Properties of Cryptocurrency as Antifiduciary Money as a Tool for Measuring Public Confidence in Power
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-10-74-82
Abstract
The use of the cryptocurrency share indicator in the total money supply as a tool for measuring public confidence in authority, allowing you to conduct an objective analysis using economic, financial indicators in order to give them a sociological assessment and develop recommendations for creating confidence management technologies. Cryptocurrency properties as antifiduciary money are considered. It is proved why an increase in the share of cryptocurrency in the money supply can be considered as a sign of a decrease in public confidence in the state. The prospects of statistics that allow tracking the dynamics of the cryptocurrency share in the money supply are analyzed. The advantages of the proposed confidence measurement tool compared to sociological survey, sociological experiment and introduction of indirect institutional indicators are demonstrated. Properties of Cryptocurrency as Antifiduciary Money as a Tool for Measuring Public Confidence in Power
About the Authors
O. A. Antoncheva
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (North-West Institute of Management of RANEPA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga A. Antoncheva, Associate Professor the Chair of Social Technologies, PhD in Political Science
Saint-Petersburg
T. E. Apanasenko
Independent researcher
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana E. Apanasenko, PhD in Political Science
References
1. Aron R. Introduction to the philosophy of history: Essay on the boundaries of historical objectivity / Selected works. Introduction to the philosophy of history. SPb. : Universitetskaya kniga, 2000. (In rus)
2. Bauman Z. Philosophical affinities of postmodern sociology // Problems of sociology [Voprosy soziologii]. V. 1. N 2. 1992. P. 2–22. (In rus)
3. Vachtina М. А. Confidence in the State as a factor in improving its effectiveness // Scientific works of Donezk National Technical University. Ser.: Economics. 2011. N 1 (40). P. 41–47. (In rus)
4. Weber М. Science as a vocation and profession / Selected works. М. : Progress, 1990. P. 707–736. (In rus)
5. Durkheim E. Method of sociology / On the division of Social Labour. M. : Nauka, 1990. P. 391–532. (In rus)
6. Kachkachishvili I. The problem of objectivity in the social sciences / Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship Iniversity of Russia. Ser.: Sociology. 2009. N 1. P. 5–16. (In rus)
7. Krivopuskov V. V. Methodological foundations of sociological research of trust as a factor of consolidation of Russian society // Humanities, socio-economic and social sciences [Humanitarnye, socio-ekonomicheskie i obchestvennye nauki]. Series: Sociological sciences. 2013. N 1. P. 79–83. (In rus)
8. Lobanov N. N. Effectiveness of social programmes as a factor of public confidence in the authorities. Dissertation of candidate of sociological sciences. M., 2005. (In rus)
9. Merulova T. V. Experimental and sociological method of measuring trust // Scientific works of Donezk National Technical University. Ser.: Economics. 2014. N 1. P. 139–148. (In rus)
10. Sysoev S. A. Main approaches to social capital research // Scientific works of Donezk National Technical University. Ser.: Economics. 2006. Vol. 103–104. P. 14–19. (In rus)
11. Chernizina E. N. Political trust: how to mesure it? // Public administration [Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie]. Electronic bulletin. N 54. February 2016. P. 130–145. (In rus)
12. Fukuyama F. Social capital // Culture matters. How values contribute to social progress. M. : Moskovskaya shkola politicheskich issledovaniy, 2002. P. 129–149. (In rus)
13. Bauman Z. Is there a postmodern sociology? // The Postmodern Turn (New Perspectives on Social Theory). Ed. S. Seidman. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
14. Bauman Z. Postmodernity, or Living with Ambivalence // Contemporary Social Theory. Ed. A. Elliot. Blacwell Publishers, 1999.
15. Berg J., Dickhaut J., McCabe K. Trust, Reciprocity and Social History // Games and economic behavior. 1995. N 10. P. 122–142.
16. Blumer H. Symbolic Interactionism. Berkley : University of California Press, 1969.
17. Cox J. C. How to Identify Trust and Reciprocity // Games and Economic Behaviour. 2004. Vol. 46. P. 260–281.
18. Cox J. C., Sadiraj K., Sadiraj V. Implications of Trust, Fear and Reciprocity for Modeling Economic Behaviour // Experimental Economics. 2008. Vol. 11. P. 1–24.
19. Eagleton T. After Theory. N. Y. : Basic Books, 2003.
20. Fukuyama F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. N. Y. : Simon and Schuster, 1996.
21. Garfinkel H. Studies in Ethnomethodology. NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1967.
22. Glaeser E. L., Laibson D., Scheinkman J. A., Soutter C. L. Measuring trust // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2000. N 115 (3). P. 811–846.
23. Harvey D. Postmodernism // Contemporary Social Theory. Ed. A. Elliot. Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
24. Jonson N. D., Mislin A. A.Trust games: a Meta-analyses // Journal of Economic Psychology. 2011. N 32. P. 865–889.
25. Lyotard J.-F. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
26. Mouzelis N. The Poverty of Sociological Theory // Sociology. Vol. 27. N 4. November 1993.
27. Naef M., Shupp J. Mearning Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination / IZA Discussion Paper N 4087. March 2009.
28. Parsons T. Economy and Society. N. Y., 1956.
29. Parsons T. The Structure of Social Action. N. Y., 1968.
30. Robinson W. S. The logical Structure of Analytic Induction // American Sociological Review. 1951. N 6. Vol. 16. P. 812–818.
31. Rosaldo R. Subjectivity in social analysis // The Postmodern Turn (New Perspectives on Social Theory). Ed. S. Seidman. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
32. Weber M. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Edward Shits and Henry Finch (eds.). N. Y. : Free Press, 1949.
Review
For citations:
Antoncheva O.A., Apanasenko T.E. Properties of Cryptocurrency as Antifiduciary Money as a Tool for Measuring Public Confidence in Power. Administrative Consulting. 2020;(10):74-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-10-74-82
Views:
800
Email this article 