Dialectical Interrelation of Types of Monetary and Settlement System and Division of Labour

The relevance of the research the author connects to the necessity of selecting from the wide range of digital technologies the best instruments for economic development. The aims of the article are: to prove the interrelation between the settlement mechanisms and systems of the division of labour; the classification of monetary systems by the differences in the division of labour systems; the rationale the optimality of the public-state monetary and settlement system. The study was conducted using a dialectical method, positive and normative institutional and macroeconomic methods. The results of the study are possible to use unified methods of coordinating the sphere of basic industries and the sphere of innovative, creative work in a digital economy. The author proposes to coordinate the division of labour in the basic sectors and an inter-branch balance within the framework of an automated management system. To coordinate the types of innovative, creative work, a system of combining the spheres of social development through a “circular advance” is possible. These coordination instruments we can implement in the transition to the optimal monetary and settlement system. Monetary and settlement instruments for coordination of the sphere of real production can be used to achieve state regulation in the basic branches of the economy, and instruments for the formation of vertically integrated links, at least, in the sphere of innovative, creative work. The optimal monetary and settlement system proposes the existence of endogen money — the means of account. Such a system makes it possible to use the dynamic model of the inter-sectoral balance as an instrument of the digital economy in the sphere of basic production and instruments of endogenous, monetary-calculating ways of forming links in the vertical division of labour for the innovative, creative sphere. It promotes to innovative and creative work, overcoming market and planning constraints. Investigation of the possibilities of monetary and settlement instruments can generate discussion end can determine other areas of their use.

1. Fridman M. Capitalism and freedom. Transl. from Engl. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo; 2006. (In Russ.).

2. Auzan A. А. The economy of everything. How institutions define our life. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber; 2013. 160 p. (In Russ.).

3. Blaug M. Joan Robinson. 100 Great Economists after Keynes. Transl. from Engl. St. Petersburg: Ekonomikus; 2009. 384 p. (In Russ.).

4. Reshetova L. V. Transformation of systems of social division of labor in the network economy. Filosofiya ekonomiki. 2017;(4):124–135. (In Russ.).

5. Reshetova L. V. Socio-economic aspects of the formation of the model of real technological development of Russia. Natsional’nyye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’. 2017;3(348):491–503 (In Russ.).

6. Khazin M. L. The Breaking of the Bretton Woods system as a tool for globalisation. What’s next? The global economy in the XXI century: the dialectic of ideas and the realities of confrontation. Alpidovsky M. L., Gryaznova A. G., Karamova O. V., Sokolov D. P., eds. Moscow; 2017. 154 p. (In Russ.).

7. Kapkanshchikov S. G. Structural policy of the Russian state in the mechanism of overcoming the “Dutch disease”. Monograph. Ulyanovsk: UGU; 2015. 258 p. (In Russ.).

8. Nureyev R. M. Development theories: discussion of external factors of market economy formation (neoclassical models and their left-wing radical criticism). Voprosy ekonomiki. 2000;(7):141–151. (In Russ.).

9. Kregel J. A. Aspects of Keynesian Theory of Finance. Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics. 1998;21(1):111–133.

10. Glushkov V. M. Macroeconomic models and principles of OGAS construction. Moscow: Statistika; 1975. 159 p. (In Russ.).