Annotation. The article proposes the concept of the interconnection of a knowledge-based economy and a green economy. It deals with the basic aspects of the systemic concept of the formation of knowledge-based economy and the characteristics of the process of cognition and culture as a factor are presented. Issues about representing the systemic concept of getting scientific knowledge and the concept of cultural interaction are researched. It is mentioned that while considering the facts of culture in the process of building a knowledge-based economy special attention must be paid directly to the problem of deliberate perfection of business intelligence as anon-formal institution of business culture.

Keywords: knowledge-based economy, green economy, cognition process, culture, monitoring of business culture parameters, systemic change of education and science. 

Introduction

The formation of the knowledge-based economy and green economy are interrelated problems (see, for example: Green Economy Knowledge Products by UN Agencies and Partners, 2014). Thus, it is important to research of a knowledge-based economy and more widely - system research of culture as a factor in society. In the modern conditions of globalization, the formation of knowledge-based economics (knowledge economy) is of particular importance for each country. In the formation of knowledge economic, it is urgent to understand the new concept of conceptual aspects of knowledge and the aspects related to culture. First of all it is important to reveal the peculiarities of the cognitive process and the socio-economic factor of culture. We think that in the behavior of the people who are aware of the technology of cognition and culture there are the main challenges that will facilitate the real construction of the knowledge economy in the context of the formation of knowledge society.

According to the Postindustural Theory, the main resource of the post-denser economy is information and knowledge when the determinant is already directly the theoretical knowledge with the universities, as the places of active generating, getting together and mastering knowledge, (Hadad, 2017; Papava, 2018; Bedianashvili, 2018). It is noteworthy that the difference between the knowledge economy (KE), the concept of creative economy (CE) and innovative economy (IE) is substantial: KE> CE> IE (see, for example, Dubina, 2009; Bedianashvili, 2018), though we also find other opinions (see, for example: Understanding Knowledge Societies, 2005; Mindeli et al, 2007; Àsgeirsdòttir, 2006).

Literature review

Considering the getting knowledge as the phenomenon together with classical and modern charts (see for example Kuhn, 1962;Lakatos,1970; Understanding Knowledge Societies, 2005; Tocan, 2012;Sundać et al., 2011; Skrodzka, 2016; Lopez-Leyva et al., 2017) to our mind is deliberate to form the systemic concept of science and scientific research on the basis of interdisciplinary view. It is noteworthy that the direction of constructivism is quite widely present in various sciences - philosophy, sociology, psychology, and economics as well. (see.: Leiashvili, 2017; Gergen, 1994; Grazelfeld, 1995;Glasersfeld, 2000; Gergen, 2003; Kelley, 2000; Abdelal et al., 2009; Abdelal, 2009; Konings, 2015; Patnem, 1981; Popkov, 2017; Raskin, 2002; Varela et al., 1993; Maturana and others., 2001; Petrenko, 2002; Piaget, 2004; Ulanovskii, 2004; Ferster, 2000; Tsokolov, 2000). Special attention must be paid to the radical constructivism as the definite concept of building the communication, self-organization and world models. It is noteworthy that supporters of radical constructivism actively use the principles of psychology, anthropology, neurobiology, communication, theory of systems, cybernetics and economic cybernetics (herein means concepts such as system, management, feedback, information, “black box”, emergentity, homeostasis, difficulty size, sustainability, self-regulation, necessary variety, etc.- See Wiener, 1948; Wiener, 1961; Lange, 1968; Kobinskii et al, 1982). While considering the process of cognition, in radical constructors’ opinion it is impossible to get the knowledge from the outside, to reflect and reach the reality, that is provided with the informative locking of living organisms and with the fact that living organisms can not get out of the boarders of imaginary reality created by themselves.

The main postulat for radical constructivism is that knowledge is not the picture of objective reality (reflection) but a certain rule of agreement and organization of life in the process of life. Consequently, as the conventional, natural proof instead of "conformity with reality", in the framework of radical constructivism, the notion of "usefulness" and "vitality" of knowledge and theory towards the functioning of real cognitive systems (Glasersfeld, 2000) is proposed. It should also be noted that a number of key concepts in radical constructivism are completely or partially derived from the cybernetics or economical cybernetics, including the well-known concepts of circular causality, factority, information locking and self-reflection (Foerster, 2003), as well as the well-known concept of autopose which reflects the Ability of living systems to maintain the feature of wholeness (Maturana, et al., 1998; Maturana, 1996; Maturana and others., 2001).

In terms of economic cybernetics, the stages of its development may be discussed similar to classical (first), second and third row cybernetics (Foerster, 1995; Glanville, 2008, 2011). It may be noted that the changes of  theoretical and conceptual basis of economic cybernetics were made  on the basis development of concepts of cognition and scientific rationality. If classical science, classical scientific rationality (the attention is focused on the object of the study of the scheme "object-subject") corresponds to the first row of economic cybernetics, non-classical science relevant to the second row of Economic Cybernetics (when the attention is focused on the subject of the study), and the self post-non-classical science becomes the third row type Economic Cybernetics. At this stage a new object of study, such as "subject-self-evolving policy-subjective environment", focuses on an active policy-subjective  environment in which the subject is functioning and develops (see, for example, Lepskii, 2015). 

Data and methodology/Analyses

Based on the above, we can conclude that the basis of radical constructivism is that it gives the knowledge to the nature of the subjective construct, denying the possibilities of reflection or depiction of the objective world in the process of cognition. At the same time, it is clear that the process of constructing the world becomes unintentional and unconscious in humans, and this process has not yet become the object of social and cognitive attention. The reality without the subject is considered here only as the product of the belief about the outside world. But in fact, according to the concept of radical constructivists, the only reality is the individual consciousness of the single organism (Glasersfeld, 1995). In our opinion, this peculiarity of cognition can be effectively used in the process of study in constructive prism.

We find it interesting the conceptual opinion of U. Maturana and F. Varela about the fact that the similarity in the cognitive representation of the world is provided by the unity of the biological roots of humans, and everything that is different is caused by the culture (Maturana and others., 2001).

Indeed, in the process of getting scientific knowledge, culture has great significance, for example, during the process of receiving and using information in a particular situation. A. Negandhi and S. Prasad paid attention to the lower line of the economy – to the philosophy of  governing the enterprise, which will be revealed in the special attitude to working people, consumers, suppliers, shareholders, government and municipal authorities (Negandhi, et al, 1971; Baratashvili and others, 2016; Bedianashvili, 2018a, Bedianashvili, 2018b). In the model they proposed directly the governing philosophy as a factor, effects decisively on the direction of the firm. Empirical researches and practice demonstrated a major role in influencing of institutional and cultural factors in forming the leadership styles.

Based on the specifics of the socio-economic system of the country (Bedianashvili, 1995), the monitoring of business culture and values  indicators plays the important role in revealing as positive as negative peculiarities of these indicators and, in the case of necessity, regulating these peculiarities and correcting (transforming) them in the form that should be acceptable for the society with relevant institutional changes and systemic institutionalization. 

Conclusions

When considering the culture as the factor, special attention should be paid to the perfection of business culture (as informal institution). The researches prove that (Hofstede, 2004; Bedianashvili, 2014; Didero et al.,  2008; Beugelsdijk, 2007; Furman et al., 2002; Geertz, 1973; Herbig and Srholec, 1998; Inglehart and Welzel, 2005; Von Hippel, 2005; Acs, 2006; Barnett, 1953; Bedianashvili, 2018, Beugelsdijk et al., 2014; Brons, 2006; Dickson et al., 2003; Didero et al., 2008; Edler and Fagerberg, 2017; Differences in Innovation Culture Across Europe, 2008), the cultural factor has a crucial importance for the development of innovation business in the context of providing the requirements of formation knowledge economy and  building the society. All of these things undoubtedly mean systemic transformation of education and science, including orientation on the formation of specialists with knowledge and skills relevant to the rational use of resources. At the same time, systemic integration of concepts knowledge-based economies and green economy should be taken into consideration, with appropriate institutional provision (support). 

References

1. Green Economy Knowledge Products by UN Agencies and Partners (2014). UN.

2. Baratashvili, E., Zarandia, J., Maridashvili, M., Chechelashvili, M., Makharashvili, I., Gambashidze, T. (2016). Comparative management and clustering. Tbilisi. (In Georgian).

3. Bedianashvili, G. (2014). Culture as an institute in the socio-economic development of the country and in the context of international business. Journal "Economisti", Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Paata Gugushvili Institute of Economics, №6, Tbilisi.

4. Bedianashvili, G. (2017). Knowledge of the Economics of the Economy of the Entrepreneurial Politics: Institutional Opportunity. Journal: "Globalization and Business", No. 3, p.10-16.

5. Bedianashvili, G. (2018 a). Cross-cultural relations in international business. Tbilisi (In Georgian).

6. Bedianashvili, G. (2018 b). Systemic conception of knowledge-based economy formation and socio-cultural challenges. III International Scientific Conference „Challenges of Globalization in Economics and Business”. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Economics and Business. Tbilisi (In Georgian).

7. Winner, N. (1961). Cybernetics and Society, Tbilisi.

8. Leiashvili, P. (2017). Economic activity: system analysis. Tbilisi: "News".

9. Abdelal R., Blyth M., Parsons G. (2009). Constructivist Political Economy.

10. Abdelal, R. (2009). Constructivism as an Approach to International Political Economy. In Handbook of International Political Economy, pp. 57–71.

11. Acs, Z.J., (2006). How is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1(1), pp. 97-107.

12. Àsgeirsdòttir, B., (2006). OECD work on knowledge and the knowledge economy. In Brian, K., and Dominique, F. (Eds.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge Economy. Cambridge: The MIT press, pp.17-23.

13. Augier, M., and Teece, D.J. (2007). Perspectives on research and development. Organizing and Managing innovation in a knowledge-based economy. In Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Knowledge creation and management. New Challenges for managers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 198-212.

14. Barnett, H.G. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

15. Bedianashvili, G. (1995). State, Power Structure and Socio-Economic Reform of Society. Tbilisi, Mecniereba.

16. Bedianashvili, G. (2018). Knowledge Economy, Entrepreneurial Activity and Culture Factor in Modern Conditions of Globalization: Challenges for Georgia. Journal: Globalization and Business, no 5, pp.32-37.

17. Beugelsdijk, S. (2007). ‘Entrepreneurial culture, regional innovativeness and economic growth’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(1): pp.187-210.

18. Beugelsdijk, S., Slangen, A., Maseland, R., & Onrust, M. (2014). The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), pp.1638-1646.

19. Brons, L. (2006). Indirect measurement of regional culture in the Netherlands, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97(5): pp.547-566.

20. Constructivism in Theory Knowledge (2008). M., RAS Institute of Philosophy (In Russian).

21. Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), pp.729-768.

22. Didero, M., Gareis, K., Marques, P., & Ratzke, M. (2008). Differences in innovation culture across Europe. Transformative Use of ICT in EU Regions. Transform, Germany.

23. Didero, M., Gareis, K., Marques, P., Ratzke, M. et al. (2008). Differences in Innovation Culture across Europe, Discussion paper, TRANSFORM project report, URL: http://www.transformeu.org/publications/documents/Differences in Innovation Culture.pdf (retrieved 10. 7. 2008).

24. Differences in Innovation Culture Across Europe (2008).

25. Edler J.,Fagerberg, J. (2017).-Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Volume 33, Number 1, pp. pp.2–23.

26. Etzkowitz, H., (1993). Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report 6, 7-9.

27. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix---University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development. EASST Review 14, 14-19.

28. Foerster H. (2003). Understanding understanding: essays on cybernetics and cognition.

29. Foerster, H. (1995). The Cybernetics of Cybernetics (2nd edition).

30. Foray, D., (2006). The economics of knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

31. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, Basic Books.

32. Glanville, R. (2008).Second Order Cybernetics.Systems Science and Cybernetics.

33. Glanville, R. (2011). Introduction: A conference doing the cybernetics of cybernetics. Cybernetics, 4, (7/8): 952–963.

34. Glasersfeld, E., (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of knowing and learning.

35. Hadad, S., (2017). Knowledge Economy: Characteristics and Dimensions. Journal: Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy Vol.5, no.2, pp.203-225.

36. Hofstede, G et al. (2004) ‘Culture’s role in entrepreneurship: self-employment out of dissatisfaction’, in: Brown, T and Ulijn, J. (eds.) ‘Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Culture. The interaction between Technology, Progress and Economic Growth. Cheltenham, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 162-203.

37. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge, MA, et al.: Cambridge University Press.

38. Konings M. (2015).What is Constructivism For? - Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

39. Kuhn T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

40. Lakatos I. (1970).Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.

41. Lopez-Leyva, S., Mungaray-Moctezuma A-B., (2017). Knowledge-Based Economy as a Foundation for the Economic Development of Countries. Journal: Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy Vol.5 no.4, pp.481-501.

42. Negandhi A. R., Prasad S.B. (1971). Comparative Management. N. Y.

43. Papava, V. (2018). Catching Up and Catch-Up Effect: Economic Growth in Post-Communist Europe (Lessons from the European Union and the Eastern Partnership States). European Journal of Economic Studies, 2018, 7(2).

44. Petrenko V. (2010). The Paradigm of Constructivism in Humanitarian Sciences. Methodology and History of Psychology. 2010. V. 5. Issue 3, pp. 5-12.

45. Popkov V. (2016). Constructivism and Multiple Economic Theories. Questions of Social Theory. V.8, Issue 1-2 (In Russian).

46. Rooka, D., Salvatorip, A., Moylandb, J., Rosab, P., (2017). Innovation Patterns: Upgrading Sectorial Classification for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Kensho Technologies.

47. Skrodzka, I. (2016). Knowledge-based economy in the European Union – Crosscountry analysis. Statistics in Transition New Series, 17(2), pp.281-294.

48. Smagina M. (2007). Social Constructivistic Paradigm in Social Knowledge as Alternative of Traditional Methodology. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. V. X, № 2, pp. 73-84.

49. Sundać, D., Krmpotić, I.F. (2011). Knowledge economy factors and the development of knowledge-based economy. Croatia Economic Survey, 13(1), pp.105-141.

50. Tocan, M.C. (2012). Knowledge based economy assessment. Knowledge Management. Retrieved from http://www.scientificpapers.org/knowledgemanagement/knowledge-based-economy-assessment/.

51. Understanding Knowledge Societies (2005). United Nations. New York.

52. Von Hippel, E. (2005). ‘Democratizing innovation. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

53. White, D.S., Gunasekaran, A., and Ariguzo, G. (2012). The structural components of a knowledge-based economy. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 7(4), pp.504-518.

54. Wiener N., (1948). Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, MIT Press, Cambridge.

55. Бир С.. (1963). Кибернетика и управление производством.М., Наука.[Bir S. (1963). Cybernetics and production management. M., Nauka. (In Russiаn)].

56. Дубина И. (2009). К вопросу о соотношении понятий «креативная экономика», «инновационная экономика» и «экономика знаний»//Креативная экономика. Т. 3, № 6.[Dubina I. (2009). On the question of the relationship between the concepts of "creative economy", "innovative economy" and "knowledge economy" //Creativnaia Economica. V. 3, No. 6. (In Russiаn)]. 

57. Кобринский Н., Майминас Е., Смирнов А., (1982). Экономическая кибернетика. М., Экономика. [Kobrinskii N., Mayminas E., Smirnov A., (1982). EconomicCybernetics. M., Economica. (In Russiаn).].

58. Ланге О. (1968). Введение в экономическую кибернетику. М., Прогресс. [Lange O. (1968). Introduction to Economic Cybernetics. M., Progress. (In Russiаn)].
59. Лепский, В. (2015). Экономическая кибернетика саморазвивающихся сред (кибернетика третьего порядка). [Lepskii, V. (2015). Economic cybernetics of self-developing media (third order cybernetics). (In Russiаn)].
60. Матурана, У. (1996). Биология познания. Язык и интеллект. М., с. 95-142. [Maturana, W. (1996). Biology of knowledge. Language and intelligence. M., p. 95-142. (In Russian)].
61. Матурана, У., Варела, Ф. (2001). Древопознания. М. (In Russian) [Maturana, U., Varela, F. (2001). Tree of knowledge. M. (In Russian)].
62. Миндели Л.Э., Пипия Л.К. (2007). Концептуальные аспекты формирования экономики знаний. Проблемы. прогнозирования. N 3. – С.115-136 [Mindeli L.E., Pipia L.K. (2007). Conceptual aspects of the formation of the knowledge economy. Problemi Prognozirovania. N 3. - p. 115-136. (In Russian)].