, associate professor, professor, Kharkiv, Svobody Sq. 4,
, associate professor, Kharkiv, Frunze, 21

In heading

Economic theory;

Signed print


Issues number

2018 - № 4 (35)



Type of articles

Scientific article

Code UDK


ISSN print



Problem setting. At the turn of the XXI century, economic science had to deal with new challenges and address new issues. The problem of developing practical recommendations for all actors in the economic system (from individual entrepreneurs to governments) came to the fore. It turned out that the neoclassical mainstream economics based on the modernist (positivist) economic methodology was unable to solve that problem. An alternative economic methodology adequate to the new tasks of economic science was needed.
Recent research and publications analysis. The rhetoric of economics is one of the modern directions in economic methodology, whose philosophical bases are related to the most radical post-modernist schools. The founders of the rhetorical economics are D. McCloskey, A. Klamer, T. Leonard. In the path-breaking works of these authors, economics was defined as rhetoric whose primary tasks are to persuade the target audience and to prove the correctness of certain theoretical views rather than to establish the truth.
Paper objective. The main objectives of the paper are to provide a comprehensive description and explanation of the rhetorical approach to economics, to justify the relevance and benefits of this approach for the development of economic science in general and for the analysis of results of international comparative studies in particular.
Paper main body. In the paper, the major deficiencies and limitations of the modernist (positivist) methodology of neoclassical (mainstream) economics are exposed.
Based on that, it is justified that contemporary economic science needs more adequate methodological framework as a basis for its further development. Economic rhetoric, one of the modern directions in economic methodology, is defined as a promising methodological perspective meeting the new challenges in economic science.
The application of the rhetorical approach to the analysis of results of cross-country comparative studies is discussed and the relevance of using this methodological approach for that purpose is shown.
Conclusions of the research. Economic rhetoric can be regarded as the most adequate and fruitful methodological approach among the modern directions of economic methodology.
The use of the rhetorical approach allows scholars:
– to justify the choice of the directions for strengthening the international competitiveness of a country under the conditions of globalization;
– to decide on the forms and instruments of international marketing and soft power best suited to the chosen directions.
Short Abstract for an article
Abstract. The paper discusses and clarifies the essence of the rhetorical approach to economics (economic rhetoric). The current trends in comparative studies of socio-economic development in different countries are described and some of those trends are analyzed using the rhetorical methodology. It is concluded that the economic rhetoric represents the most adequate and fruitful methodological framework for conducting cross-country comparative studies and interpreting their results.


economic methodology, method of economic science, economic rhetoric, economics as rhetoric, cross-country comparative.


External reviewer

Article in PDF

№ 4 11-31


1. Colander, D. (2007). Ekonomicheskaya nauka novogo tysyacheletiya: kak ona nashla svoy put i kakov on? [New millennium economics: How did it get this way, and what way is it?]. Istoki: iz opyta izucheniya ekonomiki kak struktury i protsessa – Origins: from the experience of studying economics as a structure and process (pp. 381–398). Moskva: Izdat. dom GU VShE [in Russian].
2. Ananin, O. I. (Ed.). (2008). Ekonomika kak iskusstvo: metodologicheskie voprosy primeneniya ekonomicheskoj teorii v prikladnyh socialno-ekonomicheskih issledovaniyah [Economics as an art: methodological issues of the application of economic theory in applied socio-economic research]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
3. Griliches, Z. (2004). Proizvoditelnost, nauchno-tekhnicheskiy progress i ogranichennost dannykh [Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint]. Istoki: ekonomika v kontekste istorii i kultury – Origins: Economics in the context of history and culture (pp. 122– 165). Moskva: Izdat. dom GU VShE [in Russian].
4. McCloskey, D. N. (2015). Ritorika ekonomicheskoy nauki [The Rhetoric of Economics]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [in Russian].
5. Nashchekina, O. N., & Timoshenkov, I. V. (2011). Metodologiya nauchnyh issledovanij: ucheb. posobie [Research Methodology: study guide]. Kharkov: NTU «HPI» [in Russian].
6. Otmakhov, P. A. (2000). «Ritoricheskaya» koncepciya metoda v ekonomicheskoj teorii [«Rhetorical» concept of the method in economic theory]. Istoki – Origins, 138–176 [in Russian].
7. Friedman, M. (1994). Metodologiya pozitivnoy ekonomicheskoy nauki [The methodology of positive economics]. THESIS, 4, 20–52 [in Russian].
8. Raskov, D. (2016). Tehnologicheskie i institucionalnye idei – eto to, chto delaet nash mir sovremennym. Intervyu s Deirdre McCloskey [Technological and institutional ideas are what make our world modern. Interview with Deidra McCloskey]. Ekonomicheskaya politika – Economic policy, 11(3), 224–244 [in Russian].
9. McCloskey, D. N. (1983). The Rhetoric of Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21(2), 481–517.
10. Volkov, A. A. (2018, December). Teoriya ritoricheskoj argumentacii. Ritorika Antichnosti i Srednikh vekov [Theory of rhetorical argumentation. The rhetoric of antiquity and the Middle Ages]. Retrieved from [in Russian].
11. Aristotle (2000). Ritorika. Poetika [Rhetoric. Poetics]. Moskva: Labirint [in Russian].
12. Tokarev, S. S. (2018, December). Spravochnik ekonomista-aferista [Handbook of economist scammer]. Korporativnyy menedzhment – Corporate management. Retrieved from [in Russian].
13. Clapham, Ch., & Nicholson, J. (2014). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Timoshenkov, I. V., & Nashchekina, O. N. (2012). Rejtingi universitetov i problema informacionnoj asimmetrii v usloviyah globalizacii [University rankings and the problem of information asymmetry in the context of globalization]. Yevropeiskyi vektor ekonomichnoho rozvytku – European vector of economic development, 2, 329–334 [in Russian].
15. ARWU: Academic Ranking of World Universities 2018 (2018, December). Retrieved from
16. THE: The Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2018, December). Retrieved from!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
17. QS World University Rankings (2018, December). Retrieved from
18. Timoshenkov, I. V. (2013). Instytutsiini osnovy rozvytku systemy osvity: monohrafiia [Institutional framework for the development of the education system]. Kharkiv: NUA [in Ukrainian].
19. The World Bank Data (2018, December). GDP. Retrieved from
20. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2018, December). Human Development Reports. Retrieved from
21. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (2018). World Happiness Report 2018. Columbia University: Center for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
22. The World Bank Data (2018, December). GINI Index. Retrieved from

Code DOI