The economic progress achieved by a significant group of developing countries, which has become evident in recent years, has not only changed their position in the modern world, but has also become a new factor in the development of the global economic system. This is confirmed by the changes that have taken place both in the economic and social sphere of these countries, and in their attitude to the world economy, as well as in their new role in world politics. However, this fact still cannot be attributed to the entire area of the developing world - the growing importance of developing countries should be assessed in terms of their differentiation. In this respect, a special position among them is occupied by the leading countries of the East-India, China, as well as the countries of South-East Asia - which to a greater extent demonstrate an increasing role at the present time. If in the middle of the XX century. the so-called third world, despite the differences between various states, was considered as a conglomerate of countries on the periphery of the world economy, more or less homogeneous in their backwardness and interests, then the next century drew a sharp distinction between them in terms of their level of development. In this sense, the new twenty-first century can be rightly called the "century of Asia" (although it was called so at the end of the last century). Thus, when we talk about new processes in the countries of the outgoing "third world", we mean first of all the leading countries of the East as evidence and embodiment of these processes.

Keywords: periphery and centers of the world economy, leading countries of the East, Westernization, globalization, modern economic science and development.

The existing grouping of developing countries developed on the basis of generalized indicators of their economic growth by the UN economic and statistical services is quite well known. If we talk about some general indicators, then at present there is a certain step structure, in which the leading, most developed countries of Asia, which are home to the majority of the population of the developing world, serve as its broad basis. As you know, by the beginning of the XXI century, approximately 60% of the world's population lived in Asia. At the same time, the absolute majority of the population of the Asian region lived in India, China and the countries of Southeast Asia. By comparison, Africa accounted for 12% of the world's population at that time, while Latin America accounted for 8.6%. If we look at the same recent totals, according to UNCTAD data, the population of India, China, and South-East Asian countries for 2010 is projected to be 56.4% of the population of all developing countries and almost 80% of the population of Asian countries.

No less important is the noticeable strengthening of their economic position. According to the same data, the share of GDP of this group of countries is 62.5% of the total GDP of the Asian region. However, there are obvious differences between them.

page 5
In the total gross domestic product of India, China and Southeast Asian countries, the share of China is 55.5%, India-23.7% and Southeast Asian countries - 20.8%. In addition, the pace of development of their economies over the past years has also been unprecedented. India's GDP increased 7.2 times in the period 1970-2008 alone, while that of Southeast Asian countries increased 8.6 times in the same period, and that of China increased 12 times. According to the latest data from the UN economic and statistical services, the average annual growth rate of the gross product of East Asian countries (excluding China) for the period 2000 - 2008 was 7.4%, while that of China was 10%. Over the same period, the average annual GDP growth rates in South Asia (excluding India) were 5.3% and India 7.2%, respectively. The strengthening of the economic position of the leading group of countries is also particularly clear in comparison with the growth rates of developed countries. Suffice it to say that if in 1970 The GDP of India, China, and Southeast Asian countries totaled 10% of the GDP of the European Union, but in 2008 it was already 40% [United Nations..., 2010, Table A3; UNCTAD 2009..., 2009, Table 8.1, 8.3, 8.4.1]. Further, the general structure of the developing world passes through the category of medium-developed (including oil-producing, export-oriented) countries to the group of least developed or poorest countries. In relation to all developing countries, the least developed countries now make up a small part of their total population, or just over 17%.

These data on the unprecedented growth rates of the leading Eastern countries do not mean that all or many of the problems of their economic and social development have been solved. Not to mention the group of the poorest countries, the leading countries themselves are far from solving one of the most acute problems of the population's life - the problem of poverty. A significant number of residents of the same countries of India, China, and South-East Asia continue to live below the poverty line. At the same time, there are still many social, religious, and ethnic contradictions that do not allow us to talk about overcoming all the barriers to their economic and social progress. Nevertheless, the way they have traveled undoubtedly allows them to rise to a new level of development and opens up new prospects for these countries. Economically and already technologically, they are part of the group of world states that have developed ICT, and in India and China, nuclear-industrial and space complexes have been created and successfully operate.

It is not surprising that along with this, a theoretical understanding of the ongoing processes is becoming more and more relevant, because along with the previous level of backwardness, many theories devoted to the problems of the "third world"countries have disappeared, or are becoming a thing of the past. Today, we can list almost ten names of various authors who have addressed this topic at different times. It is enough to mention the names of G. Myrdal, W. A. Lewis, and many others, whose works were at one time in the center of attention of researchers of the older generation. At the same time, these theories had one thing in common that makes them at least obsolete for use in research work today: such theories were created only for developing countries, in a certain sense, as a separate, independent object of research, which has its own exceptional features and hence its own separate development tasks.

In the modern period, any attempts at a theoretical understanding of the ongoing processes in the leading group of developing countries are no longer possible without including the problems of their own development in the general context of the modern evolution of the world economy. And this now applies not only to the leading countries of the East. This is evidenced, for example, by the formation of the G20 group of countries, which (along with the existing G8) is becoming a necessary institution for addressing the problems of global development. By its very birth, it clearly demonstrates the increasing role of these countries in the modern world and speaks about the ongoing changes in the world economy. Clearly this is where sni comes from-

page 6
The article aims to increase the relevance of theoretical works on developing countries, carried out in the system of previous ideas. Their new role in the world economy calls for considering any of the problems that arise in them within the framework of a general model of world development.

If we turn to a certain set of modern theories, or rather, to the search for theoretical schemes of modern development, we will find that developing countries at the present time, being actually part of the overall process of ongoing changes, are inseparable from such a search. They are somehow included in their general analysis through the theoretical models of information, post-industrial society, through the concepts of globalization, and finally, through the theory of the "clash of civilizations". Moreover, the leading group of developing countries acts in these processes, if not determining, then quite equal and necessary for them.

At the same time, whatever these constructs may be, they may not be about directly transferring the entire social and institutional organization of modern Western societies to the soil of developing countries, but rather about the possible adaptation of their existing conditions to the development of new world processes, which will affect the evolution of their social systems. At the same time, the ongoing changes are not limited to the impact of the centers of the world economy on developing countries alone. They have the possibility of social evolution based on their own system of values and the social institutions that have developed in them. In fact, it is still too early to talk about the correlation between these two processes. So far, we can note only some, albeit significant, lines of development and certain trends of changes in this area. First of all, it is becoming increasingly clear that developing countries themselves are now making a significant contribution to the very possibility of change. The same processes of globalization can serve as an example of such a line of interaction, which continues to deepen and expand before our eyes.

If we ignore for a while the theory of "clash of civilizations" in the consideration of modern theoretical schemes, then, for example, in the processes of globalization, it is not enough, in our opinion, to emphasize its very important side. In fact, the current level of globalization processes would not have been possible without the progress that the leading third world countries have made in recent decades, including mastering the full range of modern technologies, including information technologies. And here we are already dealing in one way or another with a well-known discussion, or thesis, about whether modernization is possible in developing countries without Westernization. Now we can only say that the overall process of globalization is largely due primarily to the technological and economic progress that the leading countries of the now outgoing "third world" have achieved in recent decades. Moreover, in our opinion, the very process of development of the "third world" countries has now become almost the main factor of globalization. It is clear that the inclusion of their new modernizing economies in the organization of modern production, in the growing process of its internationalization, in the functioning of global financial institutions, in the global information infrastructure, etc., was in fact a kind of driving force for the expansion of globalization processes, and one of its necessary conditions.

This largely explains the emergence of all the well-known problems about the "clash of civilizations", because globalization itself leads to the objective need for closer interaction and interdependence of various world cultural and historical societies than ever before. In fact, civilizational problems and the problems of globalization are connected by the very content of the problems that arise in this regard. In other words, if earlier certain changes were initiated and implemented mainly in the centers of the world's capital-

page 7
the same globalization processes are now unfolding on a different civilizational basis. At the same time, previously backward civilizational communities receive a largely modern industrial and technological basis for their development, and as a result, certain features of the civilizational organization of various societies acquire a new weight and a new sound when interacting with the world community. It seems to us that, since one of the important foundations of the modern process of globalization is the factor of modern progress of developing countries, a different, more active and positive role of these countries in the processes of globalization is still waiting to be studied.

However, the theoretical understanding of the ongoing processes meets certain difficulties. In fact, there are no theoretical solutions for the profound changes that are taking place in developed societies. For example, if we turn to the attempts of foreign literature to theoretically comprehend the processes currently taking place in the very centers of the world economy, we will first of all encounter theoretical uncertainty in this area, which is quite often noted in the literature. Today, theoretical thought here is still busy searching for a definition of a post-industrial, information society, not to mention discussions about the clash of civilizations, etc. And even in this case, it is not a question of revealing their essential characteristics, but mainly of listing various features that characterize new phenomena in their social life from one side or another. Nevertheless, the importance and necessity of such searches remains relevant. And since it is becoming increasingly clear that at least the leading countries of the "third world", and above all the leading countries of the East, are becoming an integral part of the emerging new world processes, in this case, the question of how far the new definitions of the changes that are taking place can be extended beyond the centers of the world economy and applied to First of all, it belongs to the group of leading countries.

The point is also that such incompleteness of new theories, if we compare them with the generally accepted theoretical provisions of the functioning of the capitalist system, does not answer the main question: is the ongoing transformation evidence of the onset of a qualitatively different stage in the evolution of society, as it was, for example, during the formation of capitalism, or are these new factors in the functioning of the not changing its essence? In this regard, attempts to reveal the essential characteristics of new global phenomena are still of theoretical interest.

However important these circumstances may be, they are only part of a larger picture of the current problems of world development and attempts to analyze them. It is possible that as a result of these searches, some new definition of the society that is being formed in the process of ongoing changes will arise that differs from the existing ones. What will be the place and role of the countries of the former "third world" in these changes, and their perception is likely to show not so distant future. In the historical perspective, it is a question of whether developing countries will remain only in the orbit of the centers of the world economy while maintaining the same foundations of their social organization, or they will also have to undergo a serious transformation of their economic life and socio-economic structure.

At the same time, the reason for the peculiar lag in theoretical work in this area lies not only in the novelty, although rather relative, of the problem itself. New processes and profound changes, which are not so much narrowly economic as social in nature, also affect the scope of their scientific research. We are talking about methodological problems, in this case already in the world of economics, which often become the subject of lively discussions. Generally

page 8
in the beginning of the search for its new foundations, it becomes necessary to include in the economic analysis new factors of development of economic systems that previously did not find their adequate reflection in economic research. In other words, we are talking about a very serious change in the previously existing traditional tools, which will have, and already has, very significant consequences for the entire field of scientific research in the study of ongoing economic processes. Now this leads to the question of changing the very content of economic analysis and the construction of economic theories. The scope of this paper does not allow us to address these issues in any detail. We can mention only a few of them, especially since the problems of a new, more integrated and multi-faceted analysis are also relevant for studying the processes currently taking place in developing countries.

Currently, in the literature devoted to these problems, there is a certain inventory of previously existing and now existing economic theories. The authors of such reviews conclude that none of them fully meets the changed conditions. This applies both to the study of individual societies and to the problems of global development. As a matter of fact, the insuperable incompleteness or incompleteness of definitions in the created theoretical constructions reflects in their own way the inability of previous theoretical schemes to cover and describe the whole sum of factors and the whole complex of conditions that determine the evolution of social systems today.

One of the reasons for this situation, although not the only one, is the disintegration of scientific social disciplines. Judging by some publications in the literature, their integration is based on a new system of basic assumptions and basic concepts (the so-called new paradigm) it is becoming an increasingly urgent problem that needs to be solved. Today, however, attempts to define a particular economic, or rather socio-economic, model that is unfolding at the empirical level in developing countries are faced with outdated, inadequate methodological foundations that exist in economics, and one can say in the social sciences as a whole. (As noted above, these problems have not yet been solved in relation to developed Western societies.) However, in this case it is not only a question of overcoming the certain narrowness and incompleteness of purely economic theories. The question is raised about a kind of return to political economy or to a more generalized political economy approach in the study of modern problems.

Some authors in Russia in this regard call for the creation of a "new political economy", which could include an integrated study of all the problems of modern development of social systems. In their opinion, neither economics in its current state nor individual scientific social disciplines are able to fulfill this task. However, there are some difficulties here. In our opinion, the direct and direct juxtaposition of modern economic theories and traditional political economy is fundamentally incorrect and it is unlikely that the problem will be solved in this way. It is obvious that both scientific schools were essentially reflections of certain historical conditions and corresponded both to the stage of development of the capitalist economy and capitalist society that existed at that time, and to their own stage of development of economic science itself, as well as of the social sciences as a whole.

Traditional, or classical, political economy was born and developed at a time when there was still the actual formation of capitalism as a system of economy and capitalist society as a system of new social relations. During this period, the very content of new phenomena, which consisted in changing the previous social system, required economic research to identify and determine the nature of economic phenomena.-

page 9
the nature of the ongoing changes, which were not only purely economic, but also of a social nature. At that time, it was not so much about the functioning of the economy, but at the same time about the laws of development of society itself.

The well-known marginalist revolution that followed and the development of the marginalist trend, with all its ramification and specialization, already solved the specific, specific tasks that the functioning of a mature capitalist economy posed to it. In fact, the development of other foreign economic schools followed the same path. Therefore, when contrasting classical political economy with later economic theories, it becomes obvious that both approaches have historically solved different problems. At the same time, it is impossible not to see the objective reasons for raising the question of a new political economy. At present, attempts to return to a more integrated political economic analysis are largely explained by the same circumstances that once caused the development of classical political economy. Social sciences still face problems in determining the nature of profound changes.

Thus, we can say that in the current economic conditions, there is a need to reintegrate various social disciplines that were objectively disintegrated earlier by the process of their specialization. However, this is a rather special topic, here we can only say that the need to change the traditional methodology of modern economic science remains important to this day, and this largely affects the possibility of an integrated analysis of modern processes. At the same time, the complexity of the situation lies in the fact that this integration cannot be mechanical, i.e., as a combination of the results of analysis of the approaches that exist in various scientific schools and scientific disciplines - it must really take place on the new foundations of economic science.

Today, more and more attention is being paid to the functioning of the entire humanitarian sphere and even to the broader, civilizational aspect of human relations in attempts at a more integrated economic analysis. In particular, such concepts as social capital and human capital are becoming increasingly important, and the assessment of the effectiveness of various public and state institutions is playing an increasingly important role. But even if we remain in the system of previous ideas, within which the main importance was attached to the development and functioning of the productive forces of society, then here we will find no less important changes. It is obvious that no matter how the approaches to the fundamentals of economic analysis change, this fact will remain important in the future.

In this respect, the modern period has seen a qualitative transformation in the functioning of the productive forces of society. In its most general form, it is associated with the penetration of human production activity into the microstructure of matter. In our opinion, this transition largely determines the essential characteristics of post-industrial society. Human penetration into the microstructure of matter began, as is known, much earlier, but the industrial and technical mastery of the structure of the microcosm falls in the second half of the XX century, and this process was once called the scientific and technological revolution (rather forgotten today). In fact, the age of the atom, the age of electronics, the age of polymers, and the age of bio-and nanotechnology are all evidence of such a transition. All its other characteristics are secondary in this respect, including the phenomenon of the information society. In terms of its impact on social evolution, it is probably comparable to the industrial revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

The main result of this transition was a gradual change in the structure of productive forces, and the changes that took place also affected information, giving it a new meaning. The general information flow actually turned out to be strictly structured, and from the point of view of the evolution of social production

page 10
the main place in this stream in our time is occupied by scientific information. Here, the fundamental nature of the ongoing changes is most obvious. Scientific research is already ahead of the production process and is becoming a prerequisite for it. Of course, this does not exhaust the entire role of information in the life of modern society, but here we see one of its most important manifestations.

And if we talk about a new political economy in this regard, despite the fact that it may still be quite premature and may be in the nature of general remarks, it should nevertheless be a political economy that takes into account the ongoing transition of social production to the atomic-molecular level of matter, penetration into the microstructure of matter. This largely changes the previous foundations of political economic processes, for example, the function of labor changes, the main significance of which is transferred to another sphere of human activity that is not directly related to the previous types of material production, while the sources of capital and profit formation change, information itself can become capital, etc. This very preliminary list, of course, does not contain the content of the new political economy itself, but only the desire to somehow pose and formulate the problem itself. Moreover, the ongoing changes, no matter how drastic they may seem, do not eliminate the need for the functioning of existing industrial structures. On the contrary, the ongoing transition is based on the previous basis of industrial production. It's just that it gradually takes on a new specific weight and takes on a new value. And a certain uncertainty in the theoretical understanding of new processes is largely determined by this circumstance. When the role of both the old and new development factors is not yet established, there is a certain confusion of both those and other laws that determine the functioning of each of them in the new conditions of social production.

Obviously, the development of new technologies will also take place in developing countries. There will also be changes in the structure of their productive forces. However, given the general uncertainty of new theoretical approaches to assessing such changes, we believe that the social significance of these processes for developing countries is still possible only within the framework of the discussion of whether modernization without Westernization is possible in these countries. However, here the problem of what to understand by Westernization takes on an independent meaning. The example of Japan already raises this question.

At the same time, the use of new theoretical models should not be considered as a crisis urgent task, and their absence as an obstacle for developing countries that have exhausted the existing opportunities for their development. In this case, we can only talk about a fairly broad historical process, during which only certain conditions for their further evolution are formed. We are talking about a certain crisis of theoretical understanding of new processes, and not a crisis of development. In addition, in the current situation, it is necessary to emphasize a very important circumstance, in our opinion. While critical of existing economic models and economic theories, it is necessary to avoid the obvious extremes of rejecting them. This is especially true in developing countries. In this regard, the problem itself should be placed in a certain coordinate system, especially since many aspects of their modern development, which give rise to certain problems, require quite traditional forms and methods of solving them.

The fact is that the desire to formulate new theories is a kind of higher integration level of theoretical understanding of the changes that are taking place and mainly concerns the search for patterns not so much of economic development, but, as noted above, of social development. For these theories, the main thing is their social content or socio-economic context, because they are, ultimately, about possible new patterns of social development. But for many developing countries, there is still a purely economic problem.-

page 11
their own problems, which have not yet been resolved. To a greater extent, this applies to those developing countries that are not included in the group of leading countries mentioned above.

Therefore, the very content of theoretical models applied to developing countries is objectively differentiated, just as developing countries themselves are differentiated. Hence, here, perhaps to a greater extent than in developed countries, the use of theoretical schemes of a sort of second level, i.e., now purely economic theories, which are now being criticized from the point of view of the tasks of the new theory, continues to retain its significance. However, their significance remains largely preserved for many developing countries to this day, since they were focused on meeting the current and medium-term problems of economic development of many countries, the main one of which continues to be the task of overcoming their economic backwardness, or today the economic lag behind the centers of the world capitalist economy. In this sense, the economic models that were previously used by the leading countries were associated, as is well known, with the problems of accumulation, restructuring the backward structure of the economy, as well as with solving the problems of industrialization. They can be attributed largely to recent economic history, although they continue to have a certain significance for the modern period, and their more detailed analysis remains relevant and of scientific interest. In other words, the recent experience of the currently leading third world countries in using models of the past period does not lose its practical relevance and may be of some significance for the group of countries that are not included in the group of leading countries and which still have to solve the problems that are mostly solved for the currently leading countries.

If we turn to this (conditionally) second level of theories used, then in this respect, as is well known, two models of economic construction of the leading Eastern countries have developed in the region: the first of them is a model that is focused on the development of domestic demand or the model of endogenous development, and the second model can be attributed to a model that is aimed at external sources, and export opportunities for economic growth. The representative of the first model, as you know, is India and the second-the countries of Southeast Asia and China. In this case, we take into account only the economic content of each of them and abstract from other factors, such as the nature of the existing social system in these countries, the political organization of society, etc., although these factors have their own significance in the implementation of economic development programs for each of the countries in the region. A detailed analysis of their role in the implementation of economic revival programs is a separate topic and is not the task of this paper.

However, even when referring to previous models, we can observe a certain tendency to rethink previously existing economic concepts. This can be seen in the materials of the international economic services of the United Nations, which in one way or another develop the main policy directions in relation to developing countries and, above all, to the group of least developed countries. At the same time, the very interpretation of past experience acquires a refraction that directly affects the nature of the functioning of capitalism itself as an economic system. A number of speeches now focus on a fundamental change in the role of the state in the modern market economy. In other words, the conceptual problems caused by the new challenges of the time are now being raised at the level of international institutions that implement policies in relation to developing countries.

Thus, the UNCTAD report on the least developed countries emphasizes that there is not only a need for deep institutional changes, but also a need to assert a different role of the State in economic development processes.-

page 12
economic development of these countries. "Initially, in the 1980s," the report notes, " institutional reforms were focused on minimizing the role of the State and freeing it from the functions of interference. But since the 1990s, we have begun to recognize to some extent the imperfection of the market mechanism, as well as the need to build states that are able to support markets with expertise." And one more remark in this regard seems quite important. "Governments, "says the same report," do not face a hard choice between good and evil, the "vice" of state dirigisme, and the "virtue" of markets, privatization, and deregulation. This is a distorted picture. The institutions of the "state" and the" market " have always organically coexisted with each other in any market economy; therefore, the "choice" between the market and the state is a false dichotomy. This has been recognized at least since the time of Adam Smith, although such notions have been obscured in subsequent interpretations." At the same time, there is no need to change or correct these views, but at the same time there is no refusal to govern based on democratic principles. The same report emphasizes: "One of the main types of institutions that reform programs are aimed at implementing to ensure good governance is electoral democracy" [State and Management of the development process..., 2009, p.9, 12]. It is easy to see that these recommendations largely echo the experience of economic construction in India, where the economic model of the so-called mixed economy and the role of state planning have largely justified themselves, mainly in the first decades of its economic development.

While there are different versions of the historical experience of backward countries that have tried to overcome their backwardness, the example of India is important in another respect. It makes it possible to solve economic and social problems in conditions when two poorly interconnected sectors - modern and traditional-exist and function in the country's economic and social life for a long time. The fact is that the emergence of dualism, or dual economy, is a phenomenon inherent not only in India. It is more or less typical for many developing countries, and overcoming such dualism is actually one of the important tasks of their economic development and social evolution in general. This dualism has not been completely overcome in India itself, all the more important is the past experience and the very path of its development in these conditions. We are talking about developing a kind of balanced development mechanism that does not lead to an increase in social tension in society and to the need to use tough measures in domestic policy, which become unavoidable to ensure accelerated implementation of reforms, mobilization of necessary savings, etc. All this made it possible to avoid numerous victims and deep social upheavals associated with the functioning of the so-called mobilization economy in the development process.

This turned out to be possible because economic growth in India did not occur at the expense of subordinating and using the resources of the numerous periphery of traditional forms of rural economy, which could only lead to their decomposition and death. On the contrary, the growth of modern forms of production went along with the development of the agricultural sector-let us recall the "green revolution", which, contrary to many negative propaganda assessments typical of our literature of that time, was in fact a factor that largely made it possible to mitigate the food situation in the country and develop the peasant economy, increasing its efficiency, productivity, etc.

It has long been generally accepted that industrialization in a country that seeks to overcome its industrial and economic backwardness is possible only at the expense of the countryside, in fact at the expense of the same exploitation of the peasantry.

page 13
In this respect, the significance of the example of India lies in the fact that industrialization in a backward country is possible without the huge costs and social upheavals that, for example, the USSR and later China experienced. Of course, the role of the state in the development of a backward economy cannot be denied. However, this role is not as unambiguous as it is often interpreted by the authors of economic concepts, who consider this role as a negation of market mechanisms of economic functioning. At the same time, even without denying these mechanisms, a policy aimed at their subordination only leads to their distortion and hence to the inevitable deformation of the entire development process. The example of India clearly shows that even with the role of the State, these dangers can be avoided. In addition, the Indian experience suggests that limited resources, especially in the initial period of development, is not a weighty argument and an inevitable consequence of resorting to strict non-refundable use of rural resources. This is mainly due not so much to economic reasons as to ideological ones, when attempts to accelerate social progress are subject to ideological dogmas.

And finally, in order to complete the topic of searching for new theories, it is impossible not to turn to Russian Oriental studies, which, along with the general issues noted above, also have their own independent problems. The main ones are related to the Marxist theoretical heritage. By analogy with the well-known work "Marxism and Questions of Linguistics", it is just right to write the work "Post-Marxism and Questions of Oriental Studies". The task, apparently, is beyond the power of any one author. If we talk only about a number of aspects of the problem, the urgency of revising previously existing ideas in this area is also caused by the fact that the current level of development of many third world countries was achieved despite the existing Marxist concepts addressed to former colonial countries and backward societies. Marxist models of Third World development have failed to predict or explain the current progress of developing countries in many areas of economic growth. Their ideas were based on the well-known principle of denying capitalism itself as a socio-economic formation that could only aggravate, and not solve, any problems of social development in these countries.

Modern processes in the evolving world economic system and in the centers of the world community bring new factors to the functioning of social systems, create new conditions for developing countries. Be that as it may, the profound changes in the global economy that have been going on for decades now also objectively represent a new stage in their development, or the possibility of such development for developing countries. In this regard, the current discussions about the possibility of capitalist transformation of these countries, which were closely related to the problems of the genesis and development of capitalism in the East - one of the eternal topics of Oriental studies, largely lose their relevance, and the question arises on the agenda what the current changes in the world bring or can bring to the countries of the East. And such changes that could be formulated in their socio-economic context.

Meanwhile, it seems that in order to reach the level of research required by the changes that have taken place, it is necessary first of all to rethink, and in some cases to abandon, the methodological and theoretical foundations for analyzing social processes in developing countries that have long determined the nature and content of many Oriental studies. There was a certain period of uncertainty in Russian Oriental studies in this most important area, which also reflected a certain difference of opinion: the desire of some to search for new explanations of the processes that were taking place, which required both a change in the previously existing ideology of Oriental studies and the desire of others to remain within the limits of the

page 14
the former "socialist orientation". It is obvious that the existence of such a period was to some extent inevitable, quite understandable, but it should not, in our opinion, stop the very movement towards finding other grounds for scientific analysis. In the meantime, it should be recognized that a certain permafrost has set in in Russian Oriental studies, which does not allow us to solve in open public discussion many issues of an essential re-evaluation of the dogmas of the doctrine that has proved its historical inconsistency. However, this is not a reason to abandon the search for new approaches. The work on re-evaluating the views that existed in Oriental studies on the development of social processes in the countries of the East should be continued, because without this, in our opinion, it is impossible to deal with modern problems in any serious way.

list of literature

State and management of the development process. Overview prepared by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, UN. 2009.

United Nations. Development Policy and Analysis Division. Developing Economies: Rates of Growth of Real. GDP, 2000 - 2010.

UNCTAD 2009. Handbook of Statistics. 2009.

page 15

Permanent link to this publication: