论使用“竞争力”概念的恰当性

M. Balashova, M. Troshkin, A. Balashova
{"title":"论使用“竞争力”概念的恰当性","authors":"M. Balashova, M. Troshkin, A. Balashova","doi":"10.17150/2411-6262.2021.12(2).9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes happening in the internal and external business environment in the 21st century intensify the need for improving approaches to the evaluation of effectiveness of economic entities on different levels of economic analysis: micro, meso and macro. Although there is a significant theoretical background, the most common category for an assessment of the condition of an economic entity in the economic theory is «competitiveness», which was proposed by Adam Smith. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, specialists have been using this term for characterizing efficiency of individuals, cities, industries, regions and countries. Today, academics have developed unique ideas about the content of this category: methods of assessment of the reached level; factors which influence the category on different levels of economic analysis. However, the paradox is that the theoretical foundation cannot solve practical problems and answer relevant questions. In the article, the authors try to show that making the term «competitiveness» unified is unreasonable, it is based on factual material and opinions of national and foreign researchers. The authors formulate a hypothesis about the necessity of terminological disintegration while making multiple factor analysis: identifying independent groups of phenomena all of which are responsible for a specific condition type of a subject / object.","PeriodicalId":8692,"journal":{"name":"Baikal Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Appropriateness of Using the Concept of «Competitiveness»\",\"authors\":\"M. Balashova, M. Troshkin, A. Balashova\",\"doi\":\"10.17150/2411-6262.2021.12(2).9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Changes happening in the internal and external business environment in the 21st century intensify the need for improving approaches to the evaluation of effectiveness of economic entities on different levels of economic analysis: micro, meso and macro. Although there is a significant theoretical background, the most common category for an assessment of the condition of an economic entity in the economic theory is «competitiveness», which was proposed by Adam Smith. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, specialists have been using this term for characterizing efficiency of individuals, cities, industries, regions and countries. Today, academics have developed unique ideas about the content of this category: methods of assessment of the reached level; factors which influence the category on different levels of economic analysis. However, the paradox is that the theoretical foundation cannot solve practical problems and answer relevant questions. In the article, the authors try to show that making the term «competitiveness» unified is unreasonable, it is based on factual material and opinions of national and foreign researchers. The authors formulate a hypothesis about the necessity of terminological disintegration while making multiple factor analysis: identifying independent groups of phenomena all of which are responsible for a specific condition type of a subject / object.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baikal Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baikal Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17150/2411-6262.2021.12(2).9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baikal Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17150/2411-6262.2021.12(2).9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

21世纪内部和外部商业环境发生的变化,加强了在微观、中观和宏观等不同经济分析层面上改进经济实体有效性评估方法的必要性。虽然有重要的理论背景,但经济理论中评估经济实体状况最常见的类别是“竞争力”,这是由亚当·斯密提出的。从20世纪下半叶开始,专家们开始使用这个术语来描述个人、城市、行业、地区和国家的效率。今天,学者们对这一类别的内容有了独特的想法:达到水平的评估方法;对影响分类的因素进行了不同层次的经济分析。然而,悖论在于理论基础不能解决实际问题,不能回答相关问题。在文章中,作者试图证明将“竞争力”一词统一是不合理的,这是基于事实材料和国内外学者的观点。作者在进行多因素分析的同时,提出了术语分解的必要性假设:识别出独立的现象群,这些现象群都对主客体的特定条件类型负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Appropriateness of Using the Concept of «Competitiveness»
Changes happening in the internal and external business environment in the 21st century intensify the need for improving approaches to the evaluation of effectiveness of economic entities on different levels of economic analysis: micro, meso and macro. Although there is a significant theoretical background, the most common category for an assessment of the condition of an economic entity in the economic theory is «competitiveness», which was proposed by Adam Smith. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, specialists have been using this term for characterizing efficiency of individuals, cities, industries, regions and countries. Today, academics have developed unique ideas about the content of this category: methods of assessment of the reached level; factors which influence the category on different levels of economic analysis. However, the paradox is that the theoretical foundation cannot solve practical problems and answer relevant questions. In the article, the authors try to show that making the term «competitiveness» unified is unreasonable, it is based on factual material and opinions of national and foreign researchers. The authors formulate a hypothesis about the necessity of terminological disintegration while making multiple factor analysis: identifying independent groups of phenomena all of which are responsible for a specific condition type of a subject / object.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
NP-Difficult Tasks: Automatic Proof of Theorems and Turings Machine Harnessing the Irkutsk Oblast Recreational Potential for the Innovation-Driven Growth the Region Improvement of the Adaptive Properties of the National Financial Market to Respond the Globalization Risks On the Frequency of Monitoring and Updating a Company's Strategic Business Development Plans Meaning of Life Crisis and Self-Attitude of Fetishistic Transvestites (Internet Research)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1