Positive and Normative Methodologies of Economics nowadays and it's problematic

Equally, there is pure political economy, which must precede applied political economy, and this pure political economy is a science that is completely similar to the physical and mathematical sciences ”[9].Discussion in Soviet political economy about the functions of this science, the relationship between ideology and economics is, the same, from the field of normative and positive economic theory. In the post-Soviet period, the officially ongoing process of de-ideologization of economic theory turned into its even more ideologization, the positions of normative economic theory are being increasingly asserted. Some theorist idols, along with their paradigms, were overthrown, others entered their freed pedestal.Western economic thought does not remain aloof from this process. It is not by chance that M. Friedman publishes his famous article in 1953: "The Methodology of Positive Economics", where, on the basis of a deeply verified analysis, he makes a conclusion: "General superficial acquaintance with the subject of economic theory generates contempt for special knowledge about him. The importance of this subject for everyday life and public policy hinders objectivity and contributes to the bias of scientific analysis with normative judgments ”[7].The confusion between positive and normative economics creates another problem that negatively affects the development of science. The desire to separate “science” from “non-science” directs some of the economists to go into purely formal or tautological analysis. For example, the emergence of mathematical political economy, etc. Moreover, in the new Russian economic science there is a desire to introduce, substantiate what the West has recently been ill with and has gone further in its development. A. Marshall, J. Schumpeter, F. Hayek, M. Friedman and other great scholars of Western economic thought conducted a long and fruitful discussion on this matter. Their findings are well known. Formal logic and mathematics, which are both tautological sciences, provide us with essential help when we want to check the correctness of the argumentation, to reveal the meaning of a hypothesis and to determine whether different hypotheses are in fact equivalent, or what is the difference. between them. But, economic theory should be something more than just a system of tautologies, if it wants to predict, and not just describe the consequences of actions. M. Friedman, who actively advocates the use of the mathematical apparatus in economic theory, nevertheless, warns that a departure into a purely tautological analysis may turn into a disguised mathematics for economic theory [7]. J. Schumpeter, an ardent defender of the use of mathematical tools in economic analysis, at the same time states: "The methods used in social sciences, including in economic theory, have nothing in common with natural" [10].Now about one more very important component in the methodology of positive economic theory. Methodology is not only methods, tools of cognition, but also the basic principles on which the whole structure rests. One can agree with the position of F. Hayek, who believes that these principles should be unshakable, as the foundations on which any religion is based. According to the scientist, economic theory (political economy) should be the keeper, interpreter from the scientific point of view of these principles [11].The importance of the basic principles increases during the period of modernization (or change) of the socio-economic system. For example, the basic principles on which the modern neoclassical school is based were laid down in the distant XVIII-XIX centuries. F. Quesnay, W. Petty, P. Boisguillebert, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, J.B. Say, N. Senior and many others. etc. In priority order, we would highlight the following principles in the methodology of modern Western liberal economic thought. (Author's note - here in our economic analysis, we deliberately move away from dividing economic theory into schools, directions).1. Economic liberalism.2. The theory of economic individualism (or the principle of action in the market economy of the "economic man").3. The universality of the operation of economic laws.4. The hedonistic principle is the desire to get the most pleasure, with the least effort.5. Research into the static state of the economy. At the center of the analysis is the exchange, a specific consumer with their feelings of pleasure and suffering, which can be quantified.Despite the abundance of principles that form the foundation of modern Western economic thought, F. Hayek primarily focuses on "individualism", which, in his opinion, is fundamental and incorporates everything else. Here are just a few fragments of the scientist's thoughts on this matter. He writes: "There is no other way to unite social phenomena, except through our understanding of individual actions directed at other people and proceeding to their expected behavior" [11]. In the concept of F. Hayek, true individualism is individualism, which claims that most of the order we find in human affairs is an unpredictable result of individual actions. In this regard, the economist concludes: "Spontaneous cooperation of free people often creates greater things, if their individual minds can ever fully comprehend" [11].Note that in the process of polemics with scientists of the socialist direction, Hayek did not manage here without ideologizing the process of scientific cognition. For example, this is clearly manifested in the division of individualism into "true" and "false". Socialism, with its basic postulates, in all F. Hayek's reflections on individualism, and other issues clearly disturb the author. Note that this applies not only to the said thinker. There was a competition of ideas, including the field of methodology in economic science, but this is the subject of a different analysis.Let us ask ourselves the question, on what fundamental principles is modern Russian economic theory based. A complete answer causes serious difficulties. An attempt to borrow the fundamental principles of economic theory did not become successful and was poorly associated with the real course of development of economic life. Often there is a theoretical substantiation of such processes that do not exist in reality, or they are presented in a completely different light.In terms of the content side of economic theory, eclecticism, schematism, "scientific" conclusions of the normative plan for a political order ", textbooks characterizing the socio-economic system, which in fact does not exist, that is, is present in general we are witnessing the dominance of normative economics.Thus, the following conclusions can be drawn.Disputes between economists are caused precisely by differences in their personal value orientation, worldview, and not by the imperfection of economic tools as such. Economists do not remove the burden of choice from people, but they can, to a certain extent, ease it, make the choice more responsible.Thus, their capabilities may go unclaimed, and advice or warnings are ignored. The fact is that the most important decisions of national importance are necessarily based on incomplete and, moreover, extremely expensive information, as well as on political interests and ethical norms, about which there are fundamental disagreements in society.As a conclusion, let us point out the generally well-known conclusions. Any theory necessarily has a transitory character and is subject to change with the progress of knowledge. “Theory is a way of perceiving 'facts', and we cannot perceive 'facts' without theory. Any statement that economic phenomena are diverse and complex denies the transient nature of knowledge, which only gives meaning to scientific activity ”[7].ListofreferencesBlaug M. Methodology of Economic Science. M. Ed. NP "Journal of Problems of Economics". 2004, p. 35.Popper K. The logic of scientific research. M .: "Science", 1965.Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. M .: "AST", 2003.Lakatosh I. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstruction. M .: AST, 2001.Feyerabend P.K. M .: "AST", 2007.Keynes J.N. Subject and method of political economy. M .: I. A. Balandin, 1899.S. 27-28, 36.Friedman M. Methodology of positive economic science // THESIS, 1994. no. 4.P. 48, S. 48-49, S. 27, S. 44.Tugan-BaranovskyM.I.Bases of political economy. Petrograd. 1917.S. 1.Walras L. Elements of pure political economy or the theory of public wealth. M .: Izograf, 2000.S. 23.Schumpeter J. History of Economic Analysis. In 3volumes.Vol. 3.St. Petersburg, 2004.S. 1272.Hayek F. Individualism and economic order. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2011.S. 8-11, S. 8, P. 10.