ECONOMIC CRISIS VERSUS CRISIS OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE

The paper starts with the issue why crisis phenomena in the economy, both in its real and regulatory sphere, should not be identified with a crisis of economic science in cognitive and predictive terms. This is followed by presenting the idea of understanding the "normal" way of development of economic science as a from of migration of ideas in which a significant role is played by inspirations related not to the observation of real world but to the "world of economists" (ideas shared by academic communities), as well as phenomena of external environment such as new political and social ideologies, cultural and technological trends, and geopolitical changes. In the subsequent part of the paper the idea is put forward that over the last half-century the development of economic science has been heavily influenced by the broadening acceptance of the criterion of instrumental effectiveness (Laudan - Mongin) in appraising the progress of the science. It is argued that this resulted in lower ability of economics to explain some major contemporary civilization and technological trends, and reduced "prediction strength" of economic models and theories. However, the emergence of new and cognitively valuable schools and streams (e.g. New Institutional Economics), this cannot be considered a common feature of today's economics. The paper ends with an attempt at identifying the civilization and technological trends and structural changes in modern economies which are not sufficiently analyzed in the mainstream economics, thus causing some crisis phenomena in its cognitive, predictive and utilitarian value. An "eclectic" approach is advocated, understood as a postulate to look for analytical and policy answers into various (sometimes competing) theories and schools in today's economics.