Sociocultural Context in Understanding Documents of Economic Policy: Comprehending the Soviet Complex Program of Science and Technology Progress

The article explores the methodological approaches to reconstructing the sociocultural context applicable in the study of economic policy documents and proposes an integrated framework that synthesizes several intellectual traditions. As an empirical case, the paper examines the historical and conceptual context in which the Soviet Complex Program for Scientific and Technological Progress (CPSTP) was formulated and adopted. The article demonstrates how this particular program can serve as a rich example for testing a methodology that connects discourse analysis, economic theory, and cultural inquiry. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to develop a methodology that would allow for a highly reliable characterization of economic policy documents in terms of the motives and reasons for their creation and their actual instrumental function; and second, to apply and test this model through a detailed analysis of the CPSTP. The research seeks to determine how theoretical and structural elements interact in the process of policy formation, allowing a deeper understanding of such documents not only as technical artifacts but as products of specific intellectual and cultural environments. The article’s objectives are twofold: first, to define the methodological foundations of several approaches used in the sociocultural analysis of historical documents and to conduct a comparative analysis of these approaches; and second, to apply the resulting integrated framework to the case of the CPSTP. The methodological framework of the article brings together three major streams of thought. The Cambridge school of intellectual history contributes an interpretive model grounded in the reconstruction of the author’s intentions and of historically situated “speech acts,” which reveal the meaning embedded in policy discourse. Neo-Gramscian theory introduces the dimension of social forces and hegemonic structures by focusing on the configuration of group interests and institutional power shaping the discourse. These two perspectives are integrated through Karl Polanyi’s economic anthropology, which provides a conceptual bridge by emphasizing the embeddedness of economic representations in social and cultural relations. The combination of these approaches makes it possible to situate economic ideas within dynamic sociocultural constellations rather than treating them as detached theoretical constructs. The study draws on both theoretical and empirical materials. It examines key texts representing the chosen methodologies alongside historical and historiographical sources that shed light on the CPSTP’s development and reception. Through this synthesis, the article argues that the Program reflected key intellectual trends of the postwar period, including the broader question of the optimal scope of economic planning and the dilemma of containing technological progress within or excluding it from economic policy. The results of the research include the formulation of a comprehensive approach that enables economic policy documents to be understood as integral parts of a society’s symbolic and institutional order. The analysis of the CPSTP within this framework leads to a re-evaluation of its historical significance: the main conclusion is that rather than a purely technocratic enterprise, it appears as an expression of the intellectual and ideological transformations that defined the global evolution of economic thought in the postwar era.

1. Akhabbar, A. (2021) ‘The Case against “Indirect” Statistical Inference’, History of Political Economy, 53(S1), pp. 259–292. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-9414874

2. Anchishkin, A. I. (1973) Prognozirovanie rosta sotsialisticheskoi ekonomiki [Forecast of the growth of the socialist economy]. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ. (In Russian).

3. Antuykhova, E. A. and Talagaeva, D. A. (2023) ‘Innovation Policy in OECD Activities: A Historical

4. Reconstruction on Neo-Gramscian Foundations’, Nauchnyi dialog, 12(10), pp. 265–287. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-10-265-287

5. Antyukhova, E. A. and Krynzhina, M. D. (2025) ‘Intelligentsia in a neo-Gramscian reading and global political economic practice’, Polis. Political Studies, (2), pp. 8–24. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.02.02

6. Bogomolov, E. V. (et al.) (2018) Upushchennyi shans ili poslednii klapan? (k 50-letiiu kosyginskikh reform 1965 g.) [A lost chance or the last valve? (For the 50th anniversary of the Kosygin reforms of 1965)] . Moscow: KnoRus Publ. (In Russian).

7. Brown, Phillip., Lauder, Hugh. and Cheung, S. Yi. (2020) The death of human capital? Its failed promise and how to renew it in an age of disruption. New York: Oxford University Press.

8. Castells, M. (2010) End of Millennium. Sussex: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323436

9. Damen, O. (1988) Gramsci: Between Marxism and Idealism. London: Prometheus Publications.

10. Faltsman, V. K. (2007) Uchenye v kontekste vremeni [Scientists in the context of time]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (In Russian).

11. Fedorenko, N. P. (1999) Vspominaia proshloe, zagliadyvaia v budushchee [Remebering the past, peering into the future]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

12. Geertz, C. (1964) ‘Ideology as a cultural system’, in Ideology and discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 47–76. (Russ. ed.: (2004) ‘Ideologiia kak kul’turnaia sistema’, in Interpretatsiia kul’tur. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., pp. 225–267).

13. Gramsci, A. (1929) Quaderni del carcere. Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore. (Russ. ed.: (1959) Izbrannye proizvedeniia: v 3 t. T. 3. Tiuremnye tetradi. Moscow: Izd-vo. inostr. lit. Publ.).

14. Hicks, S. R. C. (2004) Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, Ariz.: Scholargy Publishing. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Ob"iasniaia postmodernizm. Moscow: RIPOL klassik Publ.).

15. Jorgenson, D. W. and Griliches, Z. (1967) ‘The Explanation of Productivity Change’, The Review of Economic Studies, 34(3), pp. 249–283. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296675

16. Konnov, V. I. and Talagayeva, D. A. (2023) ‘The concept “innovations” as a political instrument: from the linear innovation model to the knowledge triangle’, Polis. Political Studies, (5), pp. 29–44. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.17976/jpps/2023.05.03

17. Mansfield, E. (1972) ‘Contribution of R&D to Economic Growth in the United States’, Science, 175(4021), pp. 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.175.4021.477

18. Morton, A. D. (2007) Unravelling Gramsci : hegemony and passive revolution in the global political economy. London: Pluto Press.

19. Polanyi, K. (2002) The great transformation. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publ. (In Russian).

20. Salamini, L. (2014) The Sociology of Political Praxis: An Introduction to Gramsci’s Theory. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794365

21. Sartori, A. (2013) ‘5. Global Intellectual History and the History of Political Economy’, in Global Intellectual

22. History. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 110–133. https://doi.org/10.7312/moyn16048-005

23. Scruton, R. (2015) Fools, frauds and firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left. London: Bloomsbury. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Duraki, moshenniki i podzhigateli: Mysliteli novykh levykh. Moscow: HSE Publ. https://doi.org/10.17323/978-57598-1788-8 ).

24. Silantieva, M. V. (2015) ‘Ethics Captivated by Abstractions or Paradox of Scientific Approach to Professional Ethics’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, (3), pp. 280–281. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/20718160-2015-3-42-280-281

25. Silantyeva, M. V. (2013) ‘A Human: Myths and Reality’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, (3), pp. 150–151. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2013-3-30-150-151

26. Skinner, Q. (1969) ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, 8(1), p. 3. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2504188 (Russ. ed.: (2018) ‘Znachenie i ponimanie v istorii idei’, in Kembridzhskaya shkola: teoriya i praktika intellektual′noj istorii. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, pp. 53–122.).

27. Sokal, A. (2000) The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

28. Stoleru, L. (1967) L’équilibre et la croissance économiques: principes de macroéconomie. Paris: Dunod. (Russ. ed.: (1974) Ravnovesie i ekonomicheskii rost. Moscow: Statistika Publ.).

29. Varshavsky, A. and Yarkin, A. (2018) ‘Leading Role of the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Organization, Management and Development of the Complex Programs of Scientific and Technological Progress, 1972—1988’, Economics and the mathematical methods, 54(3), pp. 68–89. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S042473880000660-5

30. Varshavsky, A. E. (2014) ‘Complex program of scientific and technological progress - the successful example of indicative planning implementation’, Analiz i modelirovaniye ekonomicheskikh i sotsial’nykh protsessov: Matematika. Komp’yuter. Obrazovaniye, 21(2), pp. 185–197. (In Russian).

31. Yaremenko, Yu. V. (1981) Strukturnye izmeneniia v sotsialisticheskoi ekonomike [Structural change in the socialist economy]. Moscow: Mysl Publ. (In Russian).

32. Yaremenko, Yu. V. (1999) Ekonomicheskiye besedy: Zapis’ S. A. Belanovskogo [Economic Conversations: Recording by S. A. Belanovsky]. Moscow: sentr issledovaniy i statistiki nauki Publ. (In Russian).

33. Zhornist, V. et al. (2022) ‘State Differentiation by Climate Ambition: Implications for World Politics’, International Organisations Research Journal, 17(1), pp. 163–182. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-08