were attempting to indentify a field of expression and space to conquer; therefore, in general the basic paradigm of the neo-Keynesian synthesis prevailed, which in my view was the most sterile of all combinations. As a result of this substitution and choice of mix, numerous studies emerged, which will be of little interest to anybody a few years from now. In this sense, the crisis of the Bulgarian post-communist thought is a clear illustration of the general crisis of economic science or rather, a prominent example of futility and obscurity as well as pretentiousness and wastefulness. The current global crisis is new eloquent prove of economic sciences systemic failure.
And third, the neutral inference. Something is going to change, new theories will emerge; however, when this will happen is unclear. On the basis of this, we may believe that economic science has entered its most significant and ultimate phase (following Lenin’s metaphor of imperialism), i.e., a phase characterized by general crisis, which would inevitably generate something new or will at least create competition and pluralism, thereby generating new ideas. One example in support of this inference is that recently, numerous petitions were filed by different groups of economists regarding pluralism in economic science and teaching. However, owing to the resistance from the mainstream as well as the entire academia, it is unclear when these changes will actually occur. Moreover, owing to the mainstream academia’s strong association with political authority and economic interests, as well as their ability to engulf and re-cast all novelties, I do not envisage a prompt change in the situation.
Nikolay Nenovsky: University of National and World Economy (Sofia), University of Orleans (STUDIUM) and ICER (Torino)
Abdelal, R. 2001. National Purpose in the World Economy. Cornell University Press.
Angelov, I. 1992. Economic Outlook of Bulgaria by 1995. (in Bulgarian).
Angelov, I. 1990. The Scope of the Bulgarian Economic Reform. In . United Nations: New York.
Andryushin, C. 2003. Beginning of the Road: The Origins of Russia’s Economic Thought. In , edited by L. Abalkin. Moscow: 6283, (in Russian).
Antonov, V. 1989. Disequilibrium and Economic Growth: Model of Cyclical Growth Under Persistent Structural Disequilibria. 5: 8295.
Aroyo, J. 1986. . Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo (in Bulgarian).
Avramov, R. 1998. . Fondazia: Bulgarska Nauka i Kultura (in Bulgarian).
Avramov, R. 2007. . Fondazia: Bulgarska Nauka i Kultura i Centur za Liberalni Strategii (in Bulgarian).
Avramov, R. and V. Antonov 1994. . Sofia: AEAF (in Bulgarian).
Balabanov, I. 2008. Global Problems of Modern Times and the Methodology of K. Marx. (Part one), 5: 434; (Part two). 6: 334, (in Bulgarian).
Balcerowicz, L. 1995. . Budapest, London: CEU Press.
Berlemann, M. and N. Nenovsky 2004. Lending of First versus Lending of Last Resort: The Bulgarian Financial Crisis of 1996/1997. 46(2): 245271.
Berov, L. 1961. . Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo (in Bulgarian).