English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The article discusses the development of views on households in neoclassical, Keynesian and institutional literature. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches. Neoclassicists do not distinguish between individuals and households. Keynesianism analyzed the investment and savings function of households, showed its role in the revenue and expenditure cycle. However, it did not rise to genuine political economy, since it failed to show the behavior of the main social groups and their inherent interests. Institutional economic theory takes a step forward by showing the dependence of households on the social environment. However, real households are limited in collecting and processing information. Moreover, given the differentiation of households, they possess these funds to varying degrees. The population explosion in developing countries has exacerbated the problem of poverty and has drawn attention to household economies, whose life expectancy has increased in Asia, Africa and Latin America as a result of a sharp reduction in mortality and an increase in life expectancy. A special section is devoted to the institutional change of households in post-Soviet Russia. It shows what succeeded and failed to achieve over the past thirty years

Households of Post-Soviet Russia (Institutional Analysis): 20 Years After