How Russian Scholars Perceive and Employ the Veblenian Dichotomy

We survey Russian-language research papers which refer to Thorstein Veblen’s Evolutionary Theory (VET) and, more specifically, the so-called Veblenian dichotomy. This latter consists of analytical categories describing two types of behavioral patterns, namely «productive» and «unproductive» proclivities, and how they affect the direction of the given society’s cultural and economic evolution. Our focus is on how Russian scholars perceived the Veblenian dichotomy and employed this theoretical concept in empirical studies. We build a sample of 48 research papers from the Russian eLIBRARY.RU database, Google Scholar and Google Books. Our claim is that some misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Veblen’s theoretical concept may have distorted its original meaning and thrust. Such perceptions may have, in turn, created a bias in the interpretation of empirical results, when references to Veblen underpin statements which Veblen would not have made. For instance, institutions are positioned as opposed to technology, fully in line with the thinking of Clarence Ayres. National traditions and values are regarded an impediment to progress and innovation. Some authors view «modernization» of the economy and values as a need, regardless of socio-economic effects, whereas they condemn institutional inertia. Russian academic discourse ignores the category of instinct which was essential for Veblen. A biased application of theoretical ideas to empirical material may have contributed to the initial misunderstanding. A value or a social practice which Veblenian ethics view through a negative prism are now treated as instrumental, and vice versa. Misinterpretations of Veblen may have arisen from inaccurate reading and citing of the original or from reliance on writings by other authors. Another source of bias consists in the ideology-driven negative assessment of traditional economic culture, which have prevailed in the Russian expert discourse over the past decades.