<table><caption>**Table 1.** Chronology of the production principle's phases</caption><thead><tr><th>No</th><th>Production Principle</th><th>1<sup>st</sup> phase</th><th>2<sup>nd</sup> phase</th><th>3<sup>rd</sup> phase</th><th>4<sup>th</sup> phase</th><th>5<sup>th</sup> phase</th><th>6<sup>th</sup> phase</th><th>Total Production Principle</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Hunter-Gatherer</td><td>40000–30000 (38000–28000 BC)</td><td>30000–22000 (28000–20000 BC)</td><td>22000–17000 (20000–15000 BC)</td><td>17000–14000 (15000–12000 BC)</td><td>14000–11500 (12000–9500 BC)</td><td>11500–10000 (9500–8000 BC)</td><td>40000–10000 (38000–8000 BC)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>10</b></td><td><b>8</b></td><td><b>5</b></td><td><b>3</b></td><td><b>2,5</b></td><td><b>1,5</b></td><td><b>30</b></td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Craft-Agrarian</td><td>10000–7300 (8000–5300 BC)</td><td>7300–5000 (5300–3000 BC)</td><td>5000–3500 (3000–1500 BC)</td><td>3500–2200 (1500–200 BC)</td><td>2200–1200 (200 BC – 800 AD)</td><td>800–1430 AD</td><td>10000–570 (8000 BC – 1430 AD)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>2,7</b></td><td><b>2,3</b></td><td><b>1,5</b></td><td><b>1,3</b></td><td><b>1,0</b></td><td><b>0,6</b></td><td><b>9,4</b></td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Trade-Industrial</td><td>1430–1600</td><td>1600–1730</td><td>1730–1830</td><td>1830–1890</td><td>1890–1929</td><td>1929–1955</td><td>1430–1955</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>0,17</b></td><td><b>0,13</b></td><td><b>0,1</b></td><td><b>0,06</b></td><td><b>0,04</b></td><td><b>0,025</b></td><td><b>0,525</b></td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Scientific-Cybernetic</td><td>1955–1995/2000</td><td>1995–2030/40</td><td>2030/40 – 2055/70</td><td>2055/70 – 2070/90</td><td>2070/90–2080/105</td><td>2080/2105 – 2090/2115</td><td>1955–2090/2115</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><b>0,04–0,045</b></td><td><b>0,035–0,04</b></td><td><b>0,025–0,03</b></td><td><b>0,015–0,02</b></td><td><b>0,01–0,015</b></td><td><b>0,01</b></td><td><b>0,135–0,160</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* Figures before the brackets – absolute scale (BP), figures in the brackets – BCE. Chronology in the table is simplified (a more detailed chronology see in Grinin 2006b, 2009; Grinin and Korotayev 2013). The duration of phases (in thousand years) is marked by the bold-face type. Duration of phases of the scientific-cybernetic production principle is hypothetical. The duration of the scientific-cybernetic production principle is also given in Fig. 3.

As is clear, the scientific-cybernetic production principle is at the beginning of its development. Only its first phase finished, and in the mid-1990s the second started. The second phase is proceeding now and will last till the early 2030s. The third phase is likely to begin approximately in the 2030s or the 2040s. At this particular time the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution should start. The end of the scientific-cybernetic production principle will fall on the early 22nd century (for more details see Grinin 2006b).
<figure><img src="image_159.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Development of the scientific-cybernetic production principle</figcaption></figure>

*Note:* The dashed line depicts one of the scenarios of expected development of the scientific-cybernetic production principle and corresponds to the dates before the slash in the fifth column of Table 1.

**The industrial production principle as a cycle, consisting of K-Waves.** We have established a close correlation between production principle cycles and Kondratieff cycles (for more details see Grinin 2012a, 2013). Taking into account that K-waves arose only at a certain level of economic development of societies, we can consider K-waves as a specific mechanism connected with the emergence and development of the industrial-trade production principle and the way of expanded reproduction of industrial economy. Given that each new K-wave does not just repeat the wave motion, but is based on a new technological mode, K-waves in a certain aspect can be treated as phases of the development of the industrial production principle and the first phases of development of the scientific-cybernetic production principle.

In the mentioned articles (Grinin 2012, 2013) it has been shown that the first three K-waves are connected with the industrial production principle. The special attention is paid to the correlation between the duration of the industrial production principle phases and the duration of K-wave phases. Certainly, there can be no direct duration equivalence of both K-waves and their phases, on the one hand, and the industrial production principle phases, on the other, due to the different duration of the industrial production principle phases (that is within the principle of production's cycle its phases differ in duration,
but their duration proportions remain the same in each production principle [Grinin 2006b, 2009]). However, we have succeeded in establishing a more complex ratio according to which *at the average one K-wave corresponds to one phase of the industrial production principle*. In general, we found out that three and a half waves coincide with three and a half phases of the industrial principle of production! It is clearly seen in Table 2. Such a correlation is not coincidental, as innovative development of the industrial production principle is realized through long Kondratieff cycles which are largely defined by large-scale innovations.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Periods of the industrial production principle and Kondratieff waves</caption><thead><tr><th>Phases of Industrial Production Principle</th><th>The Third Phase, 1730–1830<br>≈ 100 years</th><th>The Fourth Phase, 1830–1890<br>≈ 60 years</th><th>The Fifth Phase, 1890–1929<br>≈ 40 years</th><th>The Sixth Phase, 1929–1955<br>≈ 25 years</th><th>Total: ≈ 225 years, from 1760 – 195 years</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>The Number of the K-wave</th><td>Zero (B-Phase) / The First Wave (A-Phase), 1760–1817 – about 60 years</td><td>The End of the First Wave / The Second Wave, 1817–1895 – more than 75 years</td><td>The Third Wave, The Upward Phase, 1895–1928 – more than 35 years</td><td>Third wave, The Downward Phase, 1929–1947 – about 20 years</td><td>About 190 years</td></tr><tr><th>The Phase of K-wave</th><td>B-Phase of the Zero Wave,<fnref n="2" /> 1760–1787</td><td>The Second half of the Downward Phase, 1817–1849</td><td>The Upward Phase, 1895–1928</td><td>The Downward Phase, 1929–1947</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>The Phase of K-wave</th><td>The Upward Phase, 1787–1817</td><td>The Upward Phase, 1849–1873</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>The Phase of K-wave</th><td></td><td>The Downward Phase, 1873–1895</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note:* For simplicity, we take concrete years for the beginning and the end of the periods, though such a transition obviously lasts for a certain period of time.

<footnote n="2">² We took as the beginning a zero K-wave which downward phase coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, i.e. the 1760s (as we know, it is downward phases that are especially rich in innovations).</footnote>
## II. The Cybernetic Revolution, Scientific-Cybernetic Production Principle, the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth K-Waves

The production revolution which began in the 1950s and is still proceeding, causes powerful acceleration of scientific and technological progress. Taking into account expected changes in the next 50 years, this revolution deserves to be called ‘Cybernetic’ (see our explanation below). The initial phase of this revolution (the 1950s – the 1990s) can be referred to as a scientific-informational as it was characterized by the transition to scientific methods of planning, forecasting, marketing, logistics, production managements, distribution and circulation of resources, and communication. The most radical changes took place in the sphere of informatics and information technologies. The final phase will begin approximately in the 2030s or the 2040s and will last until the 2070s. We called this phase a ‘phase of self-regulating systems’ (see below). Now we are in the intermediate (modernization) phase which will last until the 2030s. It is characterized by powerful improvement and diffusion of innovations made at the initial phase in particular by a wide proliferation of easy-to-handle computers, means of communication, and formation of macrosector of services among which information and financial services took the major place. At the same time the innovations necessary to start the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution are being prepared.

The Cybernetic Revolution is a great technological breakthrough from the industrial production principle towards production and services based on the operation of self-regulating systems. In general, it will become the revolution of self-regulating systems (see Grinin 2006a, 2007b, 2012b, 2013; Grinin and Grinin 2013a, 2013b).

Table 3 demonstrates the connection between three phases of the scientific-cybernetic production principle (which coincide with three phases of the Cybernetic Revolution) and three Kondratieff waves (the fourth, fifth and sixth). Correlation is here even stronger than between the first three K-waves and the industrial production principle phases, due to the shorter duration of the scientific-cybernetic production principle phases in comparison with those of the industrial production principle.<fnref n="3" />

<footnote n="3">³ The reason for the shorter duration is the general acceleration of historical development.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** The scientific-cybernetic production principle (initial phases) and Kondratieff waves</caption><thead><tr><th>Phases of the Scientific Cybernetic Production Principle</th><th>The first phase (initial phase of the Cybernetic Revolution) 1955–1995</th><th>The second phase (middle phase of the Cybernetic Revolution) 1995 – the 2030s/40s.</th><th>The third phase (final phase of ‘self-regulating systems’ of the Cybernetic Revolution) the 2030s/40s–2055/70s</th><th>Total: ≈ 100–120 years</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>K-Wave and Their Phases</td><td>The Fourth Wave, 1947 – 1982/1991</td><td>The Fifth Wave, 1982/1991 – the 2020s. The beginning of the upward phase of the sixth wave (2020–2050s)</td><td>The sixth wave, 2020 – 2060/70s. The end of the upward phase and downward phase (the latter ≈ 2050 – 2060/70s)</td><td>About 110–120 years</td></tr><tr><td>K-Wave and Their Phases</td><td>Upward phase, 1947 – 1969/1974s</td><td>Downward phase of the fifth wave, 2007–2020s</td><td>≈ 40–50 years</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>K-Wave and Their Phases</td><td>Downward phase, 1969/1974 – 1982/1991</td><td>Upward phase of the sixth wave, 2020 – 2050s.</td></tr><tr><td>K-Wave and Their Phases</td><td>The fifth wave, 1982/1991 – 2020s, upward phase, 1982/1991 – 2007</td><td></td></tr></table>

Taking the theory of production principles into account, we have also revised the sequence of change of the major (leading) production sectors during the change of K-waves (Grinin 2012a).<fnref n="4" />

<footnote n="4">⁴ During the table compiling we took into account ideas and works cohering with the theories which explain the nature and pulsation of K-waves by changing of technological ways and/or *techno-economic paradigms*: Mensch 1979; Kleinknecht 1981, 1987; Dickson 1983; Dosi 1984; Freeman 1987; Tylecote 1992; Glazyev 1993; Mayevsky 1997; Modelski and Thompson 1996; Modelski 2001, 2006; Yakovets 2001; Freeman and Louçã 2001; Ayres 2006; Kleinknecht and van der</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** K-waves, technological modes and leading macrosectors</caption><thead><tr><td>Kon-dratieff Wave</td><td>Date</td><td>A New Mode</td><td>Leading Macrosec-tor</td><td>Production Principle and Num-ber of Its Phase</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The First</td><td>1780–1840s</td><td>The textile industry</td><td>Factory (consumer) industry</td><td>Industrial, 3</td></tr><tr><td>The Second</td><td>1840–1890s</td><td>Railway lines, coal, steel</td><td>Mining industry and primary heavy industry and transport</td><td>Industrial, 4</td></tr><tr><td>The Third</td><td>1890–1940s</td><td>Electricity, chemical industry and heavy engineering</td><td>Secondary heavy industry and mechanic engineering</td><td>Industrial, 5/6</td></tr><tr><td>The Fourth</td><td>1940-e – the early 1980s</td><td>Automobile manufacturing, manmade materials, electronics</td><td>General services</td><td>Industrial, 6, Scientific-Cybernetic, 1</td></tr><tr><td>The Fifth</td><td>1980s – ~2020</td><td>Micro-electronics, personal computers</td><td>Highly-qualified services</td><td>Scientific-Cybernetic, 1/2</td></tr><tr><td>The Sixth</td><td>2020/30s – 2050/60s</td><td>MBNRIC-technologies (med-bio-nanorobo-information)</td><td>Medical human services</td><td>Scientific-Cybernetic, 2/3</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Peculiarities of the fourth K-wave in connection with the beginning of the Cybernetic Revolution.** The fourth K-wave (the second half of the 1940s – 1980s) fell on the initial phase of the Cybernetic Revolution. The beginning of a new production revolution is a special period which is connected with the fast transition to a more advanced technological component of economy. All accumulated innovations and a large number of new innovations generate a new system that has a real synergetic effect. It would appear reasonable that an upward phase of the K-wave coinciding with the beginning of a production revolution can appear more powerful than A-phases of other K-waves.<fnref n="5" /> That was

Panne 2006; Dator 2006; Hirooka 2006; Papenhausen 2008; see also Lazurenko 1992; Glazyev 2009; Polterovich 2009; Perez 2002.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Therefore, it appears reasonable that A-phase of the sixth K-wave can also make a great progress, as it will coincide with the beginning of the Cybernetic Revolution final phase. Thus, the sixth wave is to have a stronger manifestation than the fifth one. We will return to this point below.</footnote>
the feature of the upswing A-phase of the fourth K-wave (1947–1974) which coincided with the scientific-information phase of the Cybernetic Revolution. As a result a denser than usual cluster of innovations (in comparison with the second, third and fifth waves) was formed during that period. All this also explains why in the 1950s and 1960s the economic growth rates of the World System were higher, than in A-phases of the third and fifth K-waves. The downswing phase of the fourth K-wave (the 1970s – 1980s) in its turn also fell on the last period of the initial phase of the Cybernetic Revolution. This explains in many respects why this downswing phase was shorter than those of the other K-waves.

**The fifth K-wave and the delay of the new wave of innovations.** It was expected that the 1990s and the 2000s would bring a radically new wave of innovations, comparable in their revolutionary character with the computer technologies, capable to create a new technological mode. Those directions which had already appeared and those ones, which are now supposed to become a basis for the sixth K-wave were considered to be a breakthrough. However, it was the development and diversification of already existing digital electronic technologies and rapid development of financial technologies that became a basis for the fifth K-wave. Those innovations which were really created during the fifth K-wave as, for example, energy technologies, still have a small share in the general energy, and, above all, they do not grow properly. Some researchers believe that from 1970s up to the present is the time of the decelerating scientific and technological progress (see discussion about Brener 2006; see also Maddison 2007). Polterovich (2009) also suggests a notion of a technological pause. But, in general, the mentioned technological delay is, in our opinion, insufficiently explained. We believe that taking features of the intermediate modernization phase of a production revolution (that is the second phase of the production principle) into account can help explain this. Functionally it is less innovative; rather during this phase earlier innovations are widely spread and improved. As regards the 1990s – 2020s (the intermediate phase of the Cybernetic Revolution) the question is that the launch of a new innovative breakthrough demands that the developing countries reach the level of the developed ones, and the political component of the world catches up with the economic one; all this needs changes of the structure of societies and global relations (see about some aspects Grinin and Korotayev 2010b). Thus, the delayed *introduction of innovations of the new generation* is explained, first, by the fact that the center cannot endlessly surpass the periphery in development, that is the gap between developed and developing countries could not increase all the time. Secondly, economy cannot constantly surpass the political and other components, as this causes very strong disproportions and deformations. And the appearance of new general-purpose technologies, certainly, would ac-
celerate economic development and increase disparities. Thirdly, introduction and distribution of the new basic technologies do not occur naturally, but only within the appropriate social political environment (see Grinin 2012a, 2013; see also Perez 2002). In order for basic innovations to be suitable for business, structural changes in political and social spheres are necessary, eventually promoting their synergy and wide implementation in the world of business.

Thus, the delay is caused by difficulties of changing political and social institutions on the regional and even global scale, and also (and, perhaps, first of all) within the international economic institutions. The latter can change only thanks to the strong political will of the main players, which is difficult to execute in the framework of the modern political institutions. These institutions rather can change under the conditions of depressive development (and probable aggravation of the foreign relations) compelling to reorganization and breakage of the conventional institutions that could hardly be changed due to the lack of courage and opportunities under ordinary conditions.

The above said explains as well the reasons of different rates of development of the center and periphery of the World System during the fifth K-wave (for more details see Grinin 2013; see also Grinin and Korotayev 2010a). The periphery was expected to catch up with the center due to the faster rates of its development and slowdown of the center development. However, one should not expect continuous crisis-free development of the periphery – a crisis will come later and probably in other forms. Without slow-down of the development of the periphery and serious changes full harmonization of the economic and political component will not happen. Consequently, it might be supposed that in the next decade (approximately by 2020–2025) the growth rates of the peripheral economies can also slow down, and internal problems will aggravate that, as said above, can stimulate structural changes in the peripheral countries and strengthen international tension. Thus, we suppose that in the next 10–15 years the world will face serious and painful changes.

As is known, among researchers there is no agreement about periodization of the Kondratieff waves (about this see Korotayev and Grinin 2012). We believe that at present we witness the downward phase of the fifth K-wave which will last till the early or the mid-2020s. However, for example, Leo Nefiodow in his contribution to this yearbook and the other works (Nefiodow 1996; Nefiodow and Nefiodow 2014) argues that the sixth K-wave began in the late 1990s. Thus, according to Nefiodow's logic, now we observe an upward phase (however, the crisis of 2008–2014 and prospects for the next years contradict this), and in the 2020s the downward phase should come.
### III. Characteristics of the Cybernetic Revolution

**What are self-regulating systems and why are they so important?** Self-regulating systems are systems that can regulate themselves, responding in a pre-programmed and intelligent way to the feedback from the environment. These are the systems that operate with a small or completely without human intervention. Today there are many self-regulating systems around us, for example, the artificial Earth satellites, pilotless planes, navigators laying the route for a driver. Another good example is life-supporting systems (such as medical ventilation apparatus or artificial hearts). They can regulate a number of parameters, choose the most suitable mode of operation and detect critical situations. There are also special programs that determine the value of stocks and other securities, react to the change of their prices, buy and sell them, carry out thousands of operations in a day and fix a profit. A great number of self-regulating systems has been created. But they are mostly technical and informational systems (as robots or computer programs). During the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution there will be a lot of self-regulating systems connected with biology and bionics, physiology and medicine, agriculture and environment. The number of such systems as well as their complexity and their autonomy will dramatically increase. Besides, they will essentially reduce energy and resource consumption. The very human life will become organized to a greater extent by such self-regulating systems (for example, by monitoring of health, regimen, regulation of or recommendation concerning the exertions, control over the patients' condition, prevention of illegal actions, etc.).

Thus, we designate the modern revolution 'Cybernetic', because its main sense is the wide creation and distribution of self-regulating autonomous systems. Cybernetics, as is well-known, is a science of regulatory systems. Its main principles are quite suitable for the description of self-regulating systems (see, e.g., Wiener 1948; Ashby 1956; Foerster and Zopf 1962; Umpleby and Dent 1999; Tesler 2004).

As a result, the opportunity to control various natural, social and production processes without direct human intervention (that is impossible or extremely limited now) will increase. At the fourth phase (of maturity and expansion) of the scientific cybernetic production principle (the 2070s and 2080s) the achievements of the Cybernetic Revolution will become quite systemic and wide-scale in its final phase (for more details see Grinin 2006a).

Below we single out the most important characteristics of the Cybernetic Revolution. One can observe them today, but they will realize in mature and mass forms only in the future. These features are closely interconnected and corroborating each other (for more details see Grinin and Grinin 2013a, 2013b).
**Group of self-regulating properties:**

1. Transition to self-regulating systems of various types and nature and qualitatively growing controllability of systems and processes.

2. Transition to the control over deeper and more fundamental processes and levels (up to subatomic particles), using tiny particles as building blocks (as is clearly seen in nano- and biotechnologies).

3. Control over humans activities to eliminate the negative influence of the so-called human factor, and control the lack of human attention in order to prevent dangerous situations (e.g., in transport) as well as to prevent human beings from using means of high-risk in unlawful or disease state (e.g., not allowing driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs).

**The group of attributes of task-aware adaptation of materials and systems:**

1. Radical increase in systems' abilities to choose optimal regimes for different objectives and tasks.

2. Individualization as trend of technology. The opportunities of self-regulation will allow choosing a particular decision for the variety of individual tasks, orders and requests (e.g., with 3D and 4D printers and choosing of programs adapted to specific individual needs). We also expect a rapid increase in the market of cosmetic corrections and plastic surgery of any kinds and other private orders to change individual organisms.<fnref n="6" />

3. Resource and energy saving in many spheres.

4. Increasing opportunities in the synthesis of materials with previously lacking properties in biological and bionic (techno-biological) systems (as in Chemistry).

5. Miniaturization and micro-miniaturization as a trend of the constantly decreasing size of particles, mechanisms, electronic devices, implants, etc.

Various directions of development should generate a system cluster of innovations.<fnref n="7" />

**Medicine as a sphere of the initial technological breakthrough and the emergence of MBNRIC-technology complex.** It is worth remembering that the Industrial Revolution began in a rather narrow area of cotton textile manufactory and was connected with the solution of quite concrete problems – at first, liquidation of the gap between spinning and weaving, and then, after increasing weavers' productivity, searching of the ways to mechanize spinning.

<footnote n="6">⁶ Even now this market is growing rapidly, and in the future it will run up to hundreds billion dollars.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ So, for example, resources and energy saving can be carried out via the choice of the optimal modes by autonomous systems that fulfil concrete goals and tasks and vice versa, the choice of an optimal mode will depend on the level of energy and materials consumption, and the budget of a consumer.</footnote>
However, the solution of these narrow tasks caused explosion of innovations conditioned by the existence of a large number of the major elements of machine production (including abundant mechanisms, primitive steam-engines, quite a high volume of coal production, etc.) which gave an impulse to the development of the Industrial Revolution. In a similar way, we assume that the Cybernetic Revolution will start first in a certain area. Given the general vector of scientific achievements and technological development and taking into account that a future breakthrough area should be highly commercially attractive and have a wide market, we predict that the final phase (of self-regulating systems) of this revolution will begin somewhere at the intersection of medicine and many other technologies. Certainly, it is almost impossible to predict the concrete course of innovations. However, the general vector of breakthrough can be defined as a rapid growth of opportunities for correction or even modification of the human biological nature. In other words, it will be possible to extend our opportunities to alter a human body, perhaps, to some extent, its genome; to widen sharply our opportunities of minimally invasive influence and operations instead of the modern surgical ones; to use extensively means of cultivating separate biological materials, bodies or their parts and elements for regeneration and rehabilitation of an organism, and also artificial analogues of biological material (bodies, receptors), etc.

This will make it possible to radically expand the opportunities to prolong the life and improve its biological quality. It will be the technologies intended for common use in the form of a mass market service. Certainly, it will take a rather long period (about two or three decades) from the first steps in that direction (in the 2030–2040s) to their common use.

The drivers of the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution will be medicine, bio- and nano-technologies, robotics, IT, cognitive sciences, which will together form a sophisticated system of self-regulating production. We can denote this complex as **MBNRIC-technologies**. As is known, there is the widely used abbreviation of NBIC-technology (or convergence), that is nano-bio-information and cognitive (see Lynch 2004; Dator 2006; Akayev 2012). However, we believe that this complex will be larger.

It should be noted that Leo Nefiodow has been writing about medicine as the leading technology of the sixth Kondratieff wave for a long time (Nefiodow 1996; Nefiodow and Nefiodow 2014; also in this volume). In general, we support his approaches (including the ideas about a new type of medicine), but it is important to point out that Nefiodow believes that it is biotechnologies that will become an integrated core of a new mode. However, we suppose that the leading role of biotechnologies will be, first of all, in their possibility to solve
the major medical problems.<fnref n="8" /> That is why, it makes sense to speak about medicine as the core of a new technological paradigm. Besides, Nefiodow practically does not mention nanotechnology that will be of great importance in terms of the development of biotechnologies and medicine (they are supposed to play a crucial role in the fight against cancer; at the same time nanotechnologies will play a crucial role in other spheres too, in particular in energy and resources saving). It is difficult to agree with his opinion that psychosocial health, which, in his opinion, cover not only psychotherapeutic, psychological and psychiatric services, but also numerous measures of people's health improvement that is capable to reduce, in his terms, social entropy, will be the second leading mode. The problems of this social entropy which he points out (corruption, growth of small and large crime, drug addiction, loss of moral guide, divorces, growth of violence, etc.) have always existed in society; many of them even had a greater share than today. Social changes can be really extremely important for creation of starting conditions for a long-term upswing and its keeping (for more details see Grinin and Korotayev 2014 in this issue). However, it is production and/or commercial technologies that represent the driving force of the K-Waves upward phases.

Thus, we suppose the following:

1. Medicine will be the first sphere to start the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution, but, later on, self-regulating systems development will cover the most diverse areas of production, services and life.

2. We treat medicine in a broad sense, because it will include (and already actively includes) for its purposes a great number of other scientific branches (e.g., the use of robots in surgery and care of patients, information technologies in remote medical treatment, neural interfaces for treatment of mental illness and brain research; gene therapy and engineering, nanotechnologies for creation of artificial immunity and biochips which monitor organisms; new materials for growing artificial organs and many other things to become a powerful sector of economy).

3. The medical sphere has unique opportunities to combine the abovementioned technologies into a single system.

4. There are also some demographic and economic reasons why the phase of self-regulating systems will start in medicine:

– Increase in average life expectancy and population ageing will favor not only the growth of medical opportunities to maintain health, but also allow the extension of working age, as population ageing will be accompanied by the lack of working-age population;

<footnote n="8">⁸ We agree with Nefiodow that it is also necessary to include in this complex food, pharmaceutics and ecology (see Grinin and Grinin 2013a, 2013b).</footnote>
– People, in general, are always ready to spend money on health and beauty. However, the growth of the world middle class and the cultural standard of people implies much greater willingness and solvency in this terms;

– Medical corporations usually do not impede technological progress, but, on the contrary, are interested in it.

Thus, today medicine is a very important sector of the economy, and tomorrow it will become even more powerful.

In the present article we confined ourselves to a short description of the spheres which represent a new, in a broad sense, medical system or realm of medicine, creating a complex of technologies and their application with other perspective directions.

**Surgery.** Robots have become widely used in surgeries (see Fig. 4). The da Vinci robot has become especially popular. In the future, an increasing number of surgical operations will be performed with less involvement of professionals. Many simple surgeries will need no human participation at all.

Robots can perform a wide range of surgeries because of:

* easy access to the zone of surgery;

* small scars;

* superhuman accuracy;

* no hand tremor;

* possibility to control a robot at a distance via Internet.

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4. Robots in surgery**</figcaption></figure>

Source: Pinkerton 2014.

**Biochips** represent a new trend of combining medical and nanobiotechnologies. Biochips are able to register a wide range of physiological changes and respond to them or perform specific actions. In the long term, biochips will permit a continuous control of a person's health. There are many biochips in medicine today. For example, cardio-chips which are connected to the heart
cells, register all necessary indices, and transmit them to devices. Some bio-
chips are so small in size that can be placed into a cell or tiny spheres of lipids,
liposomes. They can be used for different purposes, for example, for targeted
drug delivery.

**Artificial organs** are the key to resolving the urgent lack of enough donor organs. In medicine scientists already use or work to design different artificial organs: skin, retina, trachea, vessels, heart, ear, eye, limbs, liver, lungs, pancreas, bladder, ovaries. This will definitely increase life expectancy and can have various consequences. The artificial womb, for example, can provide an opportunity to have children for people irrespective of age and, perhaps, even gender.

**Artificial immune system** is an autonomous intellectual system against diseases and pathogenic organisms. For example, a nanorobot can travel through the body and collect pathogenic organisms into a special module, where they are decomposed. Organic compounds are further used by human organism.

**Gene therapy** is an explosively developing sector. It is a powerful tool for correcting hereditary diseases as well as developing new abilities that an organism lacked before. In our view, the crucial breakthroughs in gene therapy will be made in the treatment of genetic disorders and sport medicine.

**Neural interfaces** are an interaction between brain and computer systems that can be realized via electrode contact with head skin or via electrodes implanted into the brain. The implementation of neural interfaces is already widespread. They have developed neural interfaces that allow prosthetic devices to be moved via brain signals. Today, scanning techniques have been developed that allow studying brain signals. This gives an opportunity to reproduce any brain response.

So the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution:

- will create various self-regulating systems;

- will start in medicine, which in the conjuncture with other fields will create the revolutionizing system of MBNRIC (med-bio-nano-robo-information) technologies;

- will improve the quality of life particularly of old people and disabled persons;

- will increase average life expectancy (up to 100 years);

- will lead to the emergence of opportunities to correct and modify human biology itself.

*However, the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution will have ambiguous consequences. On the one hand, vigorous growth of production volume will be expected. On the other hand, due to the diffusion of various self-regulating systems the number of specialists needed in different spheres will decrease. For in-*
stance, due to the development of self-regulation and remote medical care the
number of doctors will significantly diminish.

The possibilities of medicine will hugely increase. At the same time the
emergence of opportunities to radically change the human organism may bring
about unprecedented ethical issues and seriously damage such vital aspects as
family, gender, and morals. That is why it is very important to search for some
optimal social, legal and other means beforehand. Then those changes will not
be completely unexpected and their negative consequences could be mini-
mized.

## IV. The Phase of Self-Regulating Systems and the Sixth K-Wave

### A-Phase of the sixth K-wave: acceleration to enter the final phase of the cybernetic revolution

The sixth K-wave will probably begin approximately in the 2020s. Meanwhile the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution has to begin later, at least, in the 2030–2040s. Thus, we suppose, that a new technological mode will not develop in a necessary form even by the 2020s (thus, the innovative pause will take longer than expected). However, it should be kept in mind that the beginning of the K-wave upswing phase is never directly caused by new technologies. This beginning is synchronized with the start of the medium-term business cycle's upswing. And the upswing takes place as a result of the levelling of proportions in economy, the accumulation of resources and other impulses that improve demand and conjuncture. One should remember, that the beginning of the second K-wave was connected with the discovery of gold deposits in California and Australia, the third wave with the increase in prices for wheat, the fourth one with the post-war reconstruction, the fifth one with the economic reforms in the UK and the USA. And then, given an upswing, a new technological mode (which could not completely – if at all – realize its potential) facilitates overcoming of cyclic crises and allows further growth.

Consequently, some conjunctural events will also stimulate an upward im-
pulse of the sixth K-wave. And, for example, the rapid growth of the underde-
veloped world regions (such as Tropical Africa, the Islamic East, and some
Latin American countries) or new financial and organizational technologies can
become a primary impulse. Naturally, there will also appear some technical and
technological innovations which, however, will not form a new mode yet. Be-
sides, we suppose that financial technologies have not finished yet its expan-
sion in the world. If we can modify and secure them somehow, they will be
able to spread into various regions which underuse them now. One should not
forget that large-scale application of such technologies demands essential
changes in the legal and other systems, which is absolutely necessary for devel-
opmental levelling in the world. Taking into account a delay of the new genera-
tion of technologies, the period of the 2020s may resemble the 1980s. In other
words, it will be neither a growth recession, nor a rise, but rather an accelerated
development (with stronger development in some regions and continuous de-
pression in others).

Then, given the above mentioned favorable conditions, during this wave
the final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution will begin. In such a situation it is
possible to assume that the sixth K-wave's A-phase (the 2020–2050s) will have
much stronger manifestation and last longer than that of the fifth one due to
more dense combination of technological generations. And since the Cybernet-
ic Revolution will evolve, the sixth K-wave's downward B-phase (2050 –
the 2060/70s), is expected to be not so depressive, as those during the third or
fifth waves. In general, during this K-wave (2020 – the 2060/70s) the Scientific
and Information Revolution will come to an end, and the scientific and cyber-
netic production principle will acquire its mature shape.

**Another scenario.** The final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution can begin later – not in the 2030s, but in the 2040s. In this case the A-phase of the sixth wave will terminate before the beginning of the regulating systems revolution; therefore, it will not be based on fundamentally new technologies and will not become so powerful as is supposed in the previous scenario. The final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution in this case will coincide with the B-phase of the sixth wave (as it was the case with the zero wave during the Industrial Revolu- tion, 1760–1787) and at the A-phase of the seventh wave. In this case the emergence of the seventh wave is highly possible. The B-phase of the sixth wave should be rather short due to the emergence of a new generation of tech- nologies, and the A-phase of the seventh wave – rather long and powerful.

The end of the Cybernetic Revolution and disappearance of K-waves

The sixth K-wave (about 2020 – the 2060/70s), like the first K-wave, will pro-
ceed generally during completion of the production revolution. However, there
is an important difference. During the first K-wave the duration of the one
phase of the industrial production principle significantly exceeded the duration
of the whole K-wave. But now one phase of the K-wave will exceed the dura-
tion of one phase of production principle. This alone should essentially modify
the course of the sixth K-wave; the seventh wave will be feebly expressed or
will not occur at all (on the possibility of the other variant see above). Such
a forecast is based also on the fact that the end of the Cybernetic Revolution
and distribution of its results will promote integration of the World System and
considerably increasing influence of new universal regulation mechanisms. It is
quite reasonable, considering the fact that the coming final phase of the revolu-
tion will be the revolution of the regulating systems. Thus, the management of
the economy should reach a new level. So, *K-waves appear at a certain stage*
*of social evolution and are likely to disappear at its certain stage.*

**References**

**Akayev A. A. 2012.** Mathematical Foundations of Schumpeter–Kondratieff Theory of Innovative Cycles in Economic Development. *Kondratieff Waves: Aspects and Perspectives* / Ed. by A. A. Akayev, R. S. Grinberg, L. E. Grinin, A. V. Korotayev, S. Yu. Malkov, pp. 110–135. Volgograd: Uchitel. *In Russian* (Акаев А. А. Математические основы инновационно-циклической теории экономического развития Шумпетера – Кондратьева. Кондратьевские волны: аспекты и перспективы / Ред. А. А. Акаев, Р. С. Гринберг, Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, С. Ю. Малков, с. 110–135. Волгоград: Учитель).

Ashby R. 1956. *An Introduction to Cybernetics*. London: Chapman and Hall.

Ayres R. U. 2006. Did the Fifth K-Wave Begin in 1990-92? Has it been Aborted by Globalization? *Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security* / Ed. by T. C. Devezas, pp. 57–71. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Brener R. 2006. The Economics of Global Turbulence. The Advanced Capitalist Economies from Long Boom to Long Downturn, 1945–2005. London – New York: Verso.

Dator J. 2006. Alternative Futures for K-Waves. *Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security* / Ed. by T. C. Devezas, pp. 311–317. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Dickson D. 1983. Technology and Cycles of Boom and Bust. *Science* 219(4587): 933–936.

Dosi G. 1984. *Technical Change and Industrial Transformation*. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Foerster H. von, and Zopf G. (Eds.) 1962. *Principles of Self-organization*. New York: Pergamon Press.

Freeman C. 1987. Technical Innovation, Diffusion, and Long Cycles of Economic Development. *The Long-Wave Debate* / Ed. by T. Vasko, pp. 295–309. Berlin: Springer.

Freeman C., and Louçã F. 2001. *As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Glazyev S. Yu. 1993. *Theory of the Long-term Techno-Economic Development*. Moscow: VlaDar. *In Russian* (Глазьев С. Ю. Теория долгосрочного технико-экономического развития. М.: ВлаДар).

Glazyev S. Yu. 2009. The World Economic Crisis as a Process of Changing Technological Modes. *Voprosy ekonomiki* 3: 26–32. *In Russian* (Глазьев С. Ю. Мировой экономический кризис как процесс смены технологических укладов. *Вопросы экономики* 3: 26–32).
**Grinin L. E. 2006a.** *Production Forces and Historical Process*. 3rd ed. Moscow: KomKniga/URSS. *In Russian* (Гринин Л. Е. Производительные силы и исторический процесс. 3-е изд. М.: КомКнига/URSS).

**Grinin L. E. 2006b.** *Periodization of History: A Theoretic-Mathematical Analysis*. *History & Mathematics: Analyzing and Modeling Global Development* / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, V. de Muncik, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 10–38. Moscow: KomKniga.

**Grinin L. E. 2007a.** *Production Revolutions and Periodization of History: A Comparative and Theoretic-Mathematical Approach*. *Social Evolution & History* 6(2): 75–120.

**Grinin L. E. 2007b.** *Production Revolutions and the Periodization of History*. *Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences* 77(2): 150–156.

**Grinin L. E. 2009.** *State and Historical Process*. *The Political Facet of Historical Process*. 2nd ed. Moscow: LIBROKOM/URSS. *In Russian* (Гринин Л. Е. Государство и исторический процесс: Политический срез исторического процесса*. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ/URSS).

**Grinin L. E. 2012a.** *Kondratieff Waves, Technological Modes and the Theory of Production Revolutions*. *Kondratieff Waves: Aspects and Perspectives* / Ed. by A. A. Akayev, R. S. Grinberg, L. E. Grinin, A. V. Korotayev, and S. Yu. Malkov, pp. 222–262. Volgograd: Uchitel. *In Russian* (Гринин Л. Е. Кондратьевские волны, технологические уклады и теория производственных революций. Кондратьевские волны: аспекты и перспективы* / Ред. А. А. Акаев, Р. С. Гринберг, Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, С. Ю. Малков, с. 222–262. Волгоград: Учитель).

**Grinin L. E. 2012b.** *Macrohistory and Globalization*. Volgograd: Uchitel.

**Grinin L. E. 2013.** *The Dynamics of Kondratieff Waves in the Light of the Production Revolutions Theory*. *Kondratieff Waves: The Spectrum of Ideas* / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, A. V. Korotayev, and S. Yu. Malkov, pp. 31–83. Volgograd: Uchitel. *In Russian* (Гринин Л. Е. Динамика кондратьевских волн в свете теории производственных революций. Кондратьевские волны: Палитра взглядов* / Отв. ред. Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, С. Ю. Малков, с. 31–83. Волгоград: Учитель).

**Grinin L. E., and Grinin A. L. 2013a.** *Global Technological Transformations*. *Globalistics and Globalization Studies: Theories, Research & Teaching* / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, I. V. Ilyin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 98–128. Volgograd: Uchitel.

**Grinin L. E., and Grinin A. L. 2013b.** *The Cybernetic Revolution and the Forthcoming Technological Transformations (Development of the Leading Technologies in the Light of the Production Revolutions Theory)*. *Evolution of the Earth, Life, Society, Intelligence* / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, A. V. Korotayev, and A. V. Markov, pp. 167–239. Volgograd: Uchitel. *In Russian* (Гринин А. Л., Гринин Л. Е. Кибернетическая революция и грядущие технологические трансформации (развитие ведущих технологий в свете теории производственных революций). Эволюция Земли, жизни, общества, разума* / Отв. ред. Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, А. В. Марков, с. 167–239. Волгоград: Учитель).
**Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2010a.** Will the Global Crisis Lead to Global Transformations? 1. The Global Financial System: Pros and Cons. *Journal of Globalization Studies* 1(1): 70–89.

**Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2010b.** Will the Global Crisis Lead to Global Transformations? 2. The Coming Epoch of New Coalitions. *Journal of Globalization Studies* 1(2): 166–183.

**Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2013.** *Social Macroevolution: The Genesis and Transformation of the World-System.* 2nd. Moscow: LIBROCOM. *In Russian* (Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. Социальная макроэволюция: генезис и трансформация Мир-Системы. 2-е изд. М.: Либроком).

**Hirooka M. 2006.** *Innovation Dynamism and Economic Growth. A Nonlinear Perspective*. Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar.

**Kleinknecht A. 1981.** *Innovation, Accumulation, and Crisis: Waves in Economic Development? Review* 4(4): 683–711.

**Kleinknecht A. 1987.** *Innovation Patterns in Crisis and Prosperity: Schumpeter's Long Cycle Reconsidered*. London: Macmillan.

**Kleinknecht A., and van der Panne G. 2006.** Who Was Right? Kuznets in 1930 or Schumpeter in 1939? *Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security* / Ed. by T. C. Devezas, pp. 118–127. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

**Lazurenko S. 1992.** The Problems of Long-Term Oscillations of Economic Dynamics. *Voprosy ekonomiki* 10: 69–75. *In Russian* (Лазуренко С. Проблемы долговременных колебаний экономической динамики. Вопросы экономики* 10: 69–75).

**Lynch Z. 2004.** *Neurotechnology and Society 2010–2060. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences* 1031: 229–233.

**Maddison A. 2007.** *Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

**Mayevsky V. I. 1997.** *Basics of Evolutionary Macroeconomics*. Moscow: Yaponiya segodnya. *In Russian* (Маевский В. И. Введение в эволюционную макроэкономику. М.: Япония сегодня).

**Mensch G. 1979.** *Stalemate in Technology – Innovations Overcome the Depression*. New York: Ballinger.

**Modelski G. 2001.** *What Causes K-waves? Technological Forecasting and Social Change* 68: 75–80.

**Modelski G. 2006.** Global Political Evolution, Long Cycles, and K-Waves. *Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World Security* / Ed. by T. C. Devezas, pp. 293–302. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

**Modelski G., and Thompson W. R. 1996.** *Leading Sectors and World Politics: The Coevolution of Global Politics and Economics*. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Nefiodow L. 1996. *Der sechste Kondratieff. Wege zur Produktivität und Vollbes-
chäftigung im Zeitalter der Information.* 1 Auflage/Edition. Rhein-Sieg-Verlag:
Sankt Augustin.

Nefiodow L., and Nefiodow S. 2014. *The Sixth Kondratieff. The New Long Wave of the World Economy*. Rhein-Sieg-Verlag: Sankt Augustin.

Papenhausen Ch. 2008. Causal Mechanisms of Long Waves. *Futures* 40: 788–794.

Perez C. 2002. *Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages*. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Pinkerton S. 2013. The Pros and Cons of Robotic Surgery. *The Wall Street Journal*
November, 17. URL: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304655104
579163430371597334

Polterovich V. 2009. Hypothesis about Innovative Pause and the Strategy of Moderni-
zation. *Voprosy ekonomiki* 6: 4–23. In *Russian* (Полтерович В. Гипотеза об инно-
вационной паузе и стратегия модернизации. *Вопросы экономики* 6: 4–23).

Tesler G. S. 2004. *New Cybernetics*. Kiev: Logos. In *Russian* (Теслер Г. С. Новая кибернетика, Киев: Логос).

Tylecote A. 1992. *The Long Wave in the World Economy*. London: Routledge.

Umpleby S. A., and Dent E. B. 1999. The Origins and Purposes of Several Traditions in Systems Theory and Cybernetics. *Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal* 30: 79–103.

Wiener N. 1948. *Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine*. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Yakovets Yu. V. 2001. *Heritage of N. D. Kondratieff: A View from the 21st Century*. Moscow: MFK. In *Russian* (Яковец Ю. В. Наследие Н. Д. Кондратьева: взгляд из ХХІ века. М.: МФК).
IV. NIKOLAI D. KONDRATIEFF'S HERIT-
AGE AND THE ECONOMIC SCIENCE

13
The Feat of Life and Creativity<fnref n="1" />

Valentina M. Bondarenko

**Abstract**

The article reflects the views of Academician Leonid Abalkin on Nikolai Kon-
dratieff's scientific heritage: starting from the presentation made at the Interna-
tional academic conference held in 1992 to commemorate Nikolai Kondratieff's
100th anniversary (Abalkin 1992) to his subsequent reports and presentations
related to Kondratieff's works.

**Keywords:** Academician Leonid Abalkin, N. D. Kondratieff, feat of life and creativity, regaining of scientific knowledge, historical memory, Kondratieff waves, unresolved problems of methodology.

The academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) and the first Pres-
ident of the International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation (1992–2007), passed
away in 2011. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to recall that period again in the
context of a direct link between the names of Nikolai Kondratieff and Leonid
Abalkin.

Abalkin devoted much effort and time to the study of history of the Rus-
sian socio-economic thought. He did it not only in order to introduce less
known names to the broad audience of readers, but mainly to reveal their role in
the development of the Russian socio-economic thought as well as to memorize
the prominent national figures and to contribute to the revival of Russia.

In his presentations, articles and books Leonid Abalkin explores the lives and
academic heritage of the Russian socio-economic thinkers of the 18th – 20th centu-
ries. He analyzes the theoretical and publicistic heritage of once best-known
representatives of that school, such as Ivan Pososhkov, Andrey Shtorch, Niko-
lay Mordvinov, Vladimir Vernadsky, Nikolay Danilevsky, Nikolay Bunge,
Alexander Chouprov, Ivan Yanzhul, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, Sergey Vitte,

<footnote n="1">¹ This research has been supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Project No 14-02-00330).</footnote>
Dmitri Mendeleev, Maxim Kovalevsky, Nikolay Zheleznov, Alexander Chayanov and Alexander Bogdanov. When addressing these names, Leonid Abalkin considered it especially important to return Nikolai Kondratieff's honour and works into the academic discourse.

Nikolai Kondratieff (1892–1938) ranks among the most prominent representatives of the Russian school of economics of the early twentieth century. His name is associated with fundamental studies in the theory of conjuncture, regularities of its dynamics, and substantive explanation of long waves of economic conjuncture. He also published several works on the issues of forecasting and long-range planning, agrarian problems and statistics. In the last years of his life, he extended his research to sociology and mathematics. Life treated this scholar rather cruelly. However, his tragic destiny and decades of oblivion could not destroy or derogate his achievements. Nikolai Kondratieff's scientific heritage, his universally recognized ideas and theories were rejected and severely criticized in his native country. One should note that for the sake of destructive criticism of his ideas there were published numerous books and articles, for example, such collected volumes as the *Kondratievschina* [Kondratieff's Wild Fantasies], published by the Communist Academy in 1930 (Kondratievschina 1930) and in 1931 – *Kondratievschina: Class Struggle in the Economic Theory* (Kondratievschina 1931). The entry in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia says that the theory of big cycles is a vulgar bourgeois theory of crises and economic cycle, which is targeted against the Marxist theory of crises and tones down the irresolvable contradictions of the capitalist society (Titarev 1973). In Volume 2 of the encyclopedia *Political Economy* (Figurovskaya 1975) it is noted that Nikolai Kondratieff is the author of the apologetic theory of big cycles of conjuncture, which shaded the essence of the general crisis of capitalism by presenting it as a simple long-term conjuncture depression. We come to know from different sources that after the destruction of the Russian economic school in 1929, Kondratieff's works were withdrawn from the country's academic life for almost fifty years. His name was mentioned only in connection with criticism of his alleged mistakes. The death sentence under Kondratieff's case was cancelled in 1962, while the verdict under the 'case' of the Labor Peasants Party was disavowed only 25 years later, in 1987. Kondratieff lived for only 46 years, and his creative work lasted for only 15 years – from the graduation from the university to imprisonment, but that 15-year period was indeed a 'big cycle' that left a notable trace in the history of the Russian and world science. His scientific heritage continues to be timely and up to modernity. The restoration of memory of Nikolai Kondratieff was a result of perestroika in Russia.
However, it would be correct to recall that his contribution to the world science had been much earlier recognized in the West, where his name is often mentioned and one can find numerous references to his works in economic literature. The theory of big cycles was named to memorize its author, and also the long-term fluctuations were called the Kondratieff long waves or K-waves. Kondratieff's theory of long cycles won international acclaim due to a number of articles published in European languages: in 1926, in German (Kondratieff 1926), and in 1935 – in English (Kondratieff 1935). Several decades passed after his recognition in the West before Nikolai Kondratieff's honor and ideas came back to his native country. Yuri V. Yakovets in his monograph entitled *Regularities of Science-Tech Progress and Their Systematic Use* (1984) positively interprets N. D. Kondratieff's theory of long cycles of conjuncture as regards the development of the theory of cyclic dynamics. In the same period, Stanislav M. Menshikov (1984) also gave a positive assessment of Kondratieff's theory; the same was made in 1986, in S. Nikitin's *Theory of 'Long Waves' and Science-Tech Progress* (1986) and in Yu. V. Shishkov's article (1986) on the long-waves concept. In 1988, the International Institute of Applied System Analysis and the Siberian branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences held an International Academic Conference on long waves in economic dynamics in Novosibirsk. The Academy of National Economy hosted the first cross-disciplinary discussion on the theories of cycles. The works, developing the theory of cycles, among others included the monograph *Acceleration of Science-Tech Progress: Theory and Economic Mechanism* by Yu. V. Yakovets (1988), as well as articles by Natalia A. Makasheva, Vadim V. Simonov, Elena V. Belyanova, Sergey H. Komlev, and others.

Even after the first wave of the Thaw, the prominent scientist's research works remained in the oblivion in his motherland. It was only in 1989, when, after the decision of the Bureau of the Economics Division at the USSR Academy of Sciences to establish the Commission on N. D. Kondratieff's scientific heritage under the lead of Academician L. I. Abalkin, there started intensive activities in order to publish Kondratieff's works. One can name just a few Kondratieff's books that were published in 1989–1991 (apart from publication of some articles in journals): *Problems of Economic Dynamics* (1989), *Grain Market and Its Regulating during the War and Revolution* (1991a), and *Major Problems of Economic Statics and Dynamics* (1991b). By March 1992, when the International Academic Conference was held on the occasion of his 100th anniversary, another book was published, which contained N. D. Kondratieff's as well as other authors' works that reviewed his contribution to the world economic science.

As Abalkin wrote, all that was a part of the grand work connected with the revival of the Russian economists' names, crossed out from history, and publi-
cation of series of works under the general heading of 'Economic Heritage'. Nikolai Kondratieff was not an individual scholar. The time of his academic prime was the period of development of economic thought in Russia. He was both a product and the brightest representative of that school. While working at the university, he learned in coteries and seminars conducted not only by Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, but also by such prominent scholars as Academician Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky, Professor Lev I. Petrazhitsky, privat-docents Sergey Solntsev, Mikhail Svetlovsky and Mikhail Ptukha. He lived, worked and created together with those, who made the honor and glory of the Russian school of economic thought. In parallel with publication of Nikolai D. Kondratieff's works, grand efforts were taken to restore the memory of the prominent Russian scholars in Economics.

The series, issued within the 'Economic Heritage' program under the lead of L. I. Abalkin, included many publications of works by Kondratieff's teacher M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, as well as by Sergey Bulgakov, Alexander Bogdanov, Peter Struve, Leonid Yurovsky, and Alexander Chayanov. Broad attention was as well attracted to the study of the Market Research Institute, founded in 1920 which Kondratieff headed until 1928. The social atmosphere in those years, creative interaction of academic researchers, and combination of theoretical analysis with generalization of massive empirical material were among the major factors that formed the intellectual elite of the Russian economic school.

Leonid Abalkin emphasizes that of utmost importance is not the belated recognition or tribute to those who passed away but rather the fact that their work is of great public value. It is tightly connected with the revival of Russia and its spiritual resources. Besides, the knowledge of history of science and the works of those who make the glory of science is indispensable for raising professional scholars and for the formation of their academic ethics. Nikolai Kondratieff consciously connected his life and destiny with the destiny of Russia, and together with his country drained the cup of sorrow to the dregs. We can only guess the doubts, hesitations and passions that filled his heart, but he fulfilled his civil and moral duty to Russia. While sharing quite a few approaches of the arising 'official' science and being even less enthusiastic about administrative methods of interference in economic life, he served to the people rather than to the authorities. At the same time, as Leonid Abalkin emphasized, Nikolai Kondratieff was not only a Russian scholar but a scholar of the global fame and scale. He was elected the member of the American Academy of Social Sciences, American Economic Association, American and London societies of statistics, and American Agricultural Association. Nikolai Kondratieff, a profoundly-thinking and multi-faceted researcher, left a huge academic heritage and was a talented organizer in science. In Leonid Abalkin's
view, it was not incidental that Kondratieff was both an outstanding econo-
mist and a prominent statistician who scrutinized facts and figures. By all
evidence, exactly the love for facts that he adopted from his teacher
M. M. Kovalevsky served a prerequisite for his later interest in the long
waves of conjuncture, the interest that was based on generalization of the
abundant statistical material.

In the introduction to Kondratieff's book *Long Cycles of Conjuncture and Theory of Forecast*, published in 2002 and dedicated to his 110th anniversary and the 10th anniversary of International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation (Kondratieff 2002: 4), Leonid Abalkin wrote that the book represented a collection of the Kondratieff's works on the title subject, including the book *The World Economy and Its Conjunctures during and after the War*, which had been first published in Vologda and then became a bibliographic rarity. The reprint of this book helps to specify the time when the theory of long waves in economic dynamics originated. Today it is clear that Kondratieff had developed the given theory much earlier than the observers used to suppose. At the same time, Abalkin argues (Kondratieff 2002: 5) that long cycles of the conjuncture have been and remain the subject of a broad academic discourse, and this is quite natural since they are not considered as some preset dogma but rather as a real object of academic analysis. It would be wrong to maintain that Kondratieff foretold the course of events from the time of appearance of his theory up to the present day. Neither Adam Smith, nor Karl Marx, nor John Keynes ever had such a foresight. Great scholars do not need to be conferred with the title of prophet.

At the opening session of the 6th International Kondratieff Conference
‘Does Russia have the Non-Resource Future?’ Leonid Abalkin, developing his
analysis of N. D. Kondratieff’s heritage, said:

As evidenced by the analysis of Nikolai Kondratieff's academic heritage, his achievements include more than a discovery of the long waves of conjuncture. His teaching is much richer. He (1) formulated methodological approaches to the analysis of the reality and the must (*Sein und Sollen*); (2) analyzed the correlation between the teleological and genetic methods of research; (3) developed the theory of forecasting; (4) strongly oriented economy to high vendibility (Abalkin 2007).

Understanding this is especially important in the context of the fact that

Some researchers of N. D. Kondratieff's creative work drew the conclu-
sion that his worldview may be described largely as ‘statistical’
worldview. This opinion was formed to a significant extent under the in-
fluence of A. Chouprov. It would be wrong to say that such conclusion
is absolutely ungrounded. The grounds are seen in Kondratieff's proba-
bilistic statistical approach to description of regularities of societal de-
velopment, in broad use of statistical ‘facts’, in construction of diversi-
fied models and, finally, in special respect and even love for facts (Abal-
kin 1992: 6).

One should note that today many Nikolai Kondratieff's followers develop
exactly this idea, that is the long waves of conjuncture. The huge interest in K-
waves is supported by the fact that today, when the global financial crisis hit
the world, everybody recalled again exactly this part of N. D. Kondratieff's her-
itage.

However, as Prof. Abalkin wrote in his paper devoted to Nikolai Kon-
dratieff's 100th anniversary in 1992, the attentive study of Kondratieff's academ-
ic heritage gives reasons to maintain that he had a broad methodological basis
and seriously focused on philosophical fundamentals of theoretical construc-
tions. Among the latter, special attention is paid to the correlation between such
categories as *Sein und Sollen*, and to the question on whether the research of
‘social economy’ must proceed only through the prism of the *Sein* category, or
whether it would be proper (without going beyond the scientific boundaries) to
consider ‘social economy’ through the prism of ‘must’, the category of *Sollen*,
as well? There are some reasons to suppose that N. D. Kondratieff was interest-
ed in these issues throughout the whole period of his research activities. As
early as in the first year of study at Petersburg University, in the study group
headed by M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, he delivered a paper on ‘Teleological Ele-
ments in Political Economy’, which, in particular, also manifested themselves
in the course of analyzing the issue of correlation between the genetic and
teleological methods in planning, as well as in the research of many other
problems. While in the Butyrskaya prison, where he reviewed his research
activities, Kondratieff included in the prepared manuscript the chapter enti-
tled ‘The Category of the Reality and the Must (*Sein* and *Sollen*) in Socio-
Economic Sciences’. Although, as Prof. Abalkin writes, the dialectics of real-
ity and the ‘must’ ranks among eternal problems, and in every epoch new
tints and nuances would be attached to this correlation, while new answers
would be found and new questions would arise, we have no way to evade
such questions as: where the violence over the reality would lead; what would
be the results of the strive to realize, at all costs, the ‘must’ – that is a social
norm or an ideal model of social organization. In general, should logical and
abstract theoretical constructions (which are absolutely necessary in science)
acquire the status of a public ideal and become a banner of political struggle?
Today, however, the interest in these problems arises also from an absolutely
different sphere. It is generated by the lost orientation for socio-economic
progress and ideals and other things that used to be described as ‘the reason
for living’. What is the destination of the societal progress, and can it be re-
ferred to as progress if no reliable criteria are available for the movement to
a certain goal or condition, whether the latter are called as ‘bright future’ or
‘the God's Kingdom on the Earth’? And, is it possible to answer all these
questions without appealing to ‘the must’? And if otherwise, is it possible to
appeal it without departure from the positions of science?

In Abalkin's opinion, Kondratieff was concerned about all these issues. He had his own view of the correlation between the reality and the must. He found the contradiction in approaches to them in the 'dual human nature' expressed in the fact that 'the man not only and not so much cognizes the reality, but also acts, sets practical goals and puts forward the ideals of his aspirations' (Abalkin 1992: 8). However, socio-economic sciences address subject as the reality, the *Sein*, while ideals and social norms, described by Kondratieff as 'judgments of value' are practical (rather than scientific) notions. In Kondratieff's view, ideals may not be withdrawn from the logic of science, while the task of creating scientific notions is principally irresolvable. Such quite forthright and even mechanic division between the reality and the must, or between theoretical and practical judgments ('judgments of value') is quite far from the dialectics of their correlation. As Leonid Abalkin writes further, Nikolai Kondratieff also feels it intuitively (rather than understands logically) and therefore, writes that 'the view of the reality under the category of the must, expressed in judgments of value, is essentially permeated by the spirit of activity and ardent willingness to change and reconstruct the reality'. Not without reason, he comes to the conclusion that 'the enormous value of the judgments and unordinary inclination to voice them evidently stems from the profound connection of social economy (political economy — L. A.) with the practice and interests in societal life' (Ibid.).

Academician Abalkin also notes that one should take into account the time
period, when N. D. Kondratieff's position on these questions was taking shape.
A rapid collapse of socio-economic structures, forcefully accelerated rates of
industrialization, attack at peasantry and voluntarism in economic policy (Kon-
dratieff was the first one who exposed its detriments) could not but motivate the
honest researcher to reject the methods, which were disguised by references to
the ‘must’. The next step of such a rejection was to accept the specific-
historical form, known to the author, as the only possible means to realize the
concept of ‘the must’. The psychological undertone of such reasoning is also
clear. While recognizing that it would be correct to introduce the ‘judgments on
the value’ into practical policy, in which, as Kondratieff believed, the struggle
of ideas takes the form of the struggle of worldviews, the scientist wanted to
stay away from such a struggle and to avoid its importing into ‘pure’ science.
However, while expressing his own position on the dialectics of reality and the
must, Leonid Abalkin holds the view that some questions would remain unre-
solved, such as: Is not it an illusion to try to stay ‘above the fray’? Would not such approach diminish the enormous creative role of social sciences, and to what extent the given approach is appropriate in scientific fields dealing with social matter? Further on, Dr. Abalkin writes (Abalkin 1992: 9) that here again we face with ‘eternal’ questions, to which an unequivocal answer would hardly be ever found. This, however, does not mean that the search is useless at all. Having learned the experience of the past generations, we start this search not *ex nihilo*. Every time we conduct the search not in an abstract society but also at a quite certain period in history. And Nikolai Kondratieff was evidently right when he wrote that ‘the question of whether the given ideal is live or dead would be resolved by neither a scholar, nor by a logical proof, but by the aggregate conditions of the societal life that determine the belief of the masses’ (Ibid.).

Coming back to one of Kondratieff's major and best-known academic achievement, that is to the development of the theory of long cycles or waves of conjuncture, it is worth remembering Prof. Abalkin's words, who in 1992 wrote:

> The interest in some or other aspects of the long-waves issue is predetermined largely by social conditions at a certain stage. As a number of researchers noted, in the period between the 1970s and the 1980s, the discourse on this problem was predetermined by the development of scientific and technological progress and was focused on searching for a connection between the science-technological progress and the long-term fluctuations of economic activities. At the present time and in the near future, as I see it, the agenda of long-cycle studies would expand considerably. It would include the problems of socio-economic progress in connection with understanding of its non-linear nature and its inherent oscillation... (Ibid.: 10)

The reason is that Kondratieff

> by all evidence grasped the main point – that is, the material basis of long cycles. However, there are quite serious grounds to identify broader than purely economic bases of long cycles – such as the stereotypes of mass consumption that form and then dominate for a rather long time. Satisfaction of the established needs is connected with the downward wave, and transition to the upward wave suggests formation of a new, more attractive idea of the quality of life becoming an important incentive for savings and development of production. All this, in my view, is connected with the change of the type of economic culture, change of generations and, naturally, has to be checked thoroughly by means of economic and statistical models (Ibid.: 12).
Indeed, the last several years, marked by the unfolded global crisis, witness the revival of interest to Kondratieff's works. Many academic publications appeared which applying economic-mathematical methods and basing on the updated empirical information, confirm the validity of Kondratieff's theory of long cycles and waves, and actually prove that Russia and the world are on the threshold of a new K-cycle. Thus, proceeding from Kondratieff's theory, the researchers state that in 2008 the global economy entered the downward wave of Kondratieff's long cycle. Therefore, the exit from this long downward wave is expected approximately in 2020-2025. According to some observers, a new phase of the current crisis, which many anticipate to start in 2012-2015, would be comparable to the Great Depression in terms of the world economic decline rates.

Leonid Abalkin was right when he wrote on Kondratieff's theory of long cycles:

> It never happened (and would hardly ever happen) that a theory would appear at once in a complete form, encompassing all connections and mediations of the sphere under study. The value of any truly scientific theory is found in its capability for development and self-enrichment and in its ability to integrate new knowledge. All these qualities are present in N. D. Kondratieff's theory of long cycles and they just make it up-to-date and timely (Ibid.: 13).

However, Abalkin attached an equally great importance to other sections of Nikolai Kondratieff's academic heritage, in particular, those focused on the problems of planning and forecasting. Exactly in the 1920s, the struggle of ideas on the problems of planning was underway, and the position, taken by N. D. Kondratieff, served the basis for the political charges brought against him and crowned by his shooting execution.

N. D. Kondratieff's thoughts and judgments on planning were most closely connected with his participation in drafting of the long-term plan for the development of agriculture and forestry and in discussion of the draft of five-year plan for national economy development, prepared by the Central Commission under the USSR State Planning Committee supervised by Stanislav Strumilin. This circumstance would explain the polemical and sometimes sharply critical tone of his public statements. In his article ‘Plan and Prediction’ Kondratieff quite clearly articulated his position on the need to combine the elements of planning with development of market and competition:

> As both elements are present in our economy in a rather salient form, none of them exists here in a pure form. As market exists in our country, enterprises of the state sector are partly involved in the market relations and have to consider the market as the fact, and thus the elemental factor
also invades the orbit of the economic sector being under the direct con-
trol of the state. On the contrary, as the state directly controls the suffi-
cient sphere of the economic life and therefore has leverages to cause
powerful influence on the sphere of private economy and the market, the
elemental factor under such influence is present here in the inevitably
transformed shape (Kondratieff 1989: 95).

In Abalkin's opinion, Kondratieff's research interests were not focused on organizational or technical issues of planning activities, but rather on the issues of planning methodology. Therefore, Kondratieff identifies three summands of planning: (1) the system of prospects, which the bodies of economic regulation intend to realize; (2) analysis of the objective economic reality and trends for its elemental dynamics; and, (3) construction of a system of measures and leverag-es, by which the state would control such elemental development in order to direct it along the maximally desired path. Kondratieff devoted special attention to feasibility of plans and sharply criticized discrepancy between the planned targets and the available potentials as well as development of the so-called 'bold plans'. He called the audience not to fall under 'hypnosis' of grand but unfeasible projects and 'fetishism of figures'. 'We must choose one of the two', N. D. Kondratieff wrote,

either we want to have serious and real plans, in which case only those
things must be included there for which we have certain scientific
grounds; or, we would continue doing all sorts of ‘bold’ calculations
and projections for the future without any sufficient grounds, and in
this case we must from the very start reconcile with the fact that such
calculations are made arbitrarily and that such plans have nothing to
do with reality. But what is the goal and value of such latter plans? In
the best case, they would remain harmless, because they are unfeasi-
ble, dead for practice. In the worst case, they will be detrimental be-
cause they might put the practice on the very erroneous path (Ibid.:
126–127).

In some statements he warned against the implications of voluntarism in
planning – such as an attack at the living standard of population, destruction of
agriculture, and then an inevitable deterioration of situation in the commodity
market and industry. As Abalkin sums up, we all know that was exactly the
case. That was the price the society paid for neglecting the conclusions and
warnings by economic science.

Today this logic appears undisputable and even elementary. It is hard to
imagine that in those years it met strong resistance and served the basis for
political charges against the scholar. In response to Kondratieff's appeals for
feasibility of plans, Strumilin objected, 'We shall never give up our goals for
the only reason that their realization is not secured by 100 per cent reality'
(Strumilin 1958: 314). As for the way to find the missing resources and potentials, Strumilin's answer was very simple, ‘The proletariat's will and our plans, concentrating this will for the fight for the assigned tasks, can and must become the decisive chance that islaching for their successful resolution' (Ibid.). Thus, in Abalkin's opinion, a favorable environment was created for the penetration of subjectivism into the planning activities, and for the development of unbalanced plans with all ensuing and currently well-known consequences.

In the second half of the 1920s, a broad discussion was underway on the so-called genetic and teleological methods of planning. Nikolai Kondratieff highly appraised the value of the first method, based on manifestations, as he put it, of ‘elemental’ laws and trends of economic and social development. The roots of such approach are linked organically with all the logics of his research. At the same time, however, he did not reject the significance of the ‘teleological method’, which suggests that the planning activity must be considered as the mechanism for realization of the preset targets of the economic policy. As Abalkin (1992: 9) summed up, under contemporary conditions the genetic and teleological approaches do not at all appear as antipodes but rather represent the two interconnected and mutually supplementing methods. Certainly, it is true that the target guidelines of the plan may not be suggested a priori, without a proper consideration of the actual trends. But, the past does not predetermine the future development unequivocally. At critical stages society always has options of its development, and this suggests juxtaposition of targets as such (including their ranking by priority) and juxtaposition of targets with the real opportunities of their realization. This statement, according to Abalkin, does not completely denies the academic significance and cognitive value of genetic methods, but just warns any approach against unilateralism and absolutism, and emphasizes efficiency of using different approaches provided that they are included in an integral system of forms and methods for regulating economic life. Kondratieff's works on planning bring to the conclusion that his position was very balanced and that he went ahead of many scholars in the theory of planning. There is every reason to state that Nikolai Kondratieff is the main theorist of the ‘forecasting plan’, and having synthesized the genetic and teleological approaches he actually antedated the indicative planning.

In 1997, speaking at the opening session of the 5th Kondratieff Readings focused on Nikolai D. Kondratieff's theory of forecasting and mid- and long-term scenarios for development of the Russian economy, Prof. Abalkin again draw the audience's attention to the major issues of the transition period. He said that while standing ‘at the turn of the century’ and making plans for the twenty-first century, it is necessary to evade the danger of putting serious
research ‘at service of fashion’ and thus devaluating the very notion of pro-
cesses of transition. This is an alarming trend, and we, representatives and
agents of science, must foresee such devaluation, act proactively, and prevent
from leveling down the academic discourse to primitive judgments. Another
doubt, he said, which we should bear in mind, is connected with the fact that
we have not yet summed up the results of the twentieth century, but we al-
ready try to forecast the course of events in the twenty-first century. By all
evidence, this is not quite logical, and we need to reach a sufficiently high
level in order to analyze the transformations that took place in the twentieth
century – not the landmarks of political history, but rather the qualitative
transformations occurred in the socio-economic models and systems (Yako-
vets 1997: 5).

Further on, Abalkin draws the audience's attention to the three major
break-points that marked the twentieth century:

– the agony and collapse of the socio-economic model that was formed in
the nineteenth century and historically exhausted itself. It became necessary to
find some new ways to overcome the crisis of these no longer working models,
and with an active participation of the state different attempts were made to
transform it;

– the development of a new model, with shaping of entirely different pro-
cesses, gradual development of new technological systems and the scientific
and technological revolution widely discussed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Many other non-traditional processes took place that turned typical of this peri-
od, when in a number of regions a rather high dynamism of society was provid-
ed together with the formation of mass well-being. This period (the second
third of the twentieth century) was marked by cardinal changes in the political
and economic geography of the world, caused by the collapse of the colonial
system. The factors of human capital, education and science manifested them-
selves in an entirely different way;

– many contradictions in the common welfare model were revealed in the
last 35 years of the twentieth century. The ecological situation on the planet
aggravated tangibly. The arising ecological, energy and other crises demanded
qualitatively new approaches and solutions.

Prof. Abalkin had no ready answer to the question of development condi-
tion in the twentieth century. He just pointed that a realistic, generalized and
systematizing approach to the events of the twentieth century was needed in
order to work out a scenario for development in the twenty-first century. Les-
sons must be drawn from the past experience, because there can be no future
without the past.

Another circumstance, which attracted Leonid Abalkin's attention and up-
dated the theme of the 5th Kondratieff Readings, was the absence of sufficiently
serious, grounded and adopted development strategy for Russia for a long-term
or at least mid-term future.

For a rather long time, the Russians have lived without any idea of the
final goals of the current transformations, or of the stages and priorities
leading to their attainment. And we try to write post-factum that every-
thing is done properly. Looking back into the past again, I would say
that for the last hundred years we have never had a situation similar to
what we have today – the absence of a more or less clear development
strategy for Russia. Since the late nineteenth century, we have never
had a period when national leaders would have no vision of future.
They always had their programs, which reflected the respective epoch
and sometimes might be drawn in a form different from strictly for-
malized documents. But, they had a concept and a vision of strategic
tasks. We may criticize those programs, or point to their shortcomings
and inadequacy. Sometimes attempts were made to impose some pur-
pose-oriented guidelines of the societal development. But all those
were the lessons to make respective conclusions. And, at all times
there was a strategy. But the lack of prospects is unique for Russia
(Yakovets 1997: 5).

Leonid Abalkin spoke about it in 1997, and in 2007, at the 6th International Kondratieff Conference ‘Does Russia Have a Non-Resource Future?’ he again brought up the issue of choosing a developmental strategy, but this time he added that

the Kondratieff conference is not a proper forum to resolve the given
issue. The choice of a developmental strategy is the function of gov-
ernment based on the country's intellectual forces and institutes of civil
society, as well as on their joint actions. Today, we do not see such a
joint strategy. We do not see any strategy as well. We have a new ver-
sion of ‘heroes and crowd’, when the government makes decisions
without serious academic discussion and public consensus (Abalkin
2007: 4).

It should be pointed, however, that as early as in 2008 the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation devised the ‘Strategy-2020’, which initially contained many pathetic statements, for example, about the expected GDP growth to 30 thousand USD per year (as in South Korea), but the financial crisis made the strategy actually unfeasible. The document was returned for improvement, and academic community was involved in the process. Then, in March 2012, the authors published a summarizing report (over 850 pages), which is available on the relative website. Over a thousand scholars took part in its development under the lead of Yaroslav Kouzminkov (President of the Higher School of Economics), and Vladimir Mau (President
of the National Economy Academy). The ‘brainstorm’ proceeded in 27 work-
ing groups, organized in blocs of economic policy. The document offers a set
of cardinal changes to be introduced into the country's economic and social
life. Some of its ideas have been already presented many times, and some
others were rejected as too unpopular. Despite the general support of this pro-
ject, today it is neither known nor clear to what extent the government is pre-
pared to hear the experts' view. Anyway, it is clear that the proposed strategy
is not a systemic integral document, but it rather represents a combination of
separate plans, which, in our view, are made subjectively and have very little
to do with reality.

Leonid Abalkin used to say that current complicated issues of the Russian
revival and modernization of its socio-economic structures and institutes would
require great joint efforts, honesty of scholars and wisdom of policy-makers. To
this end, it would be helpful to keep the memory of the past as well as to turn to
the origins and the heritage of ideas left by great thinkers of our country. As
mentioned above, for Nikolai Kondratieff the feasibility of plans was their main
criteria. But nobody would listen to his voice at that time. The development of
unbalanced plans would start and bring all the related consequences. Therefore,
as Abalkin firmly believed, the duty and commitment of science is to say the
truth in any cases and at all costs.

At the same time we must remember another warning originating from
Nikolai Kondratieff's scientific heritage. Leonid Abalkin said that it would be
wrong to look for ready answers to the raised questions in Kondratieff's
works (even such answers are supposed to exist in science). Time is irreversi-
ble and each phase of historical development is unique and would give a key
to the proper solutions. It is necessary to evade the doubtful temptation to
treat all Kondratieff's writings as an absolute and final truth. Kondratieff does
not need such treatment. Like any of us, he was a son of his time. Being a
genuine scholar, he used to make search, have doubts and set forth original,
but not ultimately proven hypotheses. By perceiving him as a contemporary
and disputing with him as with a person alive, we would recognize his great-
ness. But, the more reliable is the support from the predecessors, the deeper is
their insight in the network of economic and social processes, the more suc-
cessful progress science will make. Therefore, the International Kondratieff
Foundation concentrated its modest resources on continuation of studies in
the least explored areas of his academic heritage. The Foundation is not fo-
cused on the long cycles of conjuncture, but rather on the problems of meth-
odology, such as the dialectics of the reality and the must as well as the theo-
retical problems of the correlation between genetic and teleological ap-
proaches, as well as the correlation of planning, forecasts and theoretical ba-
ses of forecasting with the possibility of prediction. The achieved encourag-
ing results are presented on the website of the International Kondratieff
Foundation.

One should say that Prof. Abalkin as the President of the International Kondratieff Foundation, while summing up the results of its activities for five, ten and fifteen years (respectively in 1997, 2002 and 2007), noted that the Foundation established a certain tradition in organizing readings and conferences. That is, discussions are centered on the issues, which, on the one hand, address comprehension of Kondratieff's theoretical heritage and school as well as that significant branch of the world economic science, to which he belonged. On the other hand, the agenda includes the attempts to find fundamental responses to the current problems that Russia faces within Kondratieff theory.

On October 20, 2011 the Russian Federation State Duma hosted a joint session of the International Kondratieff Foundation, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Anti-Crisis Academic Expert Council of the Analytical Division of the State Duma – 19th Kondratieff Readings on ‘Modernization of Russian Economy: Lessons of the Past, Risks and Chances’. Scholars from different research institutes and universities, as well as post-graduate and undergraduate students visited the Readings. Ruslan Grinberg, the Director of the Institute of Economics of the RAS and Corresponding Member of the RAS, who in 2007 by Abalkin's initiative was elected the President of the International Kondratieff Foundation, at the Opening session, said, ‘Today the International Kondratieff Foundation conducts its 19th Kondratieff Readings. During all its past years the Kondratieff Foundation underwent serious evolution. We should note that the themes announced for some or other readings or international conferences were always rather timely’ (Bondarenko 2012: 80). Then the convener of the session, A. N. Belousov, the Chairman of Anti-Crisis Academic Expert Council and the Director of the Analytical Division of the State Duma added, ‘It is most pleasant to see that now the Kondratieff Foundation holds its sessions at the State Duma, and the events held by the Foundation arouse such a keen interest. And, the discussion is very informative and future-oriented’ (Bondarenko 2011: 2). Closing and summing up the results of the 19th Kondratieff Readings, Prof. Dr. A. E. Gorodetsky, the Deputy-Director of the Institute of Economics of the RAS, started his presentation with comments on the Foundation activities and said that International Kondratieff Foundation continued its invariable glorious tradition of preserving and developing the theoretical and methodological heritage of the great Russian economist, and what is most important, of the creative application of his scientific paradigm and methodology in the interests of exploration, understanding and explanation of the current situation. This is evidenced by almost all presentations at the session (Bondarenko 2011: 2).
Finally, it seems worthwhile to state that Nikolai Kondratieff committed a feat of life and scientific creativity, while Leonid Abalkin, considering it as his duty, did everything to preserve historical memory, to share the memory of our great scholars with us, the current and future generations, as well as to restore the pride for our country, for its present and future. With all his other merits, this deed is already sufficient for our eternal recognition and appreciation of Leonid Abalkin's work.

## References

**Abalkin L. I. 1992.** *The Academic Heritage of N. D. Kondratieff and the Modernity*. Presentation at the International Academic Conference held on the occasion of Nikolai Kondratieff's 100th anniversary. Moscow: IE RAS. *In Russian* (Абалкин Л. И. *Научное наследие Н. Д. Кондратьева и современность. Доклад на международной научной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения Н. Д. Кондратьева*. М.: ИЭ РАН).

**Abalkin L. I. (Ed.) 2007.** *Proceedings of the 6th International Kondratieff Conference 'Does Russia Have a Non-Resource Future?'*. Moscow: International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation. *In Russian* (Абалкин Л. И. (ред.) *Материалы VI Международной Кондратьевской конференции «Есть ли у России несырьевое будущее?»*. М.: Международный фонд Н. Д. Кондратьева).

**Bondarenko V. M. 2011.** *The Analytical Review of the 19th Kondratieff Readings: 'Modernization of Russian Economy: Lessons of the Past, Risks and Chances'*. Moscow: International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation. URL: http://www.ikf2011.ru/library. *In Russian* (Бондаренко В. М. *Аналитический обзор ХІХ Кондратьевских чтений «Модернизация российской экономики: уроки прошлого, риски и шансы»*. М.: Международный фонд Н. Д. Кондратьева).

**Bondarenko V. M. 2012.** *The Modernization of the Russian Economy: Lessons of the Past, Risks and Chances*. *Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii estestvennykh nauk* 3: 80–87. *In Russian* (Бондаренко В. М. *Модернизация российской экономики: уроки прошлого, риски и шансы*. *Вестник Российской академии естественных наук* 3: 80–87).

**Figurovskaya N. K. 1975.** Kondratieff Nikolay Dmitrievich. *Economic Encyclopedia*. *Political Economy* / Ed. by A. M. Rumyantsev, p. 212. Vol. 2. Moscow: Sovetskaya Encyclopedia. *In Russian* (Фигуровская Н. К. Кондратьев Николай Дмитриевич. Экономическая энциклопедия. Политическая экономия / Ред. А. М. Румянцев. Т. 2, с. 212. М.: Советская энциклопедия).

**Kondratieff N. D. 1926.** Die langen Wellen der Konjunktur. *Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik* 56(3): 537–609.

**Kondratiev N. D. 1935.** The Long Waves in Economic Life. *Review of Economics and Statistics* 17(7): 105–115.
**Kondratieff N. D. 1989. Problems of Economic Dynamics.** Moscow: Economika. In Russian (Кондратьев Н. Д. Проблемы экономической динамики. М.: Экономика).

**Kondratieff N. D. 1991a. Bread Market and Its Regulation during the War and Revolution.** Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Кондратьев Н. Д. Рынок хлебов и его регулирование во время войны и революции. М.: Наука).

**Kondratieff N. D. 1991b. The Major Problems of Economic Statics and Dynamics.** Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Кондратьев Н. Д. Основные проблемы экономической статики и динамики. М.: Наука).

**Kondratieff N. D. 2002. The Long Cycles of Conjuncture and Theory of Forecast.** Moscow: Economika. In Russian (Кондратьев Н. Д. Большие циклы конъюнктуры и теории предвидения. М.: Экономика).

**Kondratievschina [Kondratieff's Wild Fantasies].** Collected works. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Kommunisticheskoy akademii, 1930. In Russian (Кондратьевщина: сб. М.: Изд-во Коммунистической академии).

**Kondratievschina [Kondratieff's Wild Fantasies]:** Class Struggle in the Economic Theory. Collected articles. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Kommunisticheskoy akademii, 1931. In Russian (Кондратьевщина: классовая борьба в экономической теории: сб. М.: Изд-во Коммунистической академии).

**Menshikov S. M. 1984. Structural Crises of the Capitalist Economy.** Kommunist 4: 112-124. In Russian (Меньшиков С. М. Структурный кризис экономики капитализма. Коммунист 4: 112-124).

**Nikitin S. M. 1986. Theory of 'Long Waves' and Science-Tech Progress.** Mirovaya economika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 8: 101-110. In Russian (Никитин С. М. Теория «длинных волн» и научно-технический прогресс. Мировая экономика и международные отношения 8: 101-110).

**Strumilin S. G. 1958. In the Frontline of Planning. The 1920s – 1930s.** Moscow: Gospolitizdat. In Russian (Струмилин С. Г. На плановом фронте. 1920-1930 гг. М.: Госполитиздат).

**Shishkov Yu. V. 1986. On Some Concepts of Economic Development** ('Long Waves': Search for the Explanation). Rabochii class i sovremennyi mir 1: 62-82. In Russian (Шишков Ю. В. О некоторых концепциях экономического развития («Длинные волны»: поиски объяснения). Рабочий класс и современный мир 1: 62-82).

**Titarev B. M. 1973. The Theory of Large Cycles.** Big Soviet Encyclopedia / Ed. by A. M. Prokhorov. Vol. 3, p. 539. 3rd ed. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya. In Russian (Титарев Б. М. Больших циклов теория. Большая советская энциклопедия / Ред. А. М. Прохоров. Т. 3, с. 539. 3-е изд. М.: Советская энциклопедия).

**Yakovets Yu. V. 1984. The Regularities of Scientific and Technological Progress and Their Systemic Use.** Moscow: Economika. In Russian (Яковец Ю. В. Закономерности научно-технического прогресса и их планомерное использование. М.: Экономика).
**Yakovets Yu. V.** 1988. *The Acceleration of Scientific and Technological Progress: Theory and Economic Mechanism*. Moscow: Economika. In Russian (Яковец Ю. В. Ускорение научно-технического прогресса: теория и экономический механизм. М.: Экономика).

**Yakovets Yu. V.** (Ed.) 1997. *Proceedings of the 5th Kondratieff Readings: 'N. D. Kondratieff's Theory of Forecast and Scenarios of Development of the Russian Economy for the Mid-Term and Long-Term Future'*. Moscow: International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation. In Russian (Яковец Ю. В. (Ред.) Материалы V Кондратьевских чтений «Теория предвидения Н. Д. Кондратьева и сценарии развития российской экономики на среднесрочную и долгосрочную перспективу». М.: Международный фонд Н. Д. Кондратьева).
Editors' note

The present essay by Nikolai Kondratieff is published on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky. It gives an opportunity to evaluate the many-sided personality and works of Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky who is best known to the reader for his ideas about 'peri-odic economic crises'. Kondratieff gives an opportunity to understand the personality of the scientist, the foundations of his worldview, his ability to respond the major challenges and problems of his time; the common and dif-ferent points with Marxism, and many other things that give us a much deeper understanding of Tugan-Baranovsky's heritage. Besides, the criticism of weak points of Tugan-Baranovsky's views allows us to understand where Kon-dratieff maintained continuity with his teacher's views and in which points he significantly diverged.

Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky has passed away. He was an outstanding Russian scholar, a master spirit among Russian intellectuals, the most humane and unique person, an outstanding representative of the highest achievements of contemporary culture. [...]

The most striking thing about Tugan-Baranovsky was his rich spiritual ge-
nius. But his talent would not always shine with an even and steady light. His
talent was intuitive to the uttermost degree and would flash out especially
brightly at the moments when intellectual work became rather easy for him,
more a play than work. [...]

The intuitive character of Tugan-Baranovsky's talent makes a bright impact
on all the aspects of his personality. Being an intuitional mind, he had no pro-

<footnote n="1">¹ This is a translation of the article (under the same title) published in Кондратьев Н. Д. / Н. Д. Кондратьев. Суздальские письма; редкол.: Яковец Ю. В. (пред.) [и др.], с. 776–798. М.: Экономика, 2004. [Kondratieff N. D. / Kondratieff N. D. Kondratieff's Letters from Suzdal / Ed. by Yu. V. Yakovets et al., pp. 776–798. Moscow: Ekonomika. 2004]. Originally published as a booklet in 1923. Reference style has been left as in the original.</footnote>
pensity to develop a scientific system. Mikhail Ivanovich was too responsive to the needs of the moment; thus, in his academic works he accurately reflected the society's changing moods and demands. His talent would quest within the academic research framework and he would take up the problems which were really urgent at the moment and would subject them to a comprehensive and purely academic study. [...]

Tugan-Baranovsky lived in the times of prosperity of capitalism with all its difficulties, peculiarities and attributes. Therefore, it is not surprising that just the study of peculiar outcomes of the capitalist system development – we mean markets and crises of the capitalist system – were a starting point for Tugan-Baranovsky's investigation. His first prominent and outstanding work, 'The Periodic industrial crises' (1894), was devoted to these issues. However, Mikhail Ivanovich lived in Russia. He lived in the situation of evolving Russian capitalism, in the atmosphere of hot debates on the future and opportunities of the evolving capitalism in Russia. It is not surprising that absorbed with the debates, his second major work 'The Russian factory in the past and present' (1898) was also devoted to this issue. But later the society's demands and interests changed. Therefore, the crisis of Marxism and a fierce struggle between revisionists and orthodox historians had become the main topic of his works. Despite his prior adherence to Marxist ideas, Mikhail Ivanovich finally began to criticize Marxism and wrote 'The Theoretical Foundations of Marxism'. [...]

World War I brought to the fore a number of theoretical and practical issues. In particular, the first period of war aggravated the problem of money, more exactly, of paper money. With his characteristic sensitivity, Mikhail Ivanovich addressed this problem and wrote 'Paper money and metal' (1917). However, the society and Tugan-Baranovsky as well, remained concerned with issues of ethics and public ideal. The started Revolution only escalated this interest. And the last words of Tugan-Baranovsky as a scholar and ideologist were published in 'Socialism as a Positive Doctrine' (1917) and in the paper 'On the cooperative ideal'.

Thus, there is a close relation and correspondence between the field of Tugan-Baranovsky's academic and ideological activity and the demands of the society. In this regard he was a responsive man abreast of the thought of his time. [...]

Tugan-Baranovsky's social views were developed on the basis of Marx's ideas and materialistic understanding of history. But the views of Tugan-Baranovsky were also influenced by other social ideas, and in a more or less complete form they were profoundly different from Marx's views. According to Tugan-Baranovsky, 'a society consists of individuals each seeking to satisfy his
own needs', 'which are inherent in human nature and which ultimately deter-
mine our behavior'.<fnref n="2" /> [...]

These needs and inclinations are the driving forces of social develop-
ment. The needs make people search for the means to satisfy them. 'The set
of human actions directed at the external world and aiming at creating the
material conditions necessary for satisfaction of the human needs' is the
economy which holds the leading position in social life and serves as its basis
and foundation. [...]

However, after all, it is not the economy in general but its material as-
pects that have a determinant (but not exceptional) influence on the structure
and forms of social life, on the extent and the character of satisfaction of
needs. [...]

Thus, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky generally follows the Marxist understanding of society.<fnref n="3" /> But his interpretation of the objectives of economy is wider (the economy, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, serves to satisfy not only the material needs, as Marx and especially Engels argued) and he substitutes the concept of material factors of the economy for the Marxist concept of productive forces. [...]

But Tugan-Baranovsky paid little attention to sociological issues. And the
focus of his scientific and ideological work is not laid on these subjects. Most
of his work is devoted to the study of economy which he considered the key
phenomenon of social life. We already know the notion of economy as inter-
preted by Tugan-Baranovsky. Now let us consider his understanding of major
categories of economic life.

According to Tugan-Baranovsky, the logical categories of economy are the
value and the cost. He lived in the epoch of the struggle between the Austrian
school's theory of value and the theory of labor value. He also tried to develop
a synthetic theory of value and to combine Ricardo's theory with the theory of
marginal utility. He considers labor and marginal utility as an objective and
subjective factors of value. He admits that the value of goods is equal to their
marginal utility. But he also considers that the marginal utility of goods de-
pends on the labor costs, and it is directly proportional to the labor costs of
these goods.

This brings us to the category of costs. Most economists do not
acknowledge the cost as an independent category. Contrary to them, Tugan-
Baranovsky strongly insists on the necessity of such an acknowledgement.<fnref n="4" />
According to him, the value is one aspect of economy while the cost is anoth-
er side of economy. On the one hand, an economy pursues certain aims, inter-

<footnote n="2">² See ‘Theoretical foundations of Marxism’ Edition 4, p. 36. [«Теоретические основы марксизма», изд. 4, стр. 36].</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ *Ibid*: 107–108.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ See ‘Theoretical foundations of Marxism’ p. 54. [«Основы», стр. 54 и сл.]</footnote>
ests, profit, and this aspect is associated with the category of value; on the
other hand, the economy resorts to certain means, costs, efforts and this as-
pect is represented by the category of costs. That is why Tugan-Baranovsky
interprets the cost as economic expenses made to purchase some utility sup-
plies. [...]

It is evident from what is said the above, that if economic goods have some
value, not all of them have a cost. It is also clear that the synthetic formula of
value, developed by T-B, has no general meaning and, in any case, applies only
to the economic goods that have some cost. [...]

And it becomes evident that Tugan-Baranovsky strongly denied Marx's
theory of value. He criticizes Marx who had actually developed a theory of the
last category but not the theory of value, and thus, encountered insuperable
contradictions with reality. [...]

According to Tugan-Baranovsky, for the commodity economic system, the
historical categories of economy are goods and exchange value, while for
the capitalist system, which serves as a completion of the commodity system,
these categories also include capital and surplus value. [...]

If Tugan-Baranovsky bases his definitions of commodity and capital on the
Marxist theory, then it becomes evident that having developed his own theory
of value, he had to present another explanation for the concept of exchange
value and surplus value which would differ from Marx's explanation. From his
point of view, the exchange value is not the ratio of labor values of exchanged
goods but is *just* an abstract possibility to receive in exchange for the given
commodity a certain amount of other commodities, an abstract possibility,
whose concrete and direct expression (which was not typical of Marx's theo-
ry) is the price. Thus, the gap between the value (in particular, the exchange
value) and the price is eliminated; and that was the gap that had undermined
Marx's theory. In this respect, Tugan-Baranovsky considered the surplus val-
ue not as a part of the value gained by the capitalist (as a socially necessary
labor crystallized in the commodities), but as the value of surplus product,
appropriated by the capitalist.<fnref n="5" /> Meanwhile, the notion of the surplus value as
an indicator of capitalist relations and as expression of social relation of ex-
ploitation is still preserved. Its nature consists in the fact that under capitalism
a certain category of people has to yield a part of products of their labor that,
of course, has a certain value, to the owners of the capital. In other words, the
essence of the problem passes from the framework of the *category of value to*
*the category of absolute cost*. From Tugan-Baranovsky's point of view, it
would be more correct to speak not so much about the surplus value but about

<footnote n="5">⁵ See “Theoretical foundations of Marxism” p. 68, ‘Theoretical foundations of Marxism’ ch. VII–VIII [«Основы», стр. 68 и сл., «Теорет[ческие] основы марксизма», гл. VII и VIII].</footnote>
the surplus product which, of course, possess some value.<fnref n="6" /> This statement will become quite clear for us if we refer to Tugan-Baranovsky's views on the problem of distribution of national income to which the study of the surplus value brings us. [...]

With respect to wages and profit he put forward a peculiar social theory of distribution. According to this theory, the problem of distribution does not depend on any theory of value: the solution of the problem of distribution cannot be worked out of any theory of value. The net national product or income<fnref n="7" /> is distributed, that is the whole social product, excluding the means of production spent in the process of production. And since the issue concerns wages and profit, their level is defined, first, by the productivity of social labor, and, second, by the social force of the working class and capitalists. Hence it becomes clear, the more productive is the social labor, the more advanced is the technological development and the higher, ceteris paribus, are profits and wages. [...]

In Tugan-Baranovsky's theory of distribution the naturalistic motive instead of the axiological one appears more prominent, and we have already seen the indicators of this when speaking about the concept of surplus value as a surplus product. At the same time, there is a connection between Tugan-Baranovsky's concept and theories of productivity in terms of the solution of the problem of distribution.<fnref n="8" />

Indeed, Tugan-Baranovsky's concept of the origin and possibility of profit is purely naturalistic. <fnref n="9" /> In his opinion, as we have seen, the problem of distribution is solved irrespective of the theory of value. Just a certain multiplication of social product together with a certain surplus is needed for the profit to become possible. [...]

Yet, presenting a considerable scientific interest and being characterized by simplicity and persuasiveness, the theory of Tugan-Baranovsky, however, leaves unresolved and obscure the question of the naturalistic approach to the problem of distribution and to the axiological point of view on the distribution. Meanwhile, this problem is far from being too simple and obvious to be ignored. In particular, despite all his attempts to disprove his critics, <fnref n="10" /> the question remains unresolved if the natural growth of social product through the inclusion of a surplus product means a simultaneous increase of value of social

<footnote n="6">⁶ See “Theoretical foundations of Marxism”. Part IV, Chapter VII [«Основы», отд. IV, гл. VII].</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Foundations p. 392, 467 [«Основы», 392, 467ff.]. See «Sociale Theorie der Verteilung».</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ See ‘Foundations’. Ch. IV, Part. III и VII [«Основы», отд. IV, гл. III и VII].</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ See “Theoretical foundations of marxism”. Ch. VII, ‘Foundations’ Ch. IV, Part VII [«Теоретические основы маркс[изма]», гл. VII, «Основы», отд. IV, гл. VII].</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ See “Foundations” p. 451. See Peter Struve ‘Economy and price’. Chapter II, Issue I, p.15 ff. [«Основы», стр. 451. См. Петр Струве, «Хозяйство и цена». Часть II, вып. I, стр. 15 и сл.].</footnote>
product. And one more question: why is the profit impossible (from the axio-
logical point of view) even without surplus product, and due only to social eco-
nomic factors?

Tugan-Baranovsky considers the problem of distribution, as *sui generis*
problem of the capitalist system. Unlike many others, he refused to reduce it to
the problem of exchange. Within the sphere of exchange he subjected to the
analysis one of the most difficult and mysterious phenomena of commodity
capitalist economy – that of the money.<fnref n="11" /> He came to the conclusion that none
of the existing monetary theories, including Tooke's monetary theory, which
Tugan-Baranovsky called commodity-based, as well as the quantitative theory,
fully developed by Irving Fischer, gives a satisfactory solution of the problem
of money.

And nevertheless, both theories contain certain reasonable arguments. Money is an entirely social phenomenon, the result of spontaneous national economic processes. The amount of money is a relatively minor factor. And the quantitative theory could be applied only in the sphere of paper money circulation. Only with respect to this limited sphere of circulation this theory is valid. As for the basis of currency circulation – metal money – one should search for the explanation of the problem of value of money in the commodity market, and Tooke was right here. However the value of money, contrary to Tooke, is represented not by the function of prices of certain goods, but by the function of the state of a general economic conjuncture and its cyclic fluctuations. This is the main idea of Tugan-Baranovsky's theory of money – the theory which he called conjunctional. But having put forward this extremely original idea, he unfortunately failed to give it a consecutive development and justification, did not find the mechanism connecting the fluctuations of conjuncture with the value of money.

However, to some extent this gap is filled by earlier and, undoubtedly, out-
standing in their scientific value studies of conjuncture performed within his
theory; we mean his theory of markets and crises. No doubt, those earlier stud-
ies were a starting point for his conjunctural theory of money.

Within the capitalist system the market is considered as the central
node where complex threads of economic relations interweave and the re-
sults of economic activity are summarized spontaneously. The characteristic
feature of capitalism is that it creates a prevalence of supply over demand,
which leads to the pursuit for the markets and fight for them. To find mar-
kets for goods, to sell goods is a great challenge for a private-owned facto-
ry. The task of economic theory is to understand the nature of these diffi-

<footnote n="11">¹¹ See ‘Paper money and metal’. Petrograd 1917 [«Бумажные деньги и металл». Петроград, 1917 г.].</footnote>
culties and of the development of market relations as well as the ways to overcome the difficulties.

Tugan-Baranovsky considers the problem of market, first of all, through the application of the method of schematic consideration of a national economy as a whole; one can trace the elements of this method already in Quesnay's works and it was further developed by Marx.<fnref n="12" /> And such schematic consideration leads him to a number of the following ingenious conclusions. The size of the capitalist economy market is not defined by the amount of public consumption because the social product consists not only of consumer goods, but also of means of production. Therefore, with a proportional distribution of production hardly any reduction of consumer demand can cause an excess of general supply over demand, and there are no obstacles for the victorious development of capitalism. In other words, the size of market under a proportional distribution of production is defined by the amount of production itself. And it is clear that a general overproduction of goods can *never actually* occur; only a partial overproduction is possible.

By considering the nature of capitalism, he tries to prove and explain in analytical terms these paradoxical conclusions.

Capitalism is an antagonistic system of national economy. And while under conditions of commodity economy the goods are somewhat spiritualized and they become masters of a man, and that is the fetishism of the commodity economy, capitalism makes a thing of a person himself. From here also originates the above-mentioned paradox of the capitalist system. Not the consumption controls the production, but the production determines the consumption; it is not the production for the sake of consumption, but production for the sake of production, for the sake of the greatest profit, not the capital for people, but people for the capital. From here originates the above mentioned fetishism of the capitalist economic system.

So, if capitalism is able to organize a more or less proportional distribution of production, it can also solve the problem of market and can develop its hidden productive potential. However, capitalism with great difficulty determines this condition of proportional distribution of production. It finds itself in a certain unstable state, and it is struck periodically by crises, which are typical phenomena of the developed capitalist system. So, why? What are the reasons of crises and how can one formulate these reasons? Tugan-Baranovsky tried to give answers to these questions in his theory of crises<fnref n="13" />, which is based on his theory of markets. Having awoken socioeconomic initiative and having created

<footnote n="12">¹² See ‘Periodical industrial crises’. Part II, Chapter IV [«Период[ические] промышленные] кризисы», ч. II, глава IV].</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ See *Ibid.*, Chapters V–VI.</footnote>
opportunities for getting and increasing profit, capitalism served as a vigorous impetus for the growth of business activity. That was the origin of the capitalist system striving to expand and develop the production for the sake of profit; therefore, we observe a fast development rate of productive forces and a constant pressure of the supply upon demand. But capitalism is not an organized system, and it is basically spontaneous. Therefore, one can see the strivings and sometimes failures to solve the problem of proportional distribution of production, i.e. a problem of the market. Thus, there arises the need for crises. The lack of proportional distribution of production like an elastic bandage restrains the aspirations of capitalist forces to expansion, sometimes causing their sharp shock. This shock is perceived as a crisis, as a situation of general overproduction which is manifested in the general fall of prices, decreasing profit rate, increasing number of bankruptcies, reduction in production, etc. The credit that has developed within the capitalist system on an extensive scale, intensifies the shock. However, as has been stated above, the general overproduction is actually impossible, only a partial overproduction of goods is possible. But due to the connection of some goods and commodity prices with others, this partial overproduction tends to be transferred to other goods and thus, there appears a sort of general overproduction because the market starts to experience partial overproduction as a general fall of prices and as a general excess of supply over monetary demand. The above-said reveals the inherent reasons and the general character of the need for crises. But crises repeat periodically, and the course of economic conjuncture gives an image of a rather regular alternation of three phases – the rise, crisis and depression. To completely understand the crises, it is necessary to give the reasons of this rhythm, the reasons of the periodical character of crises.

While examining the fluctuation of conjuncture and prices of certain goods, one can easily observe an especially strict compliance between the general movement of conjuncture and the iron prices, or in other words, the prices of the main type of raw materials needed for the production of new means of production and new capital stock. And it is clear, why. The upswing phase is the period, first of all, of speculative promotion, the period of construction of new enterprises, new railroads. Therefore, the upheaval of speculative promotion in the first place contributes to a prominent increase of iron prices. But the speculative promotion and revival in primary branches of industry also cause the revival in other branches of national economy. There starts a general rise. Why does this rise happen periodically and finish indispensably with a crisis? In order for the rise and speculative promotion to start, the accumulation of free capital is needed. The capital is accumulated not only in industry. There are many public groups whose income is independent from the fluctuations of industrial-capitalist conjuncture: these are the recipients of ground-rent, the state
securities owners, officials, and pensioners. During the period of stagnation, a considerable capital is accumulated here by means of large and small shares, which are allocated usually in banks and which, having accumulated in a sufficient amount, set in motion industry and cause the rise of industry first of all in major branches and thus, acts similar to steam in a steam-engine when it puts the forcer in motion. But in the course of the further rise, the free capital becomes exhausted at larger rates. The discount percent increases. The upward movement of the market rates ceases; sometimes the stock crisis bursts out and the credit starts to show the signs of strain, a panic arises, and a general crisis starts. That is why a rise inevitably leads to a collapse followed by a depression period. Then, the same work on capital accumulation begins, and the signs of new economic rise appear and the cycle of conjuncture repeats.

The theory of markets and, in particular, the theory of crises developed by Tugan-Baranovsky, in an original and profound way, has put and solved the problem and brightly revealed the nature of capitalist national economy in its whole and it was generally confirmed by reality; thus, deservedly, it brought him the world fame. This concept served as basis for a whole school which in some ways was adopted by prominent Western economists, including Spiethoff, Eulenburg, Pohle, Schmoller, Lescure, etc.<fnref n="14" /> It has generated a number of publications in favor and opposed to it. Even its opponents like Werner Sombart, recognized it as ‘an extraordinary step forward and, undoubtedly, the highest form of theories of crises’.<fnref n="15" /> Of course, this does not mean that the theory of Tugan-Baranovsky causes no objections and needs no further improvement. On the contrary, its weak points are evident in the same way as its prominent value in economic science is indisputable. In particular, one of the basic statements of his theory of crises, namely, the idea of accumulation of some free, not invested capital, is disputable: in fact, does such capital really exist? Moreover, in his theory of markets and crises Tugan-Baranovsky assumes a self-contained and purely capitalist national economy. The reality is much more difficult. It is obvious that here emerges the direction of and necessity for the further improvement and complication of the theory.

While studying the theory, it is easy to note that it was developed under the influence of intersecting ideas and in the first place under the influence of the Say-Ricardo theory, and also the related ideas by Marx and Engels. But there is no doubt, that the most valuable contribution to the creation of the theory was the author's creative skill enriched by an attentive study of the capitalist reality and primarily of the history of English crises.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ See Jean Lescure 'General periodical industrial crises'. Sankt-Petersburg, 1908, p.435 and *passim*.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ See 'Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik'. B. 113. «Verhandlungen der Generalversammlung im Hamburg». 1904.</footnote>
Putting forward the theory of markets and crises, Tugan-Baranovsky reso-
lutely broke off with former theories, which to a greater or lesser extent identi-
fied the causes of crises in the discrepancy between production and consump-
tion. At the same time, his theory threw a new light on the problem of devel-
opment and future of capitalism.

Marx and Engels' school to which Tugan-Baranovsky was close in many
respects and from which his theories so often originated, as we know, argues
about an inevitable crash of the capitalist system. The basis for this concept
were two main ideas: 1) first, it is the concept of the growing and persistent
scarcity of markets and, therefore, of the increasing and insuperable for the
capitalist system obstacles to the development of productive forces and, second,
the idea about the falling profit rate in the process of development of capital-
ism, the idea about the growing weakness of this mode. Tugan-Baranovsky, as
we have seen, rejected both these theses. And as a result he had to recognize
that ‘capitalism will never die a natural death’,<fnref n="16" /> and that it is intrinsically ca-
pable to continuous development. However, crises will shake it. But these cri-
ses are not a symptom of coming death, but only sharp and painful means to
correct the development pattern of capitalism. [...]

The contemporary socioeconomic mode provokes a great number of un-
necessary tensions and waste of public forces and it is far from being perfect.
But we see that in spite of being imperfect it has all prerequisites to exist and,
moreover, to develop.

It cannot die a natural death: ‘only human thought and will can strike a
mortal blow to it’.<fnref n="17" /> And such a blow should and will be stricken because capi-
talism is in itself the main and inherently deep defect and contradiction. This
contradiction is that capitalism turns a human into a means, into a slave of
things, and at the same time it leads to the distribution and strengthening
of public and moral consciousness which considers a personality as the su-
preme value of social life.<fnref n="18" /> This most profound contradiction should inevitably
increase both the mass discontentment and disappointment with the present,
and the aspiration to the future social ideal; it should also increase the organiza-
tion level and an organized conscious aspiration to change the present for the
sake of the future. [...]

Thus, we have finished the analysis of Tugan-Baranovsky's main scientific
and ideological views. And we see, these views were developed not only due to
the influence of the public environment surrounding Tugan-Baranovsky but
also due to the impact of scientific and ideological concepts of the past.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ See ‘Theoretical foundations of marxism’, p. 195.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ *Ibid*.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ *Ibid*: 194.</footnote>
The theories of Marx and Ricardo, the Austrian school and the Windelband-Rikkert school, the ideas of Kant and Dostoyevsky, all become determinant in this respect. The ideas of Quesnay, Word, and Fouillée are of less and partial importance. But Tugan-Baranovsky was not a unilateral follower, not a pupil of every mentioned theory. In his studies he proceeded from them. But as a creative mind and a talent he aspired to be in advance and surpass them<fnref n="19" /> – and he really did it – and he introduced much of his own. This promoted him to the prominent place which he deserves in the history of development of social sciences and especially in the history of the Russian social thought.

To justify the last statement we would like to give the following arguments. In scientific and ideological schemes of Tugan-Baranovsky many things are disputable and stereotyped. But alongside with them there are many ideas and thoughts which are already or will be acquired, with certain modifications, by the academic and ideological social thinking. This refers to his researches in the field of the theory of markets and crises, development of capitalism and the theory of distribution, the studies of socialism and cooperation. Many of these ideas will survive him both in Russia and in the West.

The last point allows us to take a different approach to the evaluation of Tugan-Baranovsky's heritage. We would like to emphasize resolutely and definitely his significance as a *Russian scholar in the field of economic theory*. Unlike in other branches of science and culture, the Western thinking ignored the development of economic theory in Russia. One can safely assert that in the field of economic theory Tugan-Baranovsky was the first who made the European thinkers to consider carefully the progress in this sphere made in the east of Europe, in Russia. We have already mentioned it above, and it increases the national significance of Tugan-Baranovsky. He succeeded to achieve the level of the epoch and the level of scientific and economic thought of the advanced countries, and moreover, he succeeded to contribute to this progress, and thus, more than anyone else he tried to bring the Russian economic science into line with the European one. The power of a nation in various spheres of life is determined not only by far and even not so much by its physical forces, but considerably by its spiritual forces. From this point of view, Tugan-Baranovsky is a personage who indicates the growing power of the Russian economic thinking and at the same time he is its agent. While in the field of art, music and belleslettres, Russia has already made a great contribution, in the field of science and, in particular, economic science it just starts to enter the historical scene and there is much to be done here.

However, there are other things that define the national importance of Tugan-Baranovsky's works. In his works the study and analysis of various (and

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ See ‘Kant and Marx’, the article in ‘To better future’.</footnote>
even general) issues bears the features especially familiar to us, Russians. While analyzing the problems, even in their general bases, he rather frequently emphasizes the features that these problems gain in the conditions of the Russian reality, he exemplifies them by the Russian experience. This also refers to his idea about the development of capitalism and about the destinies of the small-scale pre-capitalist industry, and also to his theory about small labor agriculture and large-scale capitalist agriculture, about cooperation and socialism. Tugan-Baranovsky was alien to the spirit of national isolation. His perspective was wider. But this fact more significantly designates his character and significance as a *Russian academic economist*.

Finally, the significance of his works lies in the fact that with his interest in theoretical issues and questions of social ideal, with his continuous search and with his colorful and often inspired essays, he was constantly awakening the Russian thought, in particular the thought of the younger generations. And in this regard Tugan-Baranovsky produced an enormous impact. He did not and could not create a whole 'school': he was an academic economist educated in an extremely European manner so he could not get isolated within his own system (and a creation of scientific self-contained systems is, undoubtedly, an indicator of an infantile condition of a given field of knowledge), he had a very intuitive and developing mind to commit to the accepted ideas. M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky did not create a 'school', but hardly any school can and will avoid the influence of his ideas.
**George Modelski (1926–2014)***

William R. Thompson, Barry K. Gills,
Robert A. Denemark, and
Christopher K. Chase-Dunn

George Modelski, born in Poland in 1926, passed away on February 21, 2014 in Washington, D.C. at the age of 88. He is survived by his wife of many years, Sylvia Modelski. Trained at the London School of Economics (BSc. in Economics) and the University of London (PhD in International Relations), he was Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and had been a professor of political science there between 1967 and 1995. His main earlier appointment had been as a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University. Visiting appointments at various points were held at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, Harvard University, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, the University of Stockholm, and the University of Catania.

Throughout his career, George contributed to an impressive number of dif-
ferent research questions. His dissertation, completed in 1954 and published in
1962 as a *Theory of Foreign Policy*, was a very early attempt to treat foreign
policy issues theoretically, as opposed to the then standard reliance on descrip-
tive accounts. No doubt reflecting in part his Canberra position at the time,
Modelski wrote several monographs in the early 1960s on Southeast Asian in-
ternational relations. But he also wrote around this time early analyses of the
international relations of internal war, Kautilya's international relations, the
differences between agrarian and industrial systems, and the communist inter-
national system that were conspicuous in their attempt to treat these questions
in a theoretical fashion. They also underlined his very early interest in compar-
ing the types of international systems.

His main contribution to the study of international relations, nonetheless,
has to be founding a research program on leadership long cycles. Modelski be-
gan developing this original perspective around 1974 (the first conference pa-
per) and published the first article in 1978, following a slightly earlier effort to
begin developing a systemic interpretation of world politics (Principles of

<footnote>* This text is based on 'In Memoriam: George Modelski (1926-2014)' published at http://www.isanet.org/News/ID/2534/In-Memoriam--George-Modelski/ on September 12, 2014.</footnote>
*World Politics*, 1972). Responding to the destabilized international system of the 1970s, George constructed an interpretation of world politics that was based on the emergence of lead economies, their rise and fall, and implications for global war and order. His core writings on these processes, some co-authored, came out at about the same time (*Exploring Long Cycles*, 1987; *Long Cycles in World Politics*, 1987; *Sea Power in Global Politics*, 1994-1993, 1988; *Documenting Global Leadership*, 1988; and *Leading Sectors and World Power*, 1996). It is fair to say that the perspective that emerged over time came to be one of the leading schools of thought in world systems analysis.

Some of George's other work were highly complementary to the long cycle interpretation. *Transnational Corporations and World Order* (1979) focused on MNCs while *North/South Relations* (1983) examined dependency reversal processes in international political economy. The co-edited *World System History: The Social Science of Long-term Change* (2000) reflected the interest he and others had developed in the 1990s to push the study of world politics back to its origins. In addition to an edited special issue of *International Studies Quarterly* (1996), *Globalization as Evolutionary Process* (2008), also a co-edited work, highlighted his commitment to harnessing evolutionary perspectives to the study of long-term international processes. Another major venture in this vein was his effort to develop a better empirical and theoretical understanding of historical urbanization processes, as reflected in *World Cities, 3000 to 2000* (2003). Written after he had retired, this book represents a major contribution to the data base on city sizes in the ancient world, which he viewed as indicators of an evolving city network that undergirded world economic growth. The long-term trend towards democratization was another special interest, culminating in several articles on the subject.

George Modelski contributed to the International Studies Association in various ways. He was President of the ISA-West in 1982, a long-time member of the IPE Section's World Historical Systems group, and winner of the Susan Strange Award in 2006. He also chaired the University of Washington's Pacific Northwest Colloquium on International Security from 1982 to 1991. In 2012, he was awarded a bronze medal by the International Kondratieff Foundation and Russian Academy of Sciences for his contribution to social sciences. Throughout a long and distinguished career, George Modelski emphasized the need to bring together theory, evidence, and history in the unraveling of world political processes. Although never widely cited or known in IR circles, his contributions were always distinctively different and original.
## Contributors

**Lucas Bernard**, Dr., is a financial economist and professor of business at the New York City College of Technology of the City University of New York. He is interested in the ways in which Economics blends together human values, politics, rationality, and irrationality; more specifically, how this interplay reveals itself in society at large. His doctoral dissertation, concerning endogenous models of credit default, was written at the New School for Social Research; he also holds graduate degrees in both Mathematics (City University of New York) and Computer Science (New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences). Dr. Bernard's publications have appeared in *The Journal of Credit Risk*, *The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Risk and Decision Analysis*, and others. Together with Willi Semmler, he is co-editor of *The Oxford Handbook of the Macroeconomics of Global Warming* (2014), published by Oxford University Press.

**Brian J. L. Berry** is the Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. He is a member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the British Academy. He is also the Laureate of the Vautrin Lud International Prize in Geography. Earlier in his career he held endowed chairs at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and Carnegie-Mellon University. Noted for his pioneering work in quantitative social science, in spatial analysis, and in helping lay the foundations for geospatial science, he has devoted research time in the last two decades to the long wave question, providing new statistical evidence and firmer relationships to interlocking economic, social and political processes. He is the author of more than 500 books, articles and professional reports and the recipient of numerous awards and medals.

**Valentina M. Bondarenko**, PhD in Economics, is a Senior Research Professor at the Center for Real Economy Studies in the Institute of Economics, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Director of the International Kondratieff Foundation. In 1991, she defended her Ph.D. thesis on ‘Political Economy’ at the Institute of Economics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Her academic activity is connected with cross-disciplinary studies, in terms of politico-economical and world-view positions, as well as the agenda connected with formation and functioning of the mechanism of inter-connection among production, distribution, exchange and consumption in various forms of production relations. Her current research interests are in the areas of search and substantiation of new production relations and relevant production forces, formation of Russia's development strategy and new life-organization model. She is the author of the monographs *Forecasting the Future: A New Paradigm* (2008) and *Crisis-Free Development – A Myth or the Reality?* (2012, 1st edition; 2014, 2nd edition). The author published more than 220 works in Russia and abroad, and wrote a number of chapters for various monographs, published in Russian and English, which address fundamental theoretical problems, pertaining to formation of transition strategies that Russia and other countries can follow on the way to crisis-free development.

**Denis J. Dean** is Dean of the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, Professor and former head of Geography and Geospatial Information Sciences at the University of Texas, Dallas. His research focuses on the uses of artificial intelligence and high performance computing, spatial data analysis and spatial optimization. Most re-

Kondratieff Waves: Juglar – Kuznets – Kondratieff 2014 410–415
cently he has contributed these skills to the solution of routing problems associated with the Mars Lander.

**Euel Elliott** is Professor of Public Policy and Political Economy in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has a wide range of research interests but much of his work focuses on applications of complex adaptive systems theory to understanding of the dynamics of economic, political and social phenomena at the individual, institutional and systemic levels of analysis. He is the author, co-author or editor of five books and numerous scholarly articles. His most recent work explores the question of the growth of the state and implications for the survival of traditional principles of constitutionalism and limited government.

**Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan**, Dr., is a professional economist with extensive corporate and public sector experience focusing on macroeconomic analysis. Concurrent with his professional responsibilities, Dr. Gevorkyan also carried out scholarly research and taught at Columbia University and New York University. Currently Dr. Gevorkyan is Assistant Professor of Economics in the Peter J. Tobin College of Business at St. John's University. Dr. Gevorkyan's broad research interests are in international financial economics, global commodities markets, economic development, macroeconomic policy, sovereign debt, labor migration, and post-socialist transformation. His recent research on emerging markets modalities connects theoretical aspects of risk and uncertainty with problems of international reserves use, capital flows, and sustainable economic development in the post-2008 crisis environment. Separately, taking early interest in the problems of temporary labor migration and economic development, Dr. Gevorkyan developed a concept of Diaspora Migration Mechanism and Migration Development Bank. Dr. Gevorkyan's work is published in economic and social science journals, including *Review of Keynesian Economics*, *Challenge, Voprosy Economiki*, *International Migration*, *IEB International Journal of Finance*, and others. He is a frequent contributor to edited studies and reference volumes. Dr. Gevorkyan is the author of *Innovative Fiscal Policy and Economic Development in Transition Economies* (Routledge, 2013 in paperback; 2011 in hardcover).

**Anton L. Grinin**, PhD in Biological Sciences, is Leading Research Fellow of Volgograd Centre for Social Research. His main research interests include biotechnologies, global technological transformations and forecasts. He is the co-author of such articles as ‘Macroevolution of Technology’ and ‘Global Technological Transformations’.

**Leonid E. Grinin** is Research Professor and the Director of the Volgograd Center for Social Research, as well as the Deputy Director of the Eurasian Center for Big History & System Forecasting, Senior Research Professor at the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and Leading Research Fellow of the Laboratory for Destabilization Risk Monitoring of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal *Age of Globalization* (in Russian), as well as a co-editor of the international journals *Social Evolution & History* and the *Journal of Globalization Studies*. Dr. Grinin is the author of more than 400 scholarly publications in Russian and English, including twenty six monographs. These monographs include *Philosophy, Sociology, and the Theory of History* (2007, in Russian); *Productive Forces and Historical Process* (2006, in Rus-
sian); *State and Historical Process* (3 vols, 2009–2010, in Russian); *Social Macroevolution: World System Transformations* (2009, in Russian; with A. Korotayev); *Macroevolution in Biological and Social Systems* (2008, in Russian; with A. Markov and A. Korotayev); *Global Crisis in Retrospective: A Brief History of Upswings and Crises* (2010, in Russian; with A. Korotayev); *The Evolution of Statehood: From Early State to Global Society* (2011); *The Cycles of Development of Modern World System* (2011, in Russian; with A. Korotayev and S. Tsirel); *From Confucius to Comte: The Formation of the Theory, Methodology and Philosophy of History* (2012, in Russian); *Macrohistory and Globalization* (2012); *Cycles, Crises, and Traps of the Modern World-System* (2012, in Russian; with A. Korotayev).

**Peter Herrmann** received his PhD in philosophy from Bremen, Germany. He completed studies in Sociology (Bielefeld, Germany), Economics (Hamburg, Germany), Political Science (Leipzig, Germany) and Social Policy and Philosophy (Bremen, Germany). He is also Adjunct Professor at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF), Department of Social Sciences (Kuopio, Finland), Honorary Associate Professor at Corvinus University in Budapest, Faculty of Economics, Department of World Economy. He taught at several third level institutions across the EU; currently correspondent to the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Social Law (Munich, Germany). He holds the position of a senior advisor to the European Foundation on Social Quality (The Hague, Netherlands), member of the Advisory Board of Eurispes (Institute of Political Studies, Economic and Social Studies, Rome), member of the Scientific Board and its Coordination Committee of ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizen's Action), Associate Member of the Eurasian Center for Big History and System Forecasting, Lomonosow Moscow State University, Russia. He held the positions of a Visiting Professor at different universities within and outside the EU. He also was a Research Fellow at National Taiwan University, Taipei; the Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Australia; Visiting Scholar at Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey; Visiting Scholar at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich, Germany. He started his work in researching European social policy and, in particular, the role of NGOs. Over the last years his main interest shifted towards developing the Social Quality Approach further, looking, in particular, into the meaning of economic questions and questions of law. He linked this with questions on the development of state analysis and the question of social services. He has published widely on these topics.

**Philippe Jourdon** is an independent researcher and translator in economics, a member of the editorial committees of *Online Review of Middle East Studies* and *Entelequia*. His current research interests include Institutional Economics, Kondratieff cycles and world system studies, European macro policies and economic history. He is the author of over twenty scholarly publications including six monographs, for example, *Monetary History, Methodology and Epistemology for Sustainable Development*.

**Andrey V. Korotayev** is Head of the Laboratory for Destabilization Risk Monitoring of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Senior Research Professor of the International Laboratory for Political Demography of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Senior Research Professor of the Oriental Institute and Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as a Professor at the Faculty of Global Studies of the Moscow
State University. He is the author of over 300 scholarly publications, including such monographs as *Ancient Yemen* (1995), *World Religions and Social Evolution of the Old World Oikumene Civilizations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective* (2004), *Introduction to Social Macrodynamics: Compact Macromodels of the World System Growth* (2006), and *Introduction to Social Macrodynamics: Secular Cycles and MILlennial Trends* (2006). At present, together with Askar Akaev and Sergey Malkov, he coordinates the Russian Academy of Sciences Presidium Project ‘Complex System Analysis and Mathematical Modeling of Global Dynamics’. He is a laureate of the Russian Science Support Foundation in ‘The Best Economists of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Nomination (2006).

**Leo Nefiodow** is one of the most well-known German experts of the theory of long waves and one of the most renowned trailblazers of the information society. From 1965 until 2002, he worked in key positions in research and development in the industry and the public sectors. He also served as an advisor to the German Federal Ministry of Research and Technology and multiple German state governments, international organizations and private companies. In 2004, he was a member of the ‘Our Future Economy’ task force by the Club of Rome. One of its emphases includes future research. The first edition of his book *Der sechste Kondratieff* [The Sixth Kondratieff] was published in 1996. It was the first publication in the world to identify the sixth Kondratieff. Nefiodow illustrates how a holistic concept of health – physical, psychological, social, mental and spiritual health – will become the carrier of a new long phase of prosperity in the twenty-first century. Since 1996, Nefiodow has written more than 100 publications on the Kondratieff cycles. He has proven the forecasting ability of the theory of long waves in his publications and lectures and paved the way to an extensive discussion on the future. In 2014 Leo Nefiodow was awarded the Bronze Medal by the International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation and the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

**Simone Nefiodow** has completed her degree in education at the University of Koblenz, Germany, and her Master of Theology at the Faculty of Theology in Paderborn. She has worked as a scientific officer on the practical implementation of the theory of long waves for the past 20 years. Her key researches focus on social, mental and spiritual health. She is also a freelance publicist.

**Thomas Palley**, Dr., is an economist living in Washington. He holds a BA degree from Oxford University and a MA degree in International Relations and PhD in Economics, both from Yale University. He has published in numerous academic journals, and written for *The Atlantic Monthly*, *American Prospect*, and *Nation* magazines. Dr. Palley has recently started a project, Economics for Democratic and Open Societies. The goal of the project is to stimulate public discussion about what kinds of economic arrangements and conditions are needed to promote democracy and open society. Dr. Palley was formerly Chief Economist of the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to joining the Commission, he was Director of the Open Society Institute's Globalization Reform Project, and before that he was Assistant Director of Public Policy at the AFL – CIO.

**Willi Semmler**, Dr., is currently the Henry Arnhold Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York. Dr. Semmler's research interests are broad
and include dynamic modeling, macroeconomics, financial economics, time series and computational methods in economics and finance, resource economics, economics of growth, and technical change. He studied Mathematics, social sciences, and Economies in Hamburg, Munich, and Berlin. Dr. Semmler received his PhD on ‘Multisectoral Theories of Growth’ in 1976 at the Free University of Berlin, where he qualified as a professor four years later. He has served as a Visiting Professor at numerous universities, including Columbia University, Stanford University, and at the University of Bielefeld. His publications have often appeared in prestigious journals such as the *Journal of Applied Econometrics, Economic Theory, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Macroeconomic Dynamics, Journal of Macroeconomics, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics*, and many others. Together with Lucas Bernard, he is co-editor of *The Oxford Handbook of the Macroeconomics of Global Warming* (2014), published by Oxford University Press.

**Arno Tausch** is Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Innsbruck University and Associate Professor of Economics, Corvinus University, Budapest. He also served as an Austrian diplomat abroad and was Counselor for Labor and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, 1992–1999. He authored or co-authored books and articles for major international publishers and journals, among them seventeen books in English, two in French, eight books in German, and over eighty articles in peer-reviewed journals. In all his works were published or re-published in thirty-two countries. His research program is focused on world systems studies, development and dependency studies, European studies, and quantitative world values and peace research. His publications include a number of essays for leading economic and foreign policy global think tanks in Argentina, Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, Russia and Turkey.

**Stephen I. Ternyik** is a social science economist. Since 1985 he has worked as a private entrepreneur, researcher, writer, and scholar at TernyikRanD/Techno-Logos, Inc. (USA). From 1980 to 1985 he studied education management and technology evaluation with a focus on applied informatics for human learning processes. His special interests are innovation management, world economics, medical humanities, ethical literature. He is the author of several books, various articles and online courses, concerning the modern human condition (health/society/morality). He was awarded as a research fellow in Japan, futurology pioneer in Pakistan and honorary member in India. He is a member of the German Physical Society.

**William R. Thompson** is Distinguished Professor and the Donald A. Rogers Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. He is also currently the editor-in-chief of the Oxford University Press's *Oxford Research Encyclopedia in Politics*. He is a former president of the International Studies Association (2005–2006), editor-in-chief of *International Studies Quarterly* (1994–1998 and 2009–2013), and has been on the editorial boards of numerous journals. He has published a number of articles in leading political journals and is the author, coauthor, or editor of such books as *The Arc of War: Origins, Escalation and Transformation* (2011) and *Transition Scenarios: China and the United States in the Twenty-First Century* (2013) (both published by University of Chicago Press), *How Rivalries End* (2013, University of Pennsylvania Press), *Asian Rivalries: Conflict, Escalation, and Limitations on Two-*
*Level Games* (2011, Stanford University Press), *Globalization and Global History* (2006, Routledge), *Strategic Rivalry: Space, Position, and Conflict Escalation in World Politics* (2008, Cambridge University Press), and *Puzzles of the Democratic Peace: Theory, Geopolitics and the Transformation of World Politics* (2005, Palgrave-Macmillan). He has also received the World Society Foundation's Award of Excellence in World Society Research, the International Global Research Association and Moscow State University's V. I. Vernadsky Gold Medal of Honor (for contribution to global studies), and the International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences' Silver Kondratieff Medal (for contribution to the social sciences).

**Jonas Van Vossole** is PhD candidate in ‘Democracia no Seculo XXI’ at the Center of Social Studies of the University of Coimbra, and in Political Science at the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Gent. His research is focused on the analysis of the effects of the Euro-crisis on the legitimacy of democracy. He graduated in Political Science at the University of Gent, with a MA degree in International Relations and Global Governance, complemented with a Master in Complementary Economics.
KONDRATIEFF WAVES

GUIDELINES

*Preparation of manuscripts.* Articles should generally be no longer than 9000 words, review articles should not exceed 2500 words, and brief reviews should be no longer than 600 words. A separate sheet should give the author's name, academic affiliation, information on the author (100–200 words), the title and a short abstract of no more than 150 words. All contributions, whether articles or reviews, should be clearly typed on one side of A4 paper or American Quarto, double-spaced and with wide margins throughout (including footnotes and bibliographical references).

*Footnotes* should be kept to a minimum. Essential notes should be presented in a typed list at the end of the article, double spaced.

*Bibliographical references* should be given in parentheses in standard author-date form in the body of the text: (Lee and Devore 1968: 236). A complete list of references cited, arranged alphabetically by author's surname, should be typed at the end of the article along the following lines:

Soros G. 2000. *The Open Society. Reforming Global Capitalism*. New York: Public Affairs.

Schaebler B., and Stenberg L. (Eds.) 2004. *Globalization and the Muslim World: Culture, Religion, and Modernity*. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Thomson J. E. 1995. State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research. *International Studies Quarterly* 39(2): 213–233.

Hewitt M., and Petrov K. 2009. Money Supply and Purchasing Power. URL: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2009/0223.html

McCall D. F. 1975. The Hornbill and Analogous Forms in West African Sculpture. *African Images: Essays in African Iconology* / Ed. by D. F. McCall, and E. G. Bay, pp. 268–324. New York – London: Routledge.

*Subheadings* should be typed flush left without preceding numbers or letters. Where subheadings are of a different order of importance this should be indicated by A, B, or C penciled in the margin.

*Quotations.* Single inverted commas should be used except for quotations within quotations, which should have double inverted commas. Quotations of more than about 60 words should be set off from the text with an extra line of space above and below, and typed without inverted commas.

For the detailed **guidelines**, please, contact Editors: Prof. Leonid E. Grinin, Volgograd Center for Social Research, Russia, lgrinin@mail.ru; Prof. Tessaleno Devezas, University of Beira Interior, Portugal, tessalen@ubi.pt; Prof. Andrey V. Korotayev, Russian State University for the Humanities, akorotayev@gmail.com.