Institutional transformation of society in the light of the sociosynergetic paradigm

Gromakova Viktoriya Georgievna PhD in Biology Gromakova Victoriya Georgievna - Candidate of Biological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Regional Sociology and Modeling of Social Processes, Southern Federal University 346770, Russia, Rostov region, Kagalnik village, Rossiyskaya str., 27 victoriagromakova@yandex.ru

IntroductionRussian society, from the late eighties of the last century to the present, is considered by sociologists as transforming ^[1-7].

In addition, the processes of social change are gradually embracing other parts of the world community, including those that seemed stable until recently. In this regard, the steady interest of researchers in the problems of social transformations is not surprising ^[8-10]. 

However, despite a significant number of publications devoted to the issues of social transformation, a consensus definition of the corresponding concept has not yet been formed in the scientific discourse, in connection with which we present the definition proposed by V.V. Lokosov ^[11], which quite fully reflects the most common points of view in the scientific literature ^{[2, 3, 4, 7, 12]} and which we will adhere to within the framework of this article. So, social transformation is "a process of significant change in society as a whole or its system–forming elements, which is characterized by a multi-vector nature, a relatively high rate of implementation of changes and an increased influence of subjective factors" ^[11]. As follows from the above definition, the distinctive features of social transformation are: complexity - changes are felt in all spheres of social life; the qualitative nature of the changes that are taking place affecting key value orientations and forms of social relations ^{[5, 7]}, as well as dependence not only and not so much on the influences from power structures, but on the behavior of social agents ^{[2, 11]}. The latter feature causes the weak controllability of this process ^[1] and the lack of guarantees regarding the positive direction of changes ^[11].Actually, poor controllability and low predictability are the most problematic aspects of transformational processes, both in the field of practical activity and scientific theory.

In this regard, studies of factors, driving forces and mechanisms of social transformation are becoming highly relevant. Consequently, sociosynergetics – the science of self–organization of social systems ^[13] - is of interest as a methodological basis for their study ^{[8, 9]}. 

At the same time, when starting to study the transformation process, it is impossible to ignore the work of academician T.I. Zaslavskaya, in which she identifies three main vectors of social transformation, which simultaneously act as driving forces and results. We are talking about human potential, the socio-group structure and the effectiveness of social institutions ^[2]. Considering the fact that social institutions are complexes of norms and rules regulating the behavior of social agents ^{[14, 15]} and through it influencing the socio-role and socio-group structure of society, we have every reason to consider the dynamics of institutions as the central link of social transformation ^[16], which determines the interest specifically in this subject area. The actual institutional transformation in the framework of this article is considered as a qualitative change in the norms and rules governing the social relations of people in various spheres of life.

Taking into account all the above, the purpose of the study, the results of which are presented below, was to analyze institutional transformation from the point of view of the sociosynergetic concept.Methodological foundations of the study

In accordance with the stated purpose, the methodological basis of the study was the concepts of neo-institutionalism and sociosynergetics, the main provisions of which, which are important for the problem considered in this article, are given below.

To begin with, let's turn to the neoinstitutional theory.

The key concept is a social institution, the definition of which is given above. Therefore, in order not to repeat ourselves, we will immediately turn to the issues of institutional dynamics.

Basic social institutions in the history of societies arose spontaneously in the process of social interaction as complexes of informal norms and generally accepted patterns of behavior, and subsequently were fixed in the form of codes and laws. Currently, the development of social institutions is influenced by both spontaneous social practices and purposeful control actions by formal authorities. However, the meaning of the existence of a social institution at any stage of its formation and development is to reduce transaction costs ^[14].

Transaction costs are understood as the costs of time and financial resources, as well as spiritual and physical forces that are borne by participants in social interactions in an effort to protect their own interests and reduce risks. These costs may be associated with the search and analysis of information about the participants in the interaction, their motives and intentions; with the identification of alternative solutions and the choice of one of them, as well as with measures to prevent opportunistic behavior of partners. The degree of cost minimization is an indicator of the effectiveness of a social institution and a factor of its stability ^[15].

Inefficient social institutions are undergoing transformation, which implies significant changes in formal and informal norms. However, while the former can be changed quickly and radically by the adoption of new laws, the latter, related to the mental programs of subjects of social relations, change slowly, which often slows down or distorts the application of formal rules in practice. The inertia of the informal institutional matrix also leads to the fact that, according to D. North, institutional changes are predominantly continuous rather than discrete in nature ^[15], which determines such properties of social institutions as cumulativeness and evolutionarity.

Cumulativeness means the gradual accumulation of small changes affecting secondary rules and preparing the ground for larger transformations. Thus, new norms are initially added to older ones, expanding the space for choosing an acceptable form of action, and only in the future are they able to completely displace them.

The evolutionary properties of social institutions imply the dependence of current changes on the trajectory of previous development and the historically established institutional matrix ^{[15, 17]}.

At first glance, D. North's conclusions are contradicted by the statements of some Russian researchers who define social transformation as "a radical and relatively rapid change in the social nature or societal type of society" ^[3] or as radical changes in social institutions accompanied by a breakdown of their structure ^[4]. However, the speed and depth of changes does not imply the complete isolation of new institutions from the rules and models of behavior that operated in previous periods of society's life. And the continuous nature of the process does not mean that its speed is constant. Consequently, we may not be talking about contradictions, but about the presence of white spots in the theory, which necessitate its addition with provisions that can shed light on the patterns of institutional dynamics. To achieve this goal, we turn to the sociosynergetic methodological base.

Before proceeding to the analysis of the actual problems of institutional change in the light of the sociosynergetic paradigm, we will briefly review the main provisions of this theory. Sociosynergetics is a theory of social self–organization based on the application of the principles of synergetics to the description and study of the mechanisms of society's development - an interdisciplinary direction in science that explains the formation of ordered structures in open, thermodynamically nonequilibrium systems ^{[13, 18]}. 

From the point of view of sociosynergetics, society is an open non–equilibrium system capable of self-organization. As with other systems of this type, society is characterized by energy dissipation and nonlinear dynamics. It should be noted here that systemic ideas about society have a solid theoretical and methodological basis dating back to T. Parsons ^[19], and are reflected in modern research ^{[7, 8, 10]}, and the phenomena of nonlinearity of social development have repeatedly attracted the attention of scientists ^{[8, 9]}.

Since the origins of synergetics in general and sociosynergetics in particular lie in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, the important concepts of the corresponding discourse are energy and entropy, and therefore it seems appropriate to define these terms in relation to social systems and processes in the meaning in which they will be used in the text of this article.

Energy is a quantity that is a measure of any form of motion of matter, including its transformations. Accordingly, energy is also considered as the ability of the system to perform work, which is why in physics energy and work have the same unit of measurement - joule ^[20]. However, it is extremely inconvenient and impractical to operate in the research of social systems with this concept in the same instrumental definition in which it is used by physicists, and with the same unit of measurement. Therefore, within the framework of this article, two variables are considered as the equivalent of energy in social systems: financial resources (and all material objects that can be converted into them), as well as resources of physical and mental activity of subjects of social relations that form the material basis of their social behavior.

Entropy is a measure of irreversible dissipation – dissipation (useless waste) of energy, as well as a measure of chaos, a measure of uncertainty of the state or behavior of the system ^[21]. Entropy reduction in the system is possible only at the expense of energy costs and the discharge of excess entropy into the environment. An analogue of entropy in social systems is the degree of anomie or disorganization. It is also important that energy is also spent on maintaining order, that is, a low level of entropy, in a self–organizing system, which is due to the process of constant self–generation - autopoiesis - in such systems ^{[22, 23,]}. Illustrations of the validity of this thesis in relation to social systems can serve as the work of law enforcement agencies to restore and maintain order, the efforts of families and educational organizations in the process of socialization of younger generations, and much more. 

Changes in energy costs and the level of entropy characterize the dynamics of self-organizing systems, in which two phases alternate: evolutionary and crisis (revolutionary) development. The evolutionary stage is characterized by a high degree of orderliness of internal processes, stability provided by the predominance of negative feedbacks suppressing unacceptable deviations, and a slow accumulation of quantitative changes, the excess of which ultimately leads to tension and then disruption of the mechanisms of maintaining order in the system (its homeostasis). Such a stable state of the system, when maintaining order is ensured by a constant influx of energy from the outside, is often called equilibrium, although it is more correct to use the term "stationary", because thermodynamically equilibrium systems are characterized by a maximum of entropy and are not capable of self-organization, i.e. they can be ordered only under the influence of external influences, in other words, forcibly.

With the accumulation of contradictions between the structural organization and the conditions of existence of the system, regulatory mechanisms are experiencing increasing tension. More and more energy is spent on eliminating excessive diversity, i.e. elements whose behavior deviates from the norm. Often at this stage, the system becomes hyper-stable, blocking any changes and, accordingly, losing the ability to adapt and develop.

At the moment when the previous principles of regulation in the system become unable to maintain order, a crisis occurs, which is characterized by the destruction of the macrostructure, a jump in entropy and a sharp increase in diversity at the micro level. Moreover, the beginning of a crisis is usually a certain insignificant event, similar to many others that took place earlier, but did not lead to such large-scale consequences. I.e., the dynamics of the system during this period of time corresponds to the concept of a catastrophe ^[24], which means that it is impossible to return the system to its previous state by efforts commensurate with the ones it was from it derived, but only significantly larger.

Then the system switches to the mode of searching for a new order that would allow overcoming the contradictions that led to the crisis ^[8]. Thus, the beginning of any social transformation, which implies profound changes in the institutional structure, is a systemic crisis ^[25].

It is believed that a crisis system always has several alternative options for reaching the next stage of sustainable development, which is why its state is also called a point or, taking into account the time extent, a bifurcation field ^[26]. In addition, due to the dysfunctionality of the macrostructure, the choice of the further path is determined by fluctuations, i.e. random deviations in the behavior of individual elements at the micro level. The ambiguity of the way out of the crisis is determined by the low reliability of forecasts, and the high susceptibility to the influence of random factors causes weak controllability of transforming systems.

Despite the fact that the choice of the direction of exit from the crisis is poorly predictable, when it is made, the processes of formation of a new macrostructure are rapidly increasing in the system on the principle of positive feedback and the degree of uncertainty drops sharply. The scope of acceptable alternatives to behavior is narrowing, and the system is moving towards a state of stability. To denote such a transitional state in sociology, there is the term "social transit". During this period, the attractor is determined – the future state of the system until the next crisis, into which it will certainly come if it overcomes the difficulties of transit. However, until the ordering process is completed, there remains the risk of re-rolling into the bifurcation field, since, as noted earlier, ordering requires increased energy costs. Moreover, the probability of such returns slowing down the way out of the crisis depends on the degree of congruence of the reforms carried out to the structure of the social relations that have developed in society. Thus, researchers associate the prolonged period of transit in Russian society with a negative reaction to the reforms of the 1990s ^[27]. However, it is worth noting that such a reaction was primarily due to an attempt to impose norms that are completely alien to the Russian institutional matrix.

Thus, the neo-institutional theory provides a clear explanation of the reasons for the existence of social institutions, defines the criteria for their effectiveness and postulates their ability to change according to the development of society. At the same time, the continuous nature and continuity of institutional transformations are substantiated. However, the issues of the dynamics of the development of social institutions, changes in the pace and depth of changes are not covered. At the same time, many works note the nonlinear nature of social transformations, which makes it expedient to turn to the sociosynergetic model to describe and explain the mechanism of institutional transformation. Let's try to do this in relation to the transformation processes in Russian society.

Institutional transformation as a stage of development of a self-organizing social systemSince, as noted above, the transformational process begins with a crisis that was prepared by the previous period of development, it makes sense to start considering it from the evolutionary stage of changes, when social institutions represent a stable system of norms, rules and behaviors.

Their stability is ensured by the wide spread of institutional norms in society and the presence of enforcement mechanisms for their implementation. In recent Russian history, the corresponding signs were fully observed in the pre-perestroika Soviet society, of which the Russian was a part, and therefore the late Soviet period should be considered as an evolutionary stage in the development of the Russian social system, immediately preceding the current transformational transition.

It is important to note here that the current rules are not always the most effective in terms of minimizing transaction costs. However, they can persist for long periods of time, since they are well mastered by the population, and accordingly, their reproduction in social practices requires much less effort than mastering new behaviors and compensating for the inevitable mistakes that accompany them, as well as the risks associated with them. In other words, following generally accepted norms satisfies the principle of minimum energy dissipation, according to which, "if not a single state of the system (process) is permissible, but a whole set of states, then its state is realized, which corresponds to the minimum energy dissipation, or, what is the same, the minimum entropy growth" ^[28].

Habitual actions within the framework of institutional rules are understandable to other participants in social relations and are likely to cause a predictable reaction. At the same time, innovative behavior often either simply does not find support, or faces negative social sanctions (the system suppresses excessive diversity). However, in rare cases, innovation is taken as a model and gradually spreads, expanding the boundaries of the norm. Thus, the relative openness of social institutions allows us to maintain a certain reserve of diversity, which increases the adaptive potential, which is especially important when endo- and exogenous factors that cause social tension arise.The tension of the institutional system can be caused by the accumulating contradictions between the current norms and the changing qualities of society: demographic structure, the level of scientific and technological progress, the level of self-awareness of social actors, as well as environmental challenges (natural, socio-political, socio-economic).

Institutional tension is manifested by an increase in the frequency of fluctuations defined by society as deviant behavior, as well as an increase in transaction costs of participants in social relations. In the USSR, the factors that increase tension were:

- commodity shortage and falling oil prices – a reduction in the inflow of financial resources, which, as discussed earlier, act as the equivalent of energy in social systems;

- dishonesty of representatives of the party nomenclature and heads of enterprises, dissident movements – factors of intra-system (sociogenic) entropy;

- the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is a source of external (man–made) entropy.

When deviating from the stationary state, the Soviet system, like any other, sought to restore stability by mobilizing internal resources, negative sanctions and expanding the powers of regulatory authorities. Control over labor and party discipline was tightened, and there were repressions against dissidents.

However, excessive control actions aimed at preserving order lead the system into a state of hyper-stability, anticipating a crisis, which usually turns out to be the more unexpected and destructive the longer the order is maintained by punitive measures. And the Soviet system in the seventies and early eighties developed exactly according to this scenario. The stagnation of the planned economy, censorship, the inadmissibility of criticism of the ruling party and the political regime, the inertia of the political and economic elite together hindered progressive development and reduced the adaptive potential of the system.

However, premature and ill-considered reform of institutional norms is fraught with no less, and perhaps even more deplorable consequences, since, due to the previously mentioned evolutionism of institutions and their dependence on the previous trajectory of development, not every formal rule is able to take root in social practices in the originally intended form. Norms that contradict the institutional matrix imprinted in mental programs, incongruent to the informal structure of social institutions, are either rejected or distorted, which, along with the artificial destruction of the old normative system, inevitably plunges society into a state of deep anomie ^[29]. Thus, an ill-considered attempt to reform the Soviet socio-political system, undertaken by Mikhail Gorbachev, launched processes that led not to "socialism with a human face", but to a surge of nationalism in the Union republics, the collapse of the country, the complete failure of legal social institutions and the spontaneous spread of criminal norms and practices of "wild capitalism". ^[30-32]

The beginning of the crisis stage, regardless of what causes it is caused, is always catastrophic in the sense that it is unexpected for the vast majority of social actors, begins with a slight fluctuation, but leads to large-scale consequences that do not allow the system to return to its previous state. Even if the old order returns externally, the system is already different internally, because it has a different experience. An event that serves as a trigger for triggering an avalanche of irreversible consequences is, in some cases, quite easily determined. For example, in the case of the Ukrainian crisis of 2013-2014, the formal reason for the surge in protest actions was the refusal of the country's leadership to sign an association agreement with the European Union ^[33]. However, it is quite difficult to single out the turning point that became the first step towards the transformation of the Soviet social system, which led to its collapse and continued already in the post-Soviet space, including in Russian society. Most likely, such a point of no return was the implementation in practice of the glasnost policy, which overnight lifted the prohibitions on criticism of the party and the Soviet political system and caused the collapse of ideology ^[30]. As a result, the ruling regime was simultaneously guilty of both the political repressions of the past and the socio-economic problems of the present. The nationalist and anti-communist agenda was also actualized, which resulted in the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the "parade of sovereignty" in the USSR and the Belovezhskaya Agreements ^[30]. Moreover, almost the entire Soviet society, including most of the party nomenclature, observed the collapse of the system with amazing passivity. Despite the fact that, as the referendum in March 1991 showed, the majority of citizens of the USSR wanted to preserve a single state, the activity of regional elites aimed at its elimination practically met with no resistance. The consequences of the hyperstability that preceded the crisis affected. Having no experience of political initiative, accustomed to rely on the state in everything and follow instructions from above, the society observed the collapse of the societal system, being in a stupor, and was inactive. ^{[30, 31]}

The collapse of the state was accompanied by a crisis of literally all social institutions. The most painfully destructive consequences of inept political reforms have hit the economy, but anomie has also swept over other spheres of life, including education, medical, and family.

The failure of institutional norms, when formal rules do not work (the collapse of the legal system), and diversity is avalanching in the informal structure, forces social actors to independently look for ways to minimize transaction costs, which are also growing exponentially. The orientation towards cynically individualistic, material values is rapidly spreading in society. Such trends were observed in the 90s in the post-Soviet space, and according to V.V. Kokorin, the predominance of materialistic values is an attribute of any crises and shocks ^[5]. This state is accompanied by colossal energy dissipation, it is wasted on attempts to invent or master new forms of interaction and adaptation in conditions of complete uncertainty. And the most striking manifestation of the growth of dissipativity at each new turn of the transformational crisis is a drop in the level and, as a consequence, in life expectancy. Thus, in the acute phase of the transformation crisis in Russia in the 90s, there was a sharp decline in purchasing power and population ^[34,35]. In 1994, the lowest average life expectancy in Russia since the 1950s was recorded ^[36]. The collapse of the normative structure is also a decline in institutional and interpersonal trust, which causes an increase in aggressiveness and criminality, which are reflected in statistical reports and works on relevant issues ^[37].

At the same time, it should be noted that the meaning of energy dissipation in the social system is the loss of control over resources and the development of financial resources. Therefore, the decline in living standards is never uniform throughout society. Along with the impoverishment of some, there is an enrichment of others who manage to appropriate those funds that have escaped from institutional control. The resulting manifestation of these processes is the strengthening of social inequality. Thus, in Russian society, the growth of indicators of social stratification began simultaneously with the entry into the active phase of social transformation, back in the late eighties, then with the collapse of the Soviet system, their sharp jump was observed, and then, before the financial crisis in 2008, there were fluctuations in the upward trend, and only later there was a tendency to decline ^[38].

In addition, anomie, although defined, in particular, as social chaos, does not mean the complete atomization of society. In the depths of institutional chaos, pockets of ordering at the micro level are naturally formed, some of which have a chance to spread over time to the entire system and become the basis of a new order. But it is a mistake to think that at this moment something completely different from the previous forms of social order can arise in the system, that any form of organization can be imposed on a crisis society. Do not forget that the actual social norms are constructed by the participants of social relations in accordance with their mental programs, including axiological, cognitive and conative components ^[39]. Moreover, as noted earlier, the subjects of social relations act in accordance with the principle of minimum energy dissipation, i.e. they choose the option of self-organization that has a minimum of uncertainty, is for them the most familiar and understandable of all imaginable. Thus, the foundations of the new societal order are present in the fluctuations of the previous structure. In this part, the conceptual sociosynergetic model developed within the framework of this article well explains the phenomenon of regular returns of the societal system to the forms of organization rejected in the initial phase of the crisis, which eventually turn out to be only slightly modified by many researchers of Russian history ^[40]. Moreover, we note that, as practice shows, positive fluctuations are not always widespread and, accordingly, changes in the institutional system are not always directed towards greater efficiency.  On the contrary, quite often society falls into institutional traps ^[41] when, in conditions of disorganization, social actors try to somehow reduce personal risks. That is, often the crisis leads to the consolidation of previously rejected and clearly dysfunctional forms of social relations. One of the most deplorable examples is the corruption trap, in which, judging by the data of numerous publications, the Russian society is firmly stuck ^{[31, 42, 43]}.

It is also a matter of concern that in the course of a protracted transformation, a new type of personality appears, which is called homo zwischens – a man who hesitates, standing "in the lumen of being" ^{[44, 45]}. The Tsvishens are accustomed to making decisions in an atmosphere of uncertainty ^[46] and, on the one hand, I would like to hope that they are able to bring into Russian society elements of the institutional Y-matrix, entrepreneurship, desire for progress, useful in an ever-changing world ^[47]. However, on the other hand, such people, who are also defined as jokers or "partisans on the territory of their own country" ^[48], who have lost moral guidelines, are easily manipulated, prone to aggressive actions, are much more likely to contribute to the strengthening of informal corruption components in social institutions than to the introduction of practices based on the values of personal freedom and responsibility. This assumption is confirmed in the results of public opinion polls. Thus, more recently, researchers have noted the predominance of pragmatic and utilitarian orientations in the value-normative system of Russians, which were clearly more important than the ideas of civic solidarity ^{[49, 50]}. Although it should be noted that in the context of the aggravation of the foreign policy situation in February-March, public opinion studies show an increase in the level of trust in the president and the government, an increase in the level of civic consciousness and the willingness of a significant part of the population to give up part of the material benefits for the sake of national security and protection of Donbass. Assessing the observed trends from the standpoint of sociosynergetics, we can talk about the implementation of a mechanism for stabilizing the system by channeling excess entropy outside. Thus, the decisions taken by the country's leadership contribute not only to achieving the stated goals, but also to greater streamlining of the domestic social system. The only, but important disadvantage of this stabilization mechanism is that it is effective only in the short term. And in the future, the order will have to be maintained by other mechanisms based on the efficient distribution of energy (primarily financial) flows in the system. Nevertheless, the current situation provides the Russian social system with a real chance to finally get out of the protracted transformation process, which would be extremely desirable.

The fact is that the prolonged transformation, accompanied by serial disruptions of transit and returns to the bifurcation field, threatens complete degradation of the societal system. From the point of view of sociosynergetics, this is explained by the fact that at the point of bifurcation, the largest energy dissipation occurs, its useless leakage. Moreover, the internal energy resources of the system are not unlimited. Accordingly, a scenario may be quite likely in which at some point the resource will be exhausted so much that it will not be enough for the next stage of transit, which implies a decrease in entropy, and, therefore, energy costs.

On the contrary, long periods of socio-political stability contribute to reducing the negative consequences of social transformation. In particular, the effectiveness of the fight against corruption in the post-Soviet space, according to the observations of A.P. Strakhov ^[51], positively correlates with political stability.

Thus, the long-term presence of society in a state of anomie, as well as too frequent transformations, pose a real threat to the integrity of the societal system. Crises in the development of self-organizing systems are inevitable. But the chances of overcoming the crisis stage with further access to a more progressive level are increased due to periods of stability, which make it possible to prepare for the upcoming transformation, which implies both the accumulation of resources and changes in the consciousness of social actors. In other words, the transformational potential must mature in the depths of the previous order.

Regarding the possibility of developing effective anti-crisis measures from the point of view of sociosynergetic theory, it is worth saying the following. Despite the objectively low predictability of changes in the transforming society, in the direction of improving the efficiency of its management, it seems promising to study the specifics of periodically reproduced forms of self-organization and political power in a particular society, which would allow us to understand which models are congruent for this societal system. 

ConclusionChanges in social institutions are continuous due to the fact that norms, rules and models of social behavior exist only in the process of their constant reproduction by subjects of social relations, who not only reproduce internalized patterns, but also supplement them with new interpretations.

Despite the fact that many alternatives are rejected by the system, some still become part of it. Thus, institutional changes are cumulative and evolutionary in nature. The pace and depth of institutional changes are uneven. The process of their development is nonlinear – cyclical, consisting in the fact that there is an alternation of stages of slow and rapid development, rejection of previous models of social relations at the time of crisis and their somewhat transformed reproduction during subsequent stabilization. Transformational crises arise due to many external and internal reasons, but they usually turn out to be unexpected. They are poorly predicted, and crisis systems are characterized by low manageability. At the same time, transformations always represent shocks that are hard experienced by the subjects of social relations and threaten the integrity of the societal system, which determines the significance of theoretical developments that can improve understanding of the mechanisms of development of transformational processes and at least partially improve the quality of forecasts and the effectiveness of crisis management systems. The sociosynergetic model allows us to see the situation of the crisis and subsequent transformation from the point of view of non-equilibrium dynamics, to trace the causes of energy dissipation in social systems and the relationship between the course of the crisis and the preceding period of stability, to justify the risks of both an excessively conservative regulatory system and premature and unjustified reforms, to determine the range of possible scenarios for overcoming the crisis and, accordingly, to sum up the basis for choosing the most favorable of them in the course of making managerial decisions.