| Annotation |
Modern era is the era of human resources, intellectual capital as the main driving forces for the development
of society, the goal of which was to achieve a decent quality of life, which in modern conditions is becoming a priority
goal, the ideal of society development. The emergence of a new stage in the development of society (the era
of post-industrialism, the Third Wave, the information society) became a prerequisite for the emergence of a new
model of quality of life – “knowledge”, which determines the purpose of the study – to identify the subjects of the
“knowledge model of quality of life” in the concepts of representatives of post-industrialism, who put forward the
idea that a specifi c model of the quality of life, its formation and evolution are determined by the existing era. The
article analyzes the concepts of the creators of post-industrialism. We revealed that each stage of the development
of society has its own specifi c model of the quality of life. The bearer of the knowledge model of the quality
of life is a social cluster that carries out its activities in professional and everyday life on the basis of knowledge,
intellectual resources, inventions, new forms of organization, relationships with each other and the environment.
The concepts of the quality of life by the representatives of post-industrialism J. Galbraith, D. Bell, E. Toffl er and
M. Castells are the theoretical and methodological basis of the study. The authors used a comparative analysis
of subjects, functionality, the need for the concepts of quality of life by the representatives of post-industrialism,
which made it possible to identify different approaches to determining the subjects of the “knowledge model of
quality of life”. The research materials can be used in assessing the trends in the development of a knowledge
model of the quality of life, studying the prospects for the development of society and making forecasts for the
future development of mankind. |
| References |
1. Pigu, A. S. Welfare economics. M: Progress, 1985. (In Rus.)
2. Kukel’, E. P., Kos’mina, E. A. Historical and philosophical understanding of the economic theory of welfare.
Omsk Scientifi c Bulletin, no. 2, pp. 47–51, 2018. (In Rus.)
3. Sen, A. Development as freedom. M: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2004. (In Rus.)
4. Galbraith, J. The New Industrial State. M: AST, Tranzitkniga, Terra Fantastica, 2004. (In Rus.)
5. Vygolko, T. A. Analysis of economic power in the works of J. K. Galbraith. Vestnik of the Institute for Economic
Research, no. 4, pp. 81–88, 2016. (In Rus.)
6. Rostou, U. Politics and stages of growth. M: Progress, 1973. (In Rus.)
7. Dennis, A. V. Brown. The Use of Life Narrative and Living Standard Measurement Survey Data in the
Study of Poverty in the Caribbean: A Resolution of Confl icting Epistemologies. Sociology Mind, no. 3, July.
DOI: 10.4236/sm.2013.33030, 2013. (In Engl.)
8. Yakovleva, M. A. Digital economy as a stage of economic growth of society. International Conference
“Scientifi c research of the SCO countries: synergy and integration”. Beijing: Infi nity Pub.: 38–44. (In Engl.)
9. Polyakova, N. L. The XX century in sociological theories of society. M: Logos, 2004. (In Rus.)
10. Bell, D. The coming post-industrial society. Experience of social forecasting. M: Academia, 2004. (In
Rus.)
11. Bell, D. The Social Framework of the information Society. New York. Basic Books, 1980. (In Engl.)
12. Toffl er, E. The Third Wave. M: AST, 2002. (In Rus.)
13. Toffl er, E. Future Shock. M: AST, 2003. (In Rus.)
14. Toffl er, E., Toffl er, H. Revolutionary wealth. M: AST, 2008. (In Rus.)
15. Furs, E. I. Features of the concept of modernization in the works by E. Toffl er. Bulletin of Voronezh State
University, no. 3, pp. 239–244, 2008. (In Rus.)
16. Castells, M. The Information Age. Economy, society and culture. M: 2000. (In Rus.)
17. Castells, M. Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of
Communication, no. 1, pp. 238–266, 2007. (In Engl.)
18. Castells, M., Cardoso, G. The network society: From knowledge to policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins
Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006: 3–23. (In Engl.) |
