Dr.Sc.Econ., Professor A.N. Popov
Associate professor, Ph.D. S.V. Gertner
Ural State University of Physical Culture, Chelyabinsk

Keywords: bionomics, economy, ecology, theory, system, self-development, natural philosophy, epistemological roots, positive communication, sustainability, synergy effect, nature of interaction.

Introduction

To emphasize the importance of the subject matter of the article as it stated above in the title, it may be pertinent to refer to A. Marshall who once maintained in his fundamental “Principles of Economics” that it is rather economic biology that should be considered as Mecca of economics than the economic mechanics [3]. This opinion is supported by the leading experts of the Evolutionary Economics Centre who believe that evolutionary economics must comprise one of the major structural elements of bionomics.

It is along these conceptual lines that the studies are currently designed and managed both by the Russian and foreign research teams (the latter being dominated by the US- and Germany-based ones). In Russia the leading teams have been formed at the Institute of Economics of the RAS, Central Economical Mathematics Institute, International Alexander Bogdanov’s Institute, Udmurt State University and the International Bionomics Institute which was founded, among other initiators and contributors, by Ural State University of Physical Culture.

The purpose of the study was to substantiate and promote the bionomic theories as a development tool for modern physical culture and sports organizations (PCSO).

Materials and methods. Bionomics as a science has been established and developed in few stages within the Southern Urals.

Stage one may be described as the theory definition period (2004 to 2008). In this stage, the research community took practical efforts to: familiarize itself with the problem of analogies in modern economics and with the biological and economical reverse afference; explore the actual depth of the knowledge accumulated in this research area; and start up the experimental research activity. The researchers had used the following research methods: theoretical analysis (broken down into the retrospective/ systemic/ comparative and logic analyses), discussions, interviews, sociological opinion polls, monitoring, management decision-making system analysis and decision execution system analysis. This stage was completed, in our opinion, when the International Bionomics Institute (IBI) was established in the form of autonomous non-commercial organization designed to provide services to support science, education, law and culture. The IBI makes a special emphasis in its operations on the international activities to promote the theoretical and practical conference activity and help introduce elements of bionomics into the educational curricula.

Stage two is viewed as the analytical and experimental period (2008 to 2012). In this period the research community had gradually developed the general research concepts and assessed the available opportunities for their practical implementation in the physical culture and sports processes; furthermore it determined the key behavioural models of the management bodies’ development culture. The researchers actively publicized their proposed recommendations to help shape up the new culture of the physical culture and sports process management. Top priority areas of research in the second stage were tackled using the following methods: monographic method; expert assessment method; modelling method; management opinion polls; SWOT- and COPS- analyses. This research stage was largely determined by the research team’s visit to Germany within the frame of the IBI’s international communication activity (2009) and by two multilateral events, namely the international theoretical and practical conference in Kostanay (2011) and the international workshop in Chelyabinsk (2014).

Stage three (from 2012 till now) is the current stage of the bionomic studies in the context of bionomics being formed as a scientific and educational discipline. This stage may be described as the methodology-setting stage since it defines bionomics as the natural philosophy of the XXI century. Top priority in this stage will be given to the bionomics-based thinking model in its application to the micro-, meso- and macro-level system development gene.

Within the framework of his model culture is considered as the development gene of the self-developing systems; and bionomics is viewed as the economic development paradigm. In this stage, the following research methods were applied: expert assessment method; sociological opinion polls focused on the regional-level corporate management polling process; decision-making (decision preparation and adoption) process analysis; outcome data interpretation and analysis; economic-mathematical method; and design-and-calculation method.

This current stage requires energy concentration on the definition of bio-economics (meaning the further growth of bionomics as a science and an education discipline). Special role, in the context of the applied methodology, will be given to the social approach to the meaning of the term bionomics: it is designed to emphasize the fact that human activity (dominated by the labour activity) is organized by the society as culture; that in its turn is defined as the tool to implement fundamental values through purposeful cultivation of human values (Martin Heidegger). The model emphasizes the ways to implement mental actions in the cultural and institutional context and in the biological environment (with due consideration being given to the historical background of the national economy development in general and the physical culture and sports economy development in particular).

Bionomics as natural philosophy of the XXI century may be presented in the following format (Diagram 1) that implies that bio-economics is not the only development way for bionomics for the reason that there is the second branch of ecological economics as one more way for development.

Diagram 1. Bionomics viewed as natural philosophy of economic development in the XXI century.

In the context of the above-mentioned principles, we would define the following two theories of bionomics as the natural environment of the XXI century:

• Interaction theory (meaning the set of theories focused on the nature of interactions of the biological and social phenomena within the environment we leave in); and
• Commonality theory (meaning the set of theories considering the general regularities in and the development principles of the biological and socioeconomic systems).

The first set of the above theories (interaction theories) directly applies to the primary influences of biology on the social phenomena and vice versa with due regard of the detected self-development genes of the relevant systems. The second set of theories (commonality theories) is designed to detect the fully or partially effective interaction factors of the relevant systems. Both are equally important since the nature quite often demonstrates that it is wiser than the human beings and superior to their activity (both successful and unsuccessful) and to any progress they achieve.

We explore the modern physical culture and sports organizations (PCSO) in the context of the above theories. We use the method of analogies as the main study tool [2], and we consider the organization theories as the epistemological origin of bionomics. As provided by the A. Marshall’s concept, the authoritative distribution of resources, priorities and selected values will go within the frame of certain labour sharing arrangements [3]. And it facilitates, within the certain business organization pattern, the growth of the relevant active production factors (including the PCSO efficiency improvement).

Organization means the system of socioeconomic relationship designed to attain certain collective objectives and having its own resources and internal regulatory and statutory structure that enables its members to perform their corporate functions for certain remuneration. This kind of business organization is naturally formed when it gives the means to cut down the transaction costs by replacing them by the coordination costs (coverable by the internal arrangements within the PCSO).

A physical culture and sports organization may be viewed as the institute or mechanism designed to manage the relevant contractual relationship [7]. This kind of approach, in opinion of O. Williamson, gives the means to concentrate the bulk of attention on the certain transaction cost level to minimize the latter.

It should be confessed, however, that this opinion is supported by not every institutionalist to say the least. We would mention as a case in point the opinion of D. Nort who underlines the importance of diversity of institutions and organizations for the reason that it is their diverse interactions that comprise, as his believes, the actual source of economic evolution and institutional reforms, since the institutions with their standard restrictions form the relevant opportunities. Organizations, in their turn, are established so as to be able to benefit from these opportunities. Moreover, the more the organizations operate and develop, the more they tend to reform the restricting institutions, provided the reforms help increase the efficiency of their business activity. To put it in other words, to be able to perform their functions, the formally established institutions need special organizations that will serve as actors or performers of one or another duly regulated business norm or tradition. The modern market that establishes the frame opportunities for business deals may be mentioned as a good example of such an institution; another example is the government itself that sets certain rules to regulate business processes in general.

As stated by D. Nort, an organization may be considered the purposefully acting unit designed by its owner to help maximize its assets/ revenues with regard for the frame opportunities provided by the institutional structure of the national economy [5]. It may be pertinent to add to the above that an organization is formed to act within the framework of not only institutional restrictions but a few other constraints: for instance, technological limitations of the goods production and service provision systems.

Using this kind of approach to PCSO (that never exists as a purely sole economic agent) the analyst can give definitions to some forms of economic relationship inside the organization [1], with the top priority being given to the control-, hierarchy- and power-related relationship.

Results and discussion

Ownership title system control means the set of procedures to be followed and performed by the owner entity (as far as the joint-stock PCSO is concerned) to secure its leadership in the decision-making process and assure that the decisions are duly performed by the executives. Hierarchy means the tool to secure subordination of responsibilities within the frame of the strictly determined economic and social connections. Power means the authority assigned through delegation of responsibilities and decision-making roles by means of a simple agreement or contract effective within the frame of the relevant organization.

The major problem of any PCSO that strives to establish its internal operations on the sets of principles other than the market ones is considered by the new institutionalized economics as the best contract form selection problem. Contract means the “agreement of the purchaser and vendor that specifies conditions for the exchange transaction giving the top priority to the three factors that are the price, asset specifics and warranties” [7].

The contract is designed to secure the fundamental right of the owner to transfer/ alienate its property. To put it in other words, the owner performs its own decision intended to combine or recombine its ownership rights in the assets so as to design its physical culture and sports activity on a more efficient basis. Those who tend to note some analogy between this form of efficiency and ownership title distribution efficiency may be right in this context.

All the above also comprises the subject of bionomic analysis since it is directly connected to activities of an economic person (that means, first of all, the manager or business entity). They both, as maintained in our work “Bionomics: sociocultural approach” [6] are the examples of self-organizing systems.

V.I. Nekrasov reasonably states that an economy may be self-organized and self-managed... for the reason that it is the natural way for evolution to “operate”... and the traditional economic science just fails to explore the dynamics of growth and technological process. And the sustainable development models fail to adapt to these basic historical processes [4].

The same researcher, responding to his own question on what bionomics actually mean, states the following: “To get free of constraints of the intellectual slavery and the hasty policies it inevitably produces, we propose to revise the existing paradigm – i.e. to break away from the two-hundred-years-old tradition of interpreting economy as the mechanism designed to secure sustainable development”. Instead, it is proposed to consider, within the frame of bionomics, an economic system as the self-developing ecosystem.

Summarizing the above, we would mention that any economic system, when viewed from the bionomical viewpoint, may be represented as the three-layer system, where Layer 1 is the goods production and service provision component; Layer 2 refers to the financial flows that are designed to facilitate operations of Layer 1 by making them flexible and fast-responsive; and Layer 3 is the process management activity combining the both above layers (and performing the acts of top-level corporate activity as it may be called in terms of biology and economics). Interactions of the above layers may be subject to special interest as they depend on the bionomic frame of mind of the process acceptor entity (that means the assessor of the system performance and the process outcomes). It should be mentioned in this context that the more accurate is the interpretation of the interactions of the above layers, the more efficient may be their joint “operations”. The contribution of Layer 3 to the model, however, may be much higher than a simple reflection of one or another process in the relevant economic system. This layer heavily contributes to dynamics of a wide variety of processes that are connected on a systemic level by the same formally stated objectives.

Conclusions

To provide for any system dynamics in progress (that means its growth and development), it is important to secure positive feedbacks on the way. The purpose of the negative feedbacks, as opposed to the latter, is to help stabilize the processes running in the economic system, while the positive feedbacks actually trigger the generation effect (or the effect of synergy).

The third layer we associate with the systemic interaction for cognition. The prime subject for the cognition is the self-development gene that is determined by the socio-cultural approach to the micro-, meso- and macro-level economic system development processes.

Summarizing the above, we would recommend the work “Establishment and formation of research potential of International Bionomics Institute” [2] that establishes the methodological fundamentals for the matter under consideration. It may be also important to mention that it was M. Rothschild [8] who was the first to propose the term bionomics (and the first to introduce bionomics as a science in fact).

References

1. Boykova, T.Yu. Podgotovka spetsialistov v sfere fizicheskoy kul'tury i sporta s uchetom ispol'zovaniya zarubezhnogo opyta (Specialists' Training in the field of physical culture and sport in view of foreign experience)/ T.Yu. Boykova, V.A. Dolgopolov // Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kul'tury. – 2014. – № 7. – P. 59–61.
2. Generalov, I.M. Stanovlenie i formirovanie issledovatel'skogo potentsiala Mezhdunarodnogo instituta bionomiki (Establishment and formation of research potential of International Bionomics Institute) / I.M. Generalov, S.V. Gertner // Mentalitet ekonomicheskoy lichnosti: sb. trudov. (Mentality of economic person: collected works) – Chelyabinsk: Institut ekonomiki UralGUFK (Institute of Economics UralSAPhC), 2014. – P. 150–161.
3.  Marshall, A. Printsipy ekonomicheskoy nauki (Principles of Economics) / A. Marshall. – Moscow: Ekonomika, 1993. – Kniga 4. Glavy 8–12 (book 4, Chapt. 8-12).
4. Nekrasov, V.I. Bionomika – evolyutsiya razvivayushcheysya ekosistemy: otsenka organizatsionnogo vzaimodeystviya i razvitiya (Bionomics - evolution of developing ecosystem: assessment of organizational interaction and development) / V.I. Nekrasov // Chelovek – obshchestvo – okruzhayushchaya sreda. Sb. Ch. 3. (Man - Society - Environment. Collected works. P. 3). – Yekaterinburg: UrO RAN, 2001. – P. 29–36.
5. Nort, D. Instituty, institutsional'nye izmeneniya i funktsionirovanie ekonomiki (Institutes, institutional changes and operation of economy) / D. Nort. – Moscow: Ekonomika, 1997. – 272 P.
6. Popov, A.N. Bionomika: sotsiokul'turny podkhod (Bionomics: sociocultural approach) / A.N. Popov, I.M. Generalov. – Chelyabinsk: UralGUFK, 2009. – 328 P.
7. Williamson, O. Ekonomicheskie instituty kapitalizma (The economic institutions of capitalism) / O. Williamson. – SPb.: Piter, 1996. – 324 P.
8. Rothschild, M. Bionomics. Economy as ecosystem / M. Rothschild. – New York: Owl Books, 1990. – 423 P.

Corresponding author: aikin-va@yandex.ru