscious behavior would negatively affect GDP, and the policy makers would have to make a choice between promoting GDP and protecting the environment, which is, according to the Commission, a false choice (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2018). The problem arises because GDP fails to reflect all important aspects of economic performance.

Indeed, the question is whether GDP measures what it was intended to measure. According to the Commission report, “GDP mainly measures market production, though it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions” (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2018, p. 21).

If GDP does not work well as a measure of economic performance, what can be suggested instead? The Commission's opinion is “Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life domains for each person, and this information should be used when designing policies in various fields... It is critical to address questions about how developments in one domain of quality of life affect other domains, and how developments in all the various fields are related to income” (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2018, pp. 15-16). Thus, it is necessary to recognize the complexity and multidimensionality of socio-economic life, the existence of multiple trade-offs and interactions between different quality-of-life domains. The Commission advises: “When designing policies in specific fields, impacts on indicators pertaining to different quality-of-life dimensions should be considered jointly, to address the interactions between dimensions and the needs of people who are disadvantaged in several domains” (Stiglitz, Sen & Fitoussi, 2018, pp. 15-16). The implications are that both economic measurements and policy making will become more complicated, but this is the only way to improve society's economic performance not in terms of misleading economic statistics but in terms of people's perceptions of their own well-being.

Paper objective. The controversial character of methodological issues related to devising and computing measures of economic performance combined with the importance and relevance of economic indicators for making economic decisions and developing economic policies have determined the choice of the topic of this paper, its goals, and primary research tasks. In the paper, the role and the place of economic indicators in both economic science and economic, political and sociocultural practices of a society will be identified. Methodological challenges and problems related to the design of economic indicators and techniques of their calculation will be analyzed. It will be shown how the specificity of scientific research in social sciences and deficiencies of theoretical economic models contribute to the problem of devising measures of economic performance.

Paper main body

Dissatisfaction with the existing system of economic indicators described above has spawned numerous practical propositions on its improvement and development. Without attempting to provide a detailed classification and analysis of those propositions, we can discern two principally different research approaches to which they can be related.

Representatives of the first approach believe that one should search for solutions to the problem of improving economic indicators outside economics - in the realm of natural sciences. Adherents of the second approach, on the contrary, insist that solutions are to be found within the domain of economics.

The most radical and the most interesting methodological perspectives within these two approaches are Econophysics and Rhetorical economics.

For representatives of Econophysics, economies and markets are complex systems governed by the same objective physical laws that govern other systems. For econophysicists, an economic system is just another convenient object for applying the tools and methods of statistical mechanics and theoretical physics. They do not bring up the issue of a qualitative difference between research objects of physics and economics and the corresponding implications for empirical studies of the behavior of physical and economic system. They ignore the differences and focus on similarities. Here is how Mantegna and Stanley (2000) describe financial markets: “Financial markets are remarkably well-defined complex systems which are continuously monitored - down to time scales of seconds. Further, virtually every economic transaction is recorded, and an increasing fraction of the total number of recorded economic data is becoming accessible to interested researchers” (p. VIII). As is seen from this paragraph, it is assumed that data obtained through such monitoring are objective, reliable and lending themselves to building theories.

In contrast to econophysicists who do not question the objectivity of empirical data, scholars who adopt a rhetorical perspective of economics believe that economists are “poets” and “novelists” (McCloskey, 1998, pp. 12, 13), and economics is rhetoric. From this point of view, economic indicators are similar to tropes (a literary trope is the use of figurative language, via word, phrase or an image, for artistic effect, e. g. allegory, metaphor, oxymoron, etc.), and are used as instruments of polemic and convincing in debates, first of all with fellow economists.

The major contributor to the rhetoric of economics McCloskey (1998) states that in a straightforward fashion: “Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority” (p. 19).

Comparing the two approaches to research and interpretation of economic indicators and assessing the prospects for refining metrics of economic performance within these approaches, one should address some general epistemological issues of scientific research in economics, which we have discussed in (Nashchekina, Timoshenkov, 2011).

Economics as a social science studies the most complex and highly organized form of matter - the social form. The objects of social sciences - people and their behavior - are much more sophisticated and variable than those of natural sciences, in particular physics. However, the difference between the objects of social and natural sciences is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The behavior of people is intentional, deliberate and meaningful; people possess will and act in their own interests, which are versatile.

The behavior of objects of natural sciences obeys objective laws that have a deterministic character, while social phenomena and processes result from purposeful meaningful actions of people who decide themselves what to do. Although certain objective regularities in social processes can be revealed, it is impossible to make any exact and unambiguous predictions on their basis.

One should clearly understand the difference between methodologies of scientific research in natural and social sciences that stems from the difference in their objects. In natural sciences, we discover the objective laws that govern the behavior of objects external to us and do not depend on us. Thus, we are outside the studied system. In social sciences, we study the society in which we live, i. e. we are inside the studied system, and we ourselves, to a certain extent, determine the laws of this system's functioning and development.

Social development is largely uncertain and probabilistic, which is connected with a great number of factors impacting social systems. Some of those factors are difficult to anticipate, let alone to take into account when measuring social performances and making policy decisions.

Summarizing the legacy of Mill who made a significant contribution to the understanding of the differences between natural and social sciences, Salmon (1984) writes: “Mill doubts that the science of human behavior will ever become as exact as the physical science of astronomy, for example, because human actions are subject to so many unknown, and possibly unknowable, circumstances. In addition, even when the circumstances surrounding behavior are known, we are sometimes unable to describe or measure them accurately” (p. 384).

The peculiarities of the scientific research described above lead to the following conclusion. Although complex systems studied in physics and social sciences share certain commonalities, the nature of those systems is principally different. Thus, the approach of econophysics to the treatment of economic indicators is hardly justified, or at best is applicable to a narrow range of economic phenomena.

It is also necessary to underscore the unavoidable subjectivity in social research where the researcher is a part of the studied system. It means that even under the conditions of a researcher's impartiality, which is often just illusory, the results of the research will always be moral- or ideology-laden to a greater or lesser extent. They may be influenced by the social status of the researcher, his/her moral principles, ideological predispositions, perceptions of justice, cultural values and so on. In other words, actions and conclusions of the researcher as a member of the society will reflect his/her judgments regarding how the society should develop because it directly concerns the researcher. That is why the researcher will consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly tries to persuade the audience of the correctness of his/her stance using the means of influencing the audience's opinion that are appropriate for the situation. In other words, the researcher will use rhetoric in the Aristotle's interpretation, i. e. as the method and art of persuasion (Aristotle, 2009). The specificity of scientific research in social sciences inevitably impacts economic indicators as the measures (metrics) of economic performances which are used in economic debates for supporting certain points of view regarding socio-economic policies. Although economic indicators are supposed to be part of positive economics, they are often manipulated with a view to justifying normative prescriptions.

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics edited by Arrow gives the following description of economic indicators: “Economic indicators, as a general category, are descriptive and anticipatory data used as tools for the analysis of business conditions and forecasting. There are potentially as many subsets of indicators in this sense as there are different targets at which they can be directed. For example, some indicators may relate to employment, others to inflation” (Zarnowitz, 2018, p. 6278).

Economic indicators are not abstract numbers, nor are they neutral information that affects no one's interests. Economic indicators constitute the informational basis for the development and implementation of economic and political decisions of economic actors (individuals, firms, state), thus reducing uncertainty and minimizing risks of their activities. At the same time, indicators are instruments for affecting actors, a kind of informational stimuli pushing actors towards certain decisions or discouraging them from other decisions. In this sense, economic indicators play the role of rhetorical means of influencing different societal groups.

The impact of economic indicators on the target audience depends on the rhetorical tools used in the process of their presentation. The same information can be presented and interpreted in very different ways. Let us illustrate this using the data from Table 1.

Table 1 - Data on education expenditures, enrolment rates and country ranks by human development index

Source: based on data from Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI), 2006, pp. 311-312; Global Education Digest, 2005, pp. 74-84; Human Development Report, 2005, pp. 219-222.

For the sake of comparability, we provide the data for the years 2002-2003 because of the absence of more recent data on some indicators for several countries from the table. The data represent official information coming from reputable international organizations such as the United Nations, UNESCO, and GUNI (Global University Network for Innovation), and their credibility can hardly be questioned.

At the same time, the data can be interpreted and presented to the target recipients in principally different ways.

1. If we use only the data from Column 3, we can assert that the highest attention to higher education is paid in Equatorial Guinea because it has the highest public expenditure on tertiary education per student.

2. If we use the data from Columns 3 and 4, we can state that Equatorial Guinea, Malawi and Lesotho exhibit most outrageous disproportions in their national education systems. Being the world leaders in public expenditures on tertiary education per student, these countries extend secondary education to less than one third of children of corresponding age.

3. If we use the data from Columns 3, 4, and 5, we can argue that a high efficiency of investments in human development can be attained only in societies with well-developed systems of economic institutions (Denmark, Hong Kong, Norway, Switzerland, Canada), while a most generous funding of education will not lead to a high level of human development in societies where economic institutions are underdeveloped (Equatorial Guinea, Malawi, Cape Verde, Lesotho, Samoa).

Very often economic indicators distort the reality. Sometimes it occurs unintentionally, as a result of methodological deficiencies and computational mistakes. In other cases economic indicators are purposefully designed to mislead the target audience in the interests of the information producers who use the indicators as instruments of manipulation. Such manipulation can take place not only at a national economy level but also at a company level. Sometimes misrepresentation of economic (financial) indicators is associated with a straightforward fraud.

An illuminating example of deceiving the information recipients (stakeholders) using misleading financial indicators is related to one the biggest accounting scandals that involved the American energy giant Enron, a company that controlled more than 20 percent of the U. S. energy-trading market in the late 1990s and was labeled the “America's Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years. The cause of the collapse was systematic fraudulent financial reporting covered and assisted by Arthur Andersen LLP - the accounting firm that had been auditing Enron's books for years, one of the “Big Five” accounting firms (along with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, and KPMG). Soon after the Enron's downfall Arthur Andersen LLP also went bankrupt (Dembinski, Lager, Cornford & Bonvin, 2006).

One of the reasons for the Enron's collapse was the misuse of mark-to-market accounting practice, which consists in recording the value of an asset according to its current market price. Mark to market has been a generally accepted accounting principle in the U. S. since 1990. It provides a realistic appraisal of a company's financial situation.

One of the examples of how Enron misused a mark-to-market accounting approach is the following practice. The company would claim the projected profit from a new asset on its books. If the actual profit happened to be lower than the projected one, the company would not take the loss but rather transfer the asset to an off-the-balance-sheet special purpose entity, where the loss would go unreported. In this way Enron managed to hide the losses and to appear more profitable than it really was, thus deceiving its shareholders and investors.

Not only intentional deception but also methodological flaws in designing economic indicators can lead to dramatic outcomes. An example is the Russian Financial Crisis of 1998. Among the first collapsed financial institutions in Russia's banking system were those banks that were considered the most reliable and financially sound according to the Financial Stability Indicators. More than half of the 20 largest Russian banks either went bankrupt and ceased to exist or lost their positions during the crisis (Navajas & Thegeya, 2013; The Russian Financial Crisis of 1998, 1999).

Conclusion of the research

Economic indicators represent instruments of the rhetoric of economic science.

Apparent similarity between indicators (metrics) used in natural and social sciences serves as the justification for importing research approaches of natural sciences to economics (Econophysics).

Such attempts seem to be unproductive because do not take into account the qualitative differences between natural and social sciences.

In terms of the form, economic indicators are certain quantitative measures or characteristics of economic phenomena or processes, representing numerical data. However, in substance they are the means of persuading a certain target audience (private persons, firms, state), i. e. they impact the audience as specific external stimuli.

In some situations, economic indicators are used as positive stimuli, serving as an informational base for making or supporting certain economic decisions such as developing sound economic policies, investing in the stock market, and so on. In other situations, economic indicators play the role of negative stimuli showing the recipients undesirable outcomes and a low efficiency of their decisions.

By their nature, economic indicators are never neutral. They reflect the initial normative principles (social, ideological, moral, and cultural) of those who devised them, and either directly or indirectly serve their economic interests.

References

1. Aristotle (2009). Rhetoric. Knutsford, UK: A&D Publishing.

2. Blaug, M. (1990). Economic Theory in Retrospect. Kambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

3. Dembinski, P., Lager, C., Cornford, A., & Bonvin, J.-M. (Ed.). (2006). Enron and World Finance. A Case Study in Ethics. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Dougherty, Ch. (2011). Introduction to Econometrics. 4th edition. N.Y., L.: Oxford University Press.

4. Global Education Digest 2005. Comparing Education Statistics Across the World. (2005). Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

5. Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI). (2006). Higher Education in the World 2006. The Financing of Universities (Guni Series on the Social Commitment of Universities). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

6. Hamilton, G. G., & Feenstra, R. (2001). The Organization of Economies. The New Institutionalism in Sociology. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

7. Human Development Report 2005. International cooperation at a crossroads Aid, trade and security in an unequal world. (2005). N.Y.: UNDP.

8. Leontief, W. (1982). Academic Economics [Letters]. Business Week, July, 217(4555), 104-107.

9. Maki, U. (2013). Mark Blaug's unrealistic crusade for realistic economics. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 6(3), 87-103.

10. Mantegna, R. N., & Stanley, H. E. (2000). An Introduction to Econophysics. Correlations and Complexity in Finance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The Rhetoric of Economics. Second ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

12. Navajas, M. C., & Thegeya, A. (2013). Financial Soundness Indicators and Banking Crises Prepared. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/

13. Issues/2016/12/31/Financial-Soundness-Indicators-and-Banking-Crises-41168.

14. Nikitin, S. M. (1975). Ekonomicheskaya entsiklopediya. Politicheskaya ekonomiya [Economic Encyclopedia. Political Economy]. Moskva: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya [in Russian].

15. OECD (2018). The High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (HLEG). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ statistics/measuring-economic-social-progress/aboutthehigh-levelexpertgroup.htm.

16. Salmon, M. H. (1989). Explanation in the Social Sciences. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13, 384-409.

17. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P (2018). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved from https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+report.

18. The Russian Financial Crisis of 1998. An Analysis of Trends, Causes, and Implications (1999). Retrieved from https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19990218_98578_353c 595b8980dfeaab66aa782deab2898c3b6889.pdf.

19. Timoshenkov, I. V., & Naschokina, O. N. (2011). Metodologiya nauchnyih issledovaniy [ResearchMethodology]. Harkov: NTU «HPI» [in Russian].

20. Zarnowitz, V. (2018). Indicators: Types and Structure. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 3^rd ed. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 6278.

Размещено на Allbest.ru