Institutionalization of the digital economy: contradictions and approaches to settling the differences

доктор экономических наук, профессор, профессор кафедры экономической теории Национального юридического университета имени Ярослава Мудрого, Украина, г. Харьков

ИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛИЗАЦИЯ ЦИФРОВОЙ ЭКОНОМИКИ: ПРОТИВОРЕЧИЯ И НАПРАВЛЕНИЯ ИХ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ

At the current stage, digitalization is the core of technical and technological changes, which is concerned with all the spheres of social development and causes important transformations within the whole system of socioeconomic relations. The dynamicity of scientific and technological, as well as socioeconomic transformations, which emerge owing to digitalization, causes significant changes in the correlation between various components of social development. As a result, internal contradictions being inherent to this process manifest themselves externally in the form of disproportions, disturbances, incoherence, and conflicts. Nowadays, we may observe the gap of an objective real process of economic development with reinforcing the economy with necessary institutions, which streamline human behaviour. Such difference is referred to as the institutional anomie of transformations. Usually, the duration of such anomie is 3-5 years. The sooner the society overcomes this anomie, the sooner the digitalization process will obtain a robust institutional environment for own acceleration and streamlining.

Analysis of recent research and publications

The digital economy has become the most relevant sphere of scientific research. Specialists in different areas of expertise are interested in the following questions: reasons and objective regularities for the emergence of information technologies (Chebotaryov, 2018; Yudina, 2016), intrinsic features of the functioning of the digital economy (Liashenko, & Vyshnevskyi, 2018; Hrytsenko, 2018), tendencies of digital development in Ukraine (Koliadenko, 2016), and the influence of digital technologies on the formation of the network economy (Kit, 2014). Obviously, digitalization - is a contradictory process, which does not always lead to positive consequences, but, to a greater extant, provoke instability and inconsistency of the society (Sudakova, 2015). Examinations of certain manifestations of instability encouraged by the digital revolution have spread throughout the world (Digital development: Opportunities and challenges, 2019); (O'Nil, 2020). Scientists attach inconsiderable attention to revealing internal contradictions of digital development, their escalation, and mechanisms for settling differences. An idea of an interrelation between digital and socio-economic development, which may become an effective tool for handling the existing contradictions, has not been duly used within this context. Therefore, the author assumes that the determination of scientific approaches to providing the interrelation between digital, economic, and social transformations as ways for handling intrinsic contradictions is a precondition for sustainable socioeconomic development.

An objective of the paper is disclosing contradictions between digital and socio-economic transformations, ascertaining ways for handling such contradictions and ensuring complementarity of development. It is expedient to orient the theoretical analysis towards revealing objective reasons for institutionalization of digital development, because consciously developed rules and norms will become tools for settling numerous differences of contemporary development.

Main findings

Disclosure of the contradictions in the interaction between digital and socio-economic transformations may be achieved owing to analysis of the following specific aspects:

- technical and technological relations comprising attitude of humans to technics and technologies embodied in capabilities and skills of employees to carry out a particular technical and technological process (professional qualification);

- financial and economic relations consisting of value relations, monetary relations, management in the financial and economic spheres (which provides the coordinated turnover of commodities and currency);

- socio-economic relations encompassing recruitment relations, reimbursement of labour costs (wages), and ensuring the coherence between the status and incomes of a person (retirement benefits, allowances, and rewards).

The technical and technological, as well as socio-economic components of social development are in the complex interaction. Within the fundamental structure of social development, technical and technological processes cause socio-economic ones (for instance, primitive labour tools and technologies stipulate the primitive society, while the developed mass production - capitalistic relations). However, within the actual structure, this relation is reversal: at every moment of time, development of technics and technologies depends on socio-economic relations (work organization, education, economic mechanisms, incentives, etc.).

Digitalization as the core of the current stage of the technological progress results in pivotal changes in both the organization of production and daily life. Smartphones, the Internet, the augmented reality, digital production, cryptocurrency, blockchain, automatization, machine learning, and artificial intelligence become radical technologies of the daily life (Greenfield, 2017). The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development stats that - for the first time - in 2018, more than half of the world's total population uses the Internet. It is generally accepted that “digitalization has created a new wave of innovations, which will lead to immense consequences for the humankind, including transformations of relationships between citizens, governments, and business organizations, as well as changes in the structure of the society and economy. Paces of economic growth, labour productivity, and development of the human potential will be, to a higher degree, affected by a level of integration into the digital economy” (Digital development: Opportunities and challenges, 2019).

Institutionalization of the digital economy - a process of drawing up, formalization, and implementation of necessary rules and norms, which streamline interactions between entities in the digital world, reconcile contradictions and conflicts between them, and enforce them to perform particular obligations, into the economic life. Institutions take on functions of regulation, coordination, stimulation, and streamlining behaviour of economic entities. Institutions lead to the conscious transformation of social relations based on formed social values, historical traditions, stereotypes, and customs. The institutionalization enables to form a necessary institutional environment and institutional structure of the digital economy. Under conditions of the digital economy, a human makes deals and concludes transactions with other humans, organizations, and a government.

The institutional environment of the digital economy is characterized by anomic development, i.e. the absence of necessary norms or their inconsistency with existing real relations accompanied by institutional abnormalities, destructions, and deformations.

Institutional destruction (disrupting the quality of institutions) leads to the disturbance of a coordinating function due to the decrease of norms' abilities to eliminate uncertainty of the functioning of an economic system in general and its elements in particular. The drastic inconformity between a demand for regulating the digital implementations and a gradually increasing set of necessary institutions, which lead to the growth of a degree of disturbance and escalation of social interactions under contemporary technological, market, and value changes, stipulates the topicality of problems related to revealing the content and factors of institutional destruction of the digital economy. Nowadays, the society uses large opportunities of digital technologies with a low energy efficiency ratio. Such actions result in the emergence of phenomena such as social polarization, the increase of role of grey mechanisms in division of digital resources and outcomes, systematic infringement of a fundamental right to use the Internet, and intensification of offences.

Firstly, specialists should consider institutional abnormalities not only as a deviation from existing standards but also as a regular process affected by transformations of real economic phenomena. That is to say, tackling institutional abnormalities, which do not take into account their underlying roots, results in obscured enormous social losses because such process may accidentally interfere in functional and institutional mechanisms of the digital economy.

Secondly, institutional abnormalities should be referred to as a method for social adaptation being very important for more dynamic representation of demands of new processes and changes of tools for governmental regulation of the economy.

Thirdly, institutional abnormalities play the role of drivers for innovative changes. Taking into account this assumption offers possibilities for improving a part of a government's innovative policy concerned with selecting more effective institutions for digitalization and choosing between positive and negative incentives.

The underdeveloped institutional content of the digital economy stipulates the disproportionally significant role of economic power in the functioning and evolution of a country. This manifests itself in a high level of monopolization, insufficient elasticity of market supply, suppression of positive effects of market competition, discouraging the total demand for digital products.

The increase of transaction costs, which lead to the decrease of social trust, foster institutional traps (formalization of ineffective norms) and expansion of corruptive practices, and deteriorate national opportunities of the economic growth, becomes a consequence of institutional destructions and abnormalities. According to such definition, the reduction of a zone of institutional destructions and abnormalities to safe scales is a primary goal of the society and government.

Digitalization creates an opportunity for saving transformational, organizational, and transaction costs of enterprises at the expense of using electronic trade. This leads to enhancing the efficiency of production, creates new opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, enabling them to overcome obstacles on the way to extending and establishing equitable collaboration in implementing the innovations, identifying alternative mechanisms for the financing such as crowdfunding. It allows using cloud technologies, big data, machine learning, algorithmic decision-making, and artificial intelligence for solving technological, economic, and social problems. Digitalization is also directly connected with government support of innovations, the transformation of public administration, and building a digital government (Akatkin, & Yasinovskaya, 2019, p.14).

Simultaneously, not only does the implementation of digital technologies open additional opportunities for business organizations, governments, and humans, but also it causes considerable problems, challenges, and risks. Various opportunities of access to digital technologies may lead to unfair distribution of goods and reinforce inequality. Especially, it may refer to urban citizens, poorly educated persons, and disabled persons (Information Economy Report 2017: Digitalization, Trade and Development, 2017; Technology and Innovation Report 2018: Harnessing Frontier Technologies for Sustainable Development, 2018). The wide use of digital technologies and automatization will result in the reduction of workplaces, the increase in inequality, concentration of wealth, and forming the deviant behaviour of economic entities (Digital development: Opportunities and challenges, 2019).

There are researches interpreting big data as a threat to democracy and a weapon of mass destruction (Technology and Innovation Report 2018: Harnessing Frontier Technologies for Sustainable Development, 2018).

At the current stage, digitalization is a leading process in forming the network economy. Developing the network characteristics of social reality and corresponding transformations lead to fragmentation of the society and human. A margin of this fragmentation is decomposition to fragments. Plunging into various networks (professional, family, leisure, club, etc.), a human behaves in conformity with rules and norms of behaviour within these networks. Moving from one network to another, a human changes his or her behaviour, incentives for actions, etc. At the same time, there may be no logical connection between networks and corresponding norms of behaviour. The situation with public relation networks existing relatively separately in the same physical space is analogical. The intersection of networks with significantly different values may be conflicting (e.g., the intersection of criminal networks with networks combatting them).

Risks of fragmentation of the society and human related to forming the network society and digitalization are not properly realized. Nevertheless, they create considerable contradictions and form a sufficiently serious and growing threat to the sustainable functioning of the society. It is worth mentioning destabilizing influences of synergetic effects of biological, technological, and social synthesis. Not only did a human create but also permanently improves the technical complex substituting numerous functions of a human, including logical transactions. Technics penetrates into a biological body of a human not only in the form of artificial organs but also as a bearer of information and a key to an information system. In turn, biological processes become components of technical and technological processes of production. Artificial intelligence has already become subject not only to examination for scientists but also to government programs. A human is becoming a biological, technological, and social creature, which significantly changes parameters of vital activity, forming unprecedented opportunities for progress, creating and strengthening risks of instability.

Within the combination of digital and socio-economic development, objective contradictions, which have been created by a process of transformation of the industrial market system into the network one, may find ways for handling and supplementing. That is why the combination of digital and socio-economic development is one of key pillows for sustainable social dynamics. However, such goal is not accomplished automatically. There is a need for practical purposeful actions of the society relying on understanding of the essence and forms of this process.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned assumptions and drawing on the indicated structure of socio-economic relations, the author may generalize contradictions between digital and socio-economic development:

- between development of digital technologies and digital capabilities of a human;

- between the influence of digital technologies on labour productivity alongside the decrease of value of meeting the existing needs and the orientation of business entities towards the increase of profitability;

- between dynamics of value stipulated by applying digital technologies and pricing being significantly dependent on general monetization of demand;

- between activities of entities at the micro-level aimed at qualitative transformations through implementing digital technologies as a term for the profitability growth and a macro-economic policy of the economic growth based on the change of quantitative characteristics;

- between spatial and time localization of types of activities and productions stipulated by digital technologies and conformity of workforce localization to it being embodied in the escalation of problems of employment and unemployment;

- between dynamics of employees' wages being dependent on terms of employment, as well as production and dynamics of incomes being necessary for ensuring the decent life in the society;

- between formal institutional conditions of the functioning of the digital economy and the informal influence on behaviour of economic entities under real conditions of activity, which result in inadequacy and deviant behaviour.

These contradictions are objectively stipulated and will exist anyway. Nevertheless, forms for movement and reconciliation of them may be different. There are two principally different ways of movement of contradictions. One leads to escalation of contradictions and assuming an antagonistic form, and ends with destruction of a phenomenon containing this contradiction. The other way for movement of contradictions consists in searching for forms of handling. In such case, a contradiction simultaneously appears and is reconciled. For instance, in the economics, a contradiction between the use-value and exchange-value of a commodity is reconciled owing to the emergence of a mediating link - money, which represents the exchange-value (in contrast to a commodity, which represents the use-value). However, each of them contains own opposite. Commodity turnover is a form of movement and reconciliation of contradictions between the use-value and exchange-value of a commodity.

As a result, there are obvious contradictions between digital and socio-economic transformations. It is necessary to find forms for reconciliation of contradictions, which allow parties of contradictions to move and supplement each other. Searching for approaches to solving such problem, there is a need to rely on understanding of regularities being inherent to development of an integral socioeconomic system rather than its fragments.

Digitalization and corresponding socio-economic transformations are components of a comprehensive process of the transition from the industrial market to network economic system. The industrial market system replaces the traditional one. Nevertheless, the transition from one system to the other should not be defined as a simple change. “The previous form of relations does not disappear; it ceases to be dominant and turns into an element for implementing a more complicated form. Hence, traditional relations between humans regarding the appropriation and use of products of labour in the process of forming the industrial market economy do not disappear because they are mediated by commodity-money relations. In the process of the next transition from the industrial market to the network economic system, commodity-money relations do not disappear because they move to a virtual space” (Hrytsenko, A. A., 2018, p. 6-7).

Under Ukrainian conditions, it is also essential to take into account contradictions deriving from peculiarities of historic milestones and the combination of an inverse type of market transformation with globalization processes. On the account of these processes, Ukraine has adjusted to various fragments of the external market in the form of a raw-material appendage without creating own internal market. This has led to the deformation of structure of the whole economy and to intensification of cyclical critical dynamics. Searching for a way out cannot draw on classic market recommendations.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned assertions, the author suggests correcting requirements to a way of thinking in searching for replies to the questions raised. Obviously, it impossible to find an answer, drawing on only market thinking being mainly taught at contemporary economic higher education institutions. The reality goes far beyond market relations and rises above them. Nonmarket approaches should be applied together with market ones in accordance with procedure indicated by the new reality.

It is impossible to find a form for reconciling one contradiction, setting aside another one. Otherwise, solving one problem creates other, maybe, even more devastating ones. Therefore, it is essential to highlight the main pivotal and the most considerable contradiction underlying others. Finding a form for movement and reconciliation of such contradiction forms an opportunity for an adequate approach to settling other differences and, thus, ensures mutual supplementation of all components of a solution for a complex problem.

The most significant contradiction between digital and socio-economic development is a contradiction between the growth of labour productivity and profitability of economic entities' activities, which implement digital technologies at the microlevel, on the one part, and the decrease of economic efficiency and the increase of unemployment at the macro-level, on the other part. It is difficult to reveal this contradiction because statistical data and quantitative parameters of new phenomena in the economy are not always issued on time. This significantly influences the content of productivity and its measure in both certain industries and in the national economy. The rising number of variables, which affect productivity, stipulates zig-zags in its trajectory (Porohovskiy, 2019, p.18). This problem is actively examined by the indicated specialists (Barefoot, Curtis, Jolliff, Nicholson, & Omo- hundro, 2018; Barefoot, Curtis, Jolliff, Nicholson, & Omohundro, 2019; Byrne, Corrado, & Sichel, 2018; Kelly, Papanikolaou, Seru, & Taddy, 2018; OECD, 2019, January).

General logics of this process implies that implementing digital technologies leads to the appearance of new products, which have no analogues in the past, and to the reduction of expenses for meeting current needs. On the one hand, such process cannot find adequate representation in the index of GDP. On the other hand, this process leads to the slowdown in paces of its growth. These circumstances explain that an anticipated pace of growth in productivity at the expense of universal implementation of digital technologies has turned out to be insufficient almost in all the countries. However, digital industries demonstrate the sustainable high growth (Porohovskiy, 2019, p.18).

In general, digitalization will be naturally reducing employment at a higher pace, compared to the creation of new workplaces. This will result in the growth of unemployment. Such process will be inevitably encouraging the society to redistribution of proportions between work, non-work, and leisure time. This has a long history. For example, at the end of 18^th century, in England, the length of a workday was 10-16 hours. Only at the beginning of 20^th century, in the large number of countries, the fight of the working class for own rights enabled to decrease the length of a workday to 8 hours (Sydorzhevskyi, 2014, October 06). Nowadays, governments usually implement the 40-hour workweek with two holidays but experts of the International Labour Organization recommend the transition to 4-day workweek (Barefoot, Curtis, Jolliff, Nicholson, & Omohundro, 2018). Nevertheless, such transition is not the simple redistribution of time. It should be accompanied by significant changes in the content of leisure time as time for personal development. It is possible in case of solving basic problems of the human's vital activity. Unfortunately, in Ukraine, they have not been solved yet. This is a precondition for the escalation of contradictions.

The escalation of contradictions leads to instability which emerges from multispeed and multi-scaled dynamics of components of socio-economic development (commodities have one speed of movement whereas workforce - another; money and capital can change their spatial localization promptly) (Hrytsenko, 2019, p. 14). Hence, a key pillar of socio-economic stability is providing the complementarity of development of its elements. Under the destabilization influence of the globalization on weak open economies, the only way to solve such problem is to apply economic mechanisms, which are adequate to the situation and encompass market and non-market methods for organizing economic activity.

Differences should be settled comprehensively and be subordinated. For instance, one of primary problems in Ukraine is providing conditions for rational nutrition of the population. There could be no question of effective work, high quality of life, etc. without solving this problem. In Ukraine, there are material and labour resources to provide the population with a sufficient amount of high-quality food. However, this problem cannot be solved because: a) a significant part of the population has no money for this; b) there is no corresponding internal demand for goods of manufacturers; c) existing market mechanisms for mobilization and the use of financial resources do not enable to direct them towards development of the real economy (banks have excessive liquidity but do not credit the real sector to the necessary extent because it does not contain the sufficient number of reliable borrowers; borrowers cannot be reliable and run own business at loan rates exceeding the normal rate of profitability).

Under such conditions, it is necessary to change the paradigm of economic thinking. It should not be simultaneous rather than abstract and should include understanding of internally interconnected market, non-market, traditional, and other relations. This change immediately gives an opportunity to build monetary (inadequacy of contemporary mechanisms of the monetary policy has been proven (Terner, 2016; Unkovska, 2019), fiscal, and economic policies another way. Such approach ensures complementarity of solving the existing contradictions and stipulates necessity for:

- drawing on the evaluation of real needs (rather than demand) of the population, business entities, and the government, on the one hand, and material and labour resources, on the other hand;

- ensuring the corresponding monetization of these needs (formation of demand) and the movement of resources used to meet them (formation of supply), which contemplates the change in the paradigm and mechanisms of monetary and fiscal policies;

- being oriented towards accomplishing three prior goals:

a) solving basic problems of reproduction of vital activity (nutrition, shelter, and health);

b) development of infrastructure (roads, transport, and communication);

c) creating the conditions for innovative development (education, science, and innovations).

A mechanism for accomplishing the aforementioned goals contemplates creating the public-private non-profitable institutions of development (e.g., the Ukrainian Financial Institution). Using the refinancing of the Central Bank and, if necessary, funds of the state budget, they could provide the coordinated financing of

mobilization of tangible resources and monetization of basic needs. For example, such institutions could lend to citizens, who need enhancing their living conditions, connecting the use of these loans with construction organizations and ensuring transparency of procedures and public control over the whole process.

In such case, a financial institution receives funds from the National Bank at a rate covering only expenses for the functioning of this non-profitable institution. In turn, this non-profitable institution lends to borrowers through commercial banks, which receive only the normal interest covering expenses related to loan servicing rather than to a sum of loan. A borrower, a bank, which acts as an operator of a financial institution, and a building organization conclude a trilateral agreement. This agreement contemplates that money goes into a building organization's account whereas a borrower obtains a right to housing built according to this agreement, paying off a loan at a low rate during an indicated period. This period is calculated in such a way that an amount of payments does not exceed 15 percent of income. Housing, which is being built, may serve as collateral until a loan is paid.

This loan debt may be frozen as long as it takes. Such postponement of payment will not harm the economy or lead to the inflation because currency is issued for providing a real process of the creation and movement of value. This enables to differentiate terms of loan reimbursement, depending on borrower's incomes. In such case, the government performs its own function of regulating the monetary flows in favour of meeting needs of members of the society and business organizations. At the same time, housing construction is that sector, which may become a driving force for development of other sectors and, above all, an internal market of the country. Open public control over the whole process could be an effective anti-corruption measure.

Such approach can be partially applied to solving other socio-economic problems. For instance, the financial institution could be used to monetize needs of citizens, who do not possess sufficient funds for normal nutrition due to objective circumstances. This monetization may be connected with delivery of products to indicated trade networks. To accomplish this goal, the author proposes to use experience of the USA regarding implementing programs for nutrition assistance of the population (Ekonomichnyi dyskusiinyi klub, 2017, August 28).

Ensuring the complementarity in settling differences also contemplates solving basic problems at the modern technological level. For example, applying cutting- edge technologies, construction of clever houses, taking into consideration ecological requirements, etc. allow undertaking a program for providing housing. This raises the prise of production. Nevertheless, in the process of monetization of needs, these requirements are taken into account. The same measures are applied to providing the population with food and solving other problems. The use of internal resources and products of national manufacturers is an essential requirement. Import should be mainly used to satisfy demand for setting up own production.

One more important condition, which may guarantee reconciling contradictions between digital and socio-economic development, is the complementary accomplishment of three goals: a) comprehension of own interests of Ukraine as a specific socio-economic unit grounded in awareness of its historical milestones and adjustment of economic processes to their implementation being referred to as introversion; b) creating mechanisms for innovative development; c) inclusion into global relations for using theses relations to achieve internal objectives of providing sustainable development, enhancing the welfare and standard of living rather than for membership in international organizations as an end in itself (Heiets, 2016).

Conclusions

Thus, the complementary approach to reconciling contradictions between digitalization and socio-economic development under an inverse type of market transformations and global instability is based on: a) understanding of traditional dependences between needs and resources; b) orientation of monetary and financial mechanisms towards monetization of real needs and their transformation into market demand and providing channels for connecting this demand with consuming resources (formation of supply); c) orientation of management of the economy towards the formation of total demand and meeting this demand in conformity with rational real social needs rather than adjustment to existing total demand distorted by a previous trajectory of destructive development.

REFERENCES

1. Akatkin, Yu. M., & Yasinovskaya, E. D. (2019). Tsifrovaya transformatsiya gosu- darstvennogo upravleniya: Datatsentrichnost i semanticheskaya interperabelnost [Digital Transformation of Public Administration: Datacentricity and Semantic Interoperability]. Moskva: LENAND [in Russian].

2. Barefoot, K., Curtis, D., Jolliff, W. A., Nicholson, J. R., & Omohundro, R. (2018). Defining Measuring the Digital Economy. BEA, 3 (15), 1-25.

3. Barefoot, K., Curtis, D., Jolliff, W. A., Nicholson, J. R., & Omohundro, R. (2019). Research Spotlight Measuring the Digital Economy. Survey of Current Business, 99 (5).

4. Byrne, D., Corrado, C., & Sichel, D. E. (2018). The Rise of Cloud Computing: Minding Your PS, QS and KS. NBER Working Paper 25188.

5. Chebotaryov, A. (2018). Tsifrovyie tehnologii nastoyaschego i buduschego [Digital technologies of the present and future]. Avyapanorama - Aviapanorama, 4 (130), 4-11. Retrieved from https://www.aviapanorama.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04.pdf [in Russian].

6. Digital development: Opportunities and challenges. (2019, May 6). Retrieved from https:// unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/tdb66_d5_en.pdf.

7. Ekonomichnyi dyskusiinyi klub. (2017, August 28). Prohramy prodovolchoi pidtrymky naselennia u SShA, abo pro te, yak vlada povazhaie svii narod [Food support programs in the United States, or how the government respects its people]. Retrieved from http://edclub.com.ua/analityka/programy-prodovolchoyi-pidtrymky-naselennya-u-ssha- abo-pro-te-yak-vlada-povazhaye-sviy [in Ukrainian].

8. Greenfield, A. (2017). Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. London-New York: VERSO.

9. Heiets, V. M. (Ed.) (2016). Rekonstruktyvnyi ekonomichnyi rozvytok: osnovni napriamy, efektyvnist i sotsialna spravedlyvist [Reconstructive economic development: the main directions, efficiency and social justice]. Kyiv. Retrieved from http://ief.org.ua/docs/ scc/2.pdf [in Ukrainian].

10. Hrytsenko, A. A. (2019). Hroshovo-finansovi chynnyky nestabilnosti suchasnoi sotsialno- ekonomichnoi dynamiky [Monetary and financial factors of instability of modern socioeconomic dynamics]. Filosofiiafinansovoi tsyvilizatsii: liudyna u sviti hroshei - Philosophy of financial civilization: man in the world of money, 7-17 [in Ukrainian].

11. Hrytsenko, A. A. (2018). Tsyfrovyi rozvytok: struktura, kapitalizatsiia ta sotsializatsiia [Digital development: structure, capitalization and socialization]. Ekonomichna teor- iia - Economic theory, 4, 5-20 [in Ukrainian].

12. Hrytsenko, O. A. (2018). Tsyfrova ekonomika: suchasni vyklyky dlia ekonomistiv ta pravoznavtsiv [The digital economy: current challenges for economists and legal experts]. Ekonomichna teoriia ta pravo - Economic Theory and Law, 2 (33), 77-90 [in Ukrainian].

13. Information Economy Report 2017: Digitalization, Trade and Development. (2017). United Nations conference on trade and development. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/ en/PublicationsLibrary/ier2017_en.pdf.

14. Kakpoyavilsya vosmichasovoy rabochiy den [How the eight-hour working day appeared]. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://svagor.com/kak-poyavilsya-vosmicha- sovoj-rabochij-den [in Russian].

15. Kelly, B., Papanikolaou, D., Sera, A., & Taddy, M. (2018). Measuring Technological Innovation over the Long Run. NBER Working Paper 25188.

16. Kit, L. Z. (2014). Evoliutsiia merezhevoi ekonomiky [Evolution of network economy]. Visnyk Khmelnytskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Ekonomichni nauky - Bulletin of Khmelnytsky National University. Economic sciences, 3 (2), 187-194 [in Ukrainian].

17. Koliadenko, S. V. (2016). Tsyfrova ekonomika: peredumovy ta etapy stanovlennia v Ukraini i u sviti [Digital economy: preconditions and stages of formation in Ukraine and in the world]. Ekonomika, finansy, menedzhment: aktualnipytannia nauky iprak- tyky - Economy, finances, management: current issues of science and practice, 6, 105-112 [in Ukrainian].

18. Liashenko, V. I., & Vyshnevskyi, O. S. (2018). Tsyfrova modernizatsiia ekonomiky Ukrainy yak mozhlyvist proryvnoho rozvytku [Digital modernization of Ukraine's economy as an opportunity for breakthrough development]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

19. O'Nil, K. (2020). BIG DATA. Zbroia matematychnoho znyshchennia. Yak velyki dani zbilshuiut nerivnist i zahrozhuiut demokratii [BIG DATA. Weapons of mathematical destruction. How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy]. Kyiv: Fors Ukraina [in Ukrainian].

20. OECD (2019, January). Vectors of Digital Transformation. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 273, 38.

21. Porohovskiy, A. A. (2019). Tsifrovizatsiya i proizvoditelnost truda [Digitization and labor productivity]. SShA & Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kultura - USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture, 49 (8), 5-24 [in Russian].

22. Sudakova, A. (2015, September 28). Tsifrovaya ekonomika - ugroza dlya Ukrainyi [The digital economy is a threat to Ukraine]. Retrieved from https://hubs.ua/business/tsi- frovaya-ekonomika-ugroza-dlya-ukrainy-46357.html [in Russian].

23. Sydorzhevskyi, T. (2014, October 06). V OON vystupyly za perekhid na chotyrydennyi robochyi tyzhden [The UN has called for a four-day working week]. Retrieved from https://dt.ua/WORLD/v-oon-vistupili-za-perehid-na-chotiridenniy-robochiy- tizhden-153012_.html [in Ukrainian].

24. Technology and Innovation Report 2018: Harnessing Frontier Technologies for Sustainable Development. (2018). United Nations conference on trade and development. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tir2018_en.pdf.

25. Terner, A. (2016). Between debt and the devil: Money, credit and fixing global finance. Princeton University Press.

26. Unkovska, T. (2019). Nova era monetarnoi polityky: hlobalni vyklyky ta zmina parady- hmy [A new era of monetary policy: global challenges and paradigm shift]. In Posyl- ennia znachymosti monetarnoi polityky v krainakh Tsentralnoi i Skhidnoi Yevropy u postkryzovyi period i rekomendatsii dlia Ukrainy [Strengthening the importance of monetary policy in Central and Eastern Europe in the post-crisis period and recommendations for Ukraine] (pp. 115-125). Kyiv: Zapovit [in Ukrainian].

27. Yudina, T. N. (2016). Osmyislenie tsifrovoy ekonomiki [Understanding the digital economy]. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika - Theoretical economics, 3, 12-16. Retrieved from http://www.theoreticaleconomy.info/articles/999.pdf [in Russian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru