Culture of dignity as a psychological architecture of integration of national economies

122 DOI: 10.15587/978-617-8360-18-4.CH4 Tatiana Korobkina, Natalia Dashenkova, Olha Myttseva, Hanna Horiachkovska, Olena Bakalenko, Viktoriia Omelchenko © The Author(s) of chapter, 2025. This is an Open Access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY license CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS APSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OFINTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES ABSTRACT The article examines the concept ofa culture ofdignity asa new psychological architecture for the integration ofnational economies inthe global world. Unlike traditional approaches that focus oninstitutional mechanisms oreconomic indicators, the proposed methodology integrates three dimensions: behavioral economics, philosophy, and psychology. The authors show that modern integration processes cannot beexplained solely through agreements, markets, ortransaction costs, astheir viability isdetermined bythe level oftrust, empathy, moral legitimacy, and cultural memory ofsocieties. The central thesis isthat dignity ceases tobe anethical “decor” ofeconomic processes and becomes their foundation, since itis precisely itthat allows toneutralize cognitive biases, overcome the consequences ofcollective trauma, and ensure the sustainability ofcooperation. Aninterdisciplinary design was used: content analysis ofphilosophical and economic sources, comparative analysis ofintegration practices (EU, Brexit, Good Friday Agreement, Erasmus), aswell asinterpretation ofneuroscience and behavioral economics data confirming the role ofempathy, affects and oxytocin inthe formation oftrust. Itis shown that the digitalization ofmanagement and the growth ofthe role ofalgorithms create new risks ofthe “illusion oftechnological neutrality”, which can level the human dimension ofintegration. The culture ofdignity isproposed asa compass that can ensure abalance between innovation and ethics, technocratic efficiency and humanity. Special attention ispaid tohistorical and cultural factors that influence the formation oftrust between nations. The authors analyze examples ofboth successful and problematic integration, showing that the absence ofa culture ofdignity leads toconflicts, distrust and the collapse ofalliances. Thus, the article offers avision ofintegration processes not asa technocratic construct, but asa “living organism” inwhich morality and psychology play akey role. This allows for abroader interpretation ofeconomic phenomena through the prism ofhumanistic methodology. The paper also outlines practical implications for politics and business. The authors emphasize that aculture ofdignity should beintegrated into education, public administration, and corporate management systems asa fundamental principle oflong-term development. Global challenges— the climate crisis, wars, inequality— require precisely such acultural foundation inwhich coexistence, mutual respect, and empathy become resources noless important than financial investments ortechnological innovations. The article also touches onthe issue ofidentity and the psychology ofcommunities: itshows how asense ofdignity shapes not only political loyalty, but also the economic behavior ofcitizens. 4 CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 123 Here, dignity isnot anabstract ideal, but adaily practice, manifested inchoosing cooperation over competition, inthe willingness totake responsibility, inthe search for acommon meaning. This approach opens upa new horizon for research— from business ethics togeopolitics— and demonstrates the universality ofthe category of“dignity” asan analytical tool. Inthis context, the proposed study goes beyond academic analysis and acts asa project ofcivilizational development. Itcalls for arethinking ofintegration processes inthe light ofhumanistic values, where economic unions become aspace for coexistence, and not just atool for survival. The work has both academic and civilizational significance. Itdemonstrates that global integration inthe 21st century ispossible only when the person with its dignity isat the center. Thus, the study contributes tothe development ofpublic administration ethics, philosophy ofdignity and humanistic management, offering anew theoretical and methodological basis for the analysis ofintegration processes. KEYWORDS Culture ofdignity, integration ofeconomies, behavioral economics, management psychology, cognitive biases, trust, neuroscience, public administration ethics, digital algorithms, humanistic management, globalization. The integration ofnational economies ina globalized environment has long ceased tobe exclusively amatter offinancial flows and trade agreements. Modern economic science isincreasingly aware that integration processes have amultidimensional nature, inwhich, along with market mechanisms, cognitive biases, affective reactions and ethical guidelines ofpublic administration are decisive [1, 2]. Recognition ofthis complexity forces economists, social psychologists and political philosophers tosearch for anintegrative methodology that can explain why formally rational institutions often turn out tobe fragile without aculture oftrust and dignity [3, 4]. Intraditional economic approaches, integration appears asa function ofrational choice and optimization ofbenefits. However, modern behavioral economics demonstrates that economic agents are not “rational maximizers”, but act within the cognitive distortions formed bycultural narratives and historical memory [5, 6]. These biases, such asthe status quo effect oringroup favoritism, create barriers toeconomic integration even insituations where formal models predict its feasibility [7]. Thus, the integration ofnational economies cannot bereduced tothe arithmetic ofbenefits— itis aphenomenon ofpsychological architecture, where economic rationality coexists with affective and cultural parameters. Itis here that the concept ofa “culture ofdignity” appears asan analytical category. M. Nussbaum considers dignity asa universal basis for creating “capabilities” that allow societies not only tosurvive, but also todevelop inthe direction ofjustice and equality [6]. P. Ricoeur, analyzing the phenomenon of“self asOther”, shows that trust and recognition are necessary prerequisites for interaction that goes beyond instrumental relations [4]. 124 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson argue that economic institutions function effectively only when they are embedded ina social context where dignity and inclusiveness define the rules ofthe game [1]. Therefore, the integration ofnational economies without aculture ofdignity risks turning into atechnocratic process without social legitimacy. Animportant aspect isthe role oftrust associal capital. F. Fukuyama convincingly proved inthe mid1990s that ahigh level ofpublic trust isa determining factor ineconomic development and the stability ofinstitutions [3]. Later, R. Putnam showed using the example ofItaly that “social capital”— that is, horizontal networks oftrust— directly correlates with the quality ofgovernance and economic progress [9]. These studies have acquired anew meaning inthe era ofglobalization, astrust becomes anintercultural category that determines not only the internal cohesion ofsocieties, but also their ability tointegrate with other economies. Atthe same time, cognitive biases remain anunderstudied factor inthe macroeconomic analysis ofintegration processes. D. Kahneman showed that human thinking processes are structurally prone toheuristics and errors that form systematic deviations from rationality [2]. G. Akerlof and R. Shiller, inturn, proved that macroeconomic cycles are often explained not only by“real” economic factors, but also by“animal spirits”— collective emotions and narratives [7]. This opens upthe possibility ofexplaining why formally attractive integration agreements often fail. They ignore the psychological mechanisms oftrust, identity and dignity. The modern theory ofmultilevel integration, which isdeveloped within the framework ofsocial economics and institutional theory, shows that economic agreements should beconsidered through the prism not only oftransaction costs, but also ofcognitive costs and the “value oftrust” [3, 9]. These costs are noless real than financial, asthey determine the legitimacy and viability ofintegration structures. Inthis sense, the psychological architecture ofintegration becomes akey concept that combines behavioral economics, the philosophy ofdignity, and the ethics ofpublic administration. Itis not possible toignore the perspective ofintegral thinking ofK. Wilber, which issupported bya number ofmodern researchers inthe context ofglobal challenges [28]. Integration here appears asa synthesis ofdifferent levels— economic, cultural, psychological, ethical. Without taking into account this synthesis, attempts tobuild unified economic spaces resemble architectural structures without afoundation; they may look strong, but remain vulnerable tothe first serious crisis. Thus, the introduction toour study outlines the central hypothesis. The integration ofnational economies inthe 21st century ispossible only ifit isdesigned asa culture ofdignity that integrates cognitive, behavioral and ethical dimensions into aholistic psychological architecture. Without this, economic models risk remaining abstract schemes, disconnected from human reality. Inthe global economic system, integration increasingly shows signs of“uneven interdependence”, when economies are formally connected into asingle network, but their internal psychological readiness for interaction differs significantly [14]. This gives rise tonew types ofasymmetries that are not always explained bytraditional macroeconomic models. Incountries with alow level ofinstitutional trust, formal agreements often donot turn into real mechanisms ofcooperation, since participants perceive partners through the prism ofhistorical images and stereotypes [11]. Thus, the cost oftransaction costs insuch economies increases not only due toinstitutional gaps, but also due tocultural and psychological biases. CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 125 This requires anew economic methodology that combines institutional analysis and the psychology oftrust, considering them asinterdependent determinants ofintegration processes [8]. Inthis context, itis worth paying attention tothe concept of“economy ofemotions”, which describes how collective affects influence political and economic decision-making [15]. When narratives offear orhumiliation become dominant insociety, they shape the behavior ofcitizens and politicians asstrongly asindicators ofmacroeconomic stability. Integration agreements insuch conditions require not only financial incentives, but also cultural programs aimed atovercoming these negative affects. Without this, economic integration risks remaining an“empty form” that does not transform real relations. The issue oflegitimation ofintegration projects becomes particularly important. Iflegitimacy isconsidered only asa legal instrument, itis possible torisk underestimating its psychological dimension. Research inthe field ofpolitical psychology shows that trust ininstitutions isformed atthe intersection oftwo planes— cognitive (rational assessment ofefficiency) and affective (emotional sense ofjustice) [16]. Successful integration models, asthe EU analysis shows, are based precisely onthe combination ofboth dimensions, namely— citizens perceive institutions aseffective and atthe same time fair. When one ofthese components ismissing, a“trust deficit” arises, which undermines the stability ofeven formally successful economic unions. Anadditional complication isthe phenomenon ofpost-truth, which creates new conditions for the formation ofcollective perceptions [17]. Inan environment ofinformation manipulation, integration processes become especially vulnerable, because rational arguments are often replaced byemotionally colored fake narratives. This imposes new requirements onthe ethics ofpublic administration. Managers must not only develop economic strategies, but also actively work with the psychological resources oftrust. Insuch acontext, the culture ofdignity becomes not only anethical category, but also atool for countering information distortions. Itprovides the basis for critical thinking and collective resilience inthe face ofinformation attacks. Animportant innovation isthe emergence ofconcepts of“behavioral public administration”, which integrate the achievements ofcognitive science into the analysis ofmanagement decisions [18]. This approach shows that even inthe field ofpublic administration, biases and emotions determine the effectiveness ofpolicies asstrongly asformal institutions. For integration processes, this means that managers must take into account not only macroeconomic models, but also the psychological constraints oncitizens’ perception ofpolicies. Here, aculture ofdignity acts asa normative framework that allows the design ofpolicies that are not only effective but also legitimate from the perspective ofcitizens. Finally, integration asa “psychological architecture” implies anew vision ofrationality. Itis not about abandoning rational economic models, but about enriching them bytaking into account multidimensional factors, from affects toethics [19]. A. Sen convincingly showed that development and well-being should beassessed not only inthe categories ofincome orproductivity, but also inthe categories ofopportunities and freedoms. This approach isespecially important for integration processes. Economic unions become sustainable only when they expand the space ofopportunities for citizens, rather than narrowing it. Inthis sense, the culture ofdignity acts asa methodological compass that determines the direction ofintegration not only 126 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES towards economic growth, but also towards social justice and coexistence. The work uses aninterdisciplinary approach that combines content analysis ofphilosophical and economic sources, comparative analysis ofintegration practices, and interpretation ofneuroscience and behavioral economics data toidentify psychological mechanisms oftrust and dignity. 4.1 CULTURE OFDIGNITY ASA METHODOLOGY OFINTEGRATION The idea ofintegrating national economies has traditionally been viewed through the prism ofinstitutional mechanisms, regulatory regimes, and standard economic policy instruments. However, inthe 21stcentury, itis increasingly evident that formal constructs donot guarantee either the stability orfairness ofintegration processes. They are able tounite markets, but not consciousness; toagree onrules, but not torecreate trust. Therefore, the methodological dimension ofintegration requires rethinking— atransition from technocratic logic tothe logic ofa culture ofdignity, which sets anew epistemology ofcoexistence. Dignity here appears not asan “ethical decoration” ofeconomic integration, but asits architectonics— the foundation that provides stability where institutions are fragile and markets are volatile [6, 18, 20]. The culture ofdignity asa methodology ofintegration proceeds from the postulate that economic interaction isnever reduced tothe exchange ofgoods and services. Itis always aform ofsocial coexistence, which isdetermined bythe quality ofinterpersonal relations. That iswhy cognitive biases, behavioral patterns and affective attitudes become determining factors ofintegration dynamics. Ifpolitics ignores these factors, itproduces conflict; ifit includes them inthe field ofdignity, ittransforms potential barriers into pillars ofdialogue. Inthis sense, the culture ofdignity functions asan anti-cognitive architecture. Itdoes not eliminate the limitations ofhuman thinking, but teaches tointegrate them into the space ofcoexistence [2, 21]. The European Union has become asymbol ofthe fact that integration can bebased not only oneconomic agreements, but also onthe idea ofdignity asa common foundation. Its project began with pragmatic cooperation incoal and steel, but gradually turned into acommunity where the principles ofequality, human rights and mutual recognition have become asimportant asfinancial incentives [22]. When European integration faced crises, from debt tomigration, itwas the appeal todignity, not just contracts, that allowed for minimal consensus and avoided disintegration [23]. The African Union and Mercosur demonstrate another dimension ofintegration quests: the attempt tobuild a“long horizon oftrust” inan environment where historical trauma and economic asymmetry make stability difficult. InAfrica, integration initiatives have repeatedly encountered alack ofinstitutional trust and post-colonial legacies, but the very existence ofthe African Union asa platform for solidarity testifies tothe search for anew culture ofdignity asthe basis for political and economic unity [24]. InLatin America, Mercosur isexperiencing undulating stages ofdevelopment, from ambitious integration tocrises oflegitimacy. However, even intimes ofdispute, member states have sought tomaintain minimal channels ofcooperation, appealing toa shared cultural heritage and the symbolic idea of“Latin American unity”. Both examples demonstrate that without long-term investment ina culture ofdignity, any economic agreements remain fragile constructs, sensitive topolitical cycles. CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 127 The additional value ofa culture ofdignity lies inthe fact that itis formed not asan external coercion, but asan internal logic ofthe development ofinstitutions and practices. Itoffers analternative toboth classical utilitarianism (the person asa “rational agent”) and the reductions ofneoliberalism (the person asa “consumer”). Dignity overcomes these reductions. Ittakes the individual beyond the roles ofagent orclient and reminds that integration isprimarily about coexistence ina space ofmutual recognition and responsibility [25, 26] (Table 4.1). Table 4.1 Intellectual portraits-episodes: ideas that shape the methodology ofa culture ofdignity inintegration Author /intellectual portrait Key concept / approach Key principles Importance for integration M. Nussbaum [6] Capabilities approach Development does not begin with GDP, but with the real possibilities ofa person tolive with dignity. Emotions— compassion, shame, indignation— are important factors insocial dynamics Integration should bebuilt not only onagreements and tariffs, but onthe creation ofan “infrastructure ofopportunities”: access toeducation, health care, cultural participation W. Welsch [12] Transversal thinking Rejection ofthe extremes ofuniversalism and relativism. Openness toplurality asa condition for development Unity isachieved not through unification, but through the interaction ofdifferences; integration becomes aspace for dialogue and coexistence R. Hackman [27] Team effectiveness and trust The effectiveness ofteams isdetermined bythe quality ofinterpersonal relationships, trust and the distribution ofresponsibility, not control Integration isbased onmutual recognition ofthe parties asequal subjects; itcreates anenvironment ofinnovation and creativity without coercion K. Wilber [28] Integral model ofconsciousness Economic systems are woven into cultural, psychological and spiritual contexts. Consciousness ismultidimensional and requires anintegrated approach Aculture ofdignity corresponds tothe multidimensionality ofreality, combining the material and the immaterial, the local and the global; integration goes beyond the economy S. Krymskyi [29] Dignity asthe basis ofidentity Dignity isthe key tocultural resilience and national identity. Without it, peoples are reduced to“functions” ofglobal markets Dignity allows societies tomaintain subjectivity, form their own integration models and remain active creators ofglobal interaction CONCLUSION Aculture ofdignity isnot analternative torules ormarkets, but their underlying condition. Itreduces the destructive impact ofcognitive distortions not through the illusion of“sterility” but through the discipline ofreflection; itteaches tolive with human limitations sothat they donot turn into institutional fragility. Anew type ofintegration emerges asa practice ofcoexistence— where mutual recognition sets the limits ofwhat ispermissible, and trust shapes the long horizon. 128 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 4.2 COGNITIVE PREJUDICES ASBARRIERS TOINTEGRATION PROCESSES The integration ofnational economies rarely stops atnumbers. Its dynamics are determined not only bytariffs orcurrency regimes, but primarily bycognitive “curbs”, imperceptible because they are embedded inthe way ofthinking. Economic theory has long treated them as“noise” indecision-making, but behavioral economics has shown that itis heuristics, affects and moral intuitions that set the structure ofrationality [2, 30]. Innegotiations, the loss effect isthe first tobe triggered. Losses are perceived much more painfully than symmetrical gains. Therefore, any integration agreement isovershadowed bythe fear oflosing control orsovereignty [13]. Itis reinforced byconfirmation bias. Elites and voters filter information sothat itconfirms existing stereotypes about partners [31]. Added tothis isthe status quo effect— the tendency tooverestimate the risks ofchange and underestimate the risks ofstagnation, which opens upspace for populism [32]. Ingroup bias isparticularly dangerous. Making concessions tothe other side isinterpreted asa humiliation ofone’sown dignity, rather than aninvestment intrust [33]. Asa result, integration becomes an“usversus them” moral drama. The culture ofdignity inthis context becomes acounterframe. Itlegitimizes differences without transforming them into threats. Noless significant are the anchoring effect and framing. The first number uttered orthe way aquestion isphrased can shift the trajectory ofnegotiations more than “real” economic parameters [34]. There isalso the availability effect. Media images ofcrises ordefaults distort risk assessments, outweighing statistical trends [35]. Finally, the halo effect forms astereotypical perception ofthe partner (“good/bad”), which blocks the consideration ofnuances [36]. Thus, decisions innegotiations are explained not only byeconomics, but also bypsychology. Aculture ofdignity inthis case isa requirement for cognitive transparency, honest argumentation, and practices ofmutual recognition. Cognitive distortions are even more pronounced incollective structures. The classic syndrome ofgroupthink describes asituation where the desire for agreement suppresses critical thinking: opponents’ ideas are suppressed, and consensus becomes artificial [37]. Inthe digital age, this effect isamplified byalgorithms. “Echo chambers” and personalized feeds create information cocoons where communities read only themselves and confuse repetition with truth [38, 39]. This generates polarization. Groups oflike-minded people are radicalized, and institutions ofintegration are transformed into scenes ofmutual moral condemnation. Aculture ofdignity does not try tosterilize emotions oreliminate conflict. Itproposes transversal thinking (W. Welsh)— dialogue through recognition ofdifferences, not their unification [12]. This creates acommunication protocol inwhich conflict becomes aresource for development, rather than athreat ofdisintegration. Atthe level ofintegration policy, other distortions operate. Short-termism forces politicians and markets todemand quick results, underfunding institutions oftrust [40]. Overconfidence and the illusion ofcontrol lead tosystematic optimism and underestimation ofchance [41]. Asstudies oflarge-scale projects show, this leads tochronic cost overruns and broken promises [42]. CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 129 Here, aculture ofdignity teaches institutional modesty. Recognizing risks, backing public promises with verification mechanisms, and creating safe “corridors oferror”. This allows for the transformation ofvulnerability into aresource oftrust. Big data does not eliminate cognitive distortions, itmagnifies them. Algorithmic biases are built into the design ofsystems, turning the “availability effect” and “motivated thinking” into industrial power [43]. “Smart” feeds and targeted messages create attentional operating systems that manipulate risk and shape a“market offear” [44, 45]. Aculture ofdignity requires not censorship but human design— transparent explanations, clear labels, the right tocorrection and mechanisms for counter-criticism. This reduces the asymmetry ofpower between institutions and citizens. The institutional level confirms that integration collapses where rules remain “empty forms” without trust [46]. Conversely, itholds together where shared norms are rooted inpractices ofmutual recognition and collective governance ofgoods [47]. The EU and ASEAN show two different paths— from the eurozone crisis [23] tothe gradual “slow integration” inSoutheast Asia [48]. Inboth cases, cognitive traps either escalate into populism orare discharged through mechanisms ofsolidarity. This proves that the stability ofintegration unions isimpossible without amoral infrastructure— this isthe function performed bythe culture ofdignity. Ukrainian humanitarian thought confirms this thesis. S. Krymskyi emphasized that dignity isthe basis ofcultural stability. Ye. Holovakha described social illusions that form political errors. V. Paniotto analyzed trust asa scarce social capital. Educational studies have shown that without emotional literacy, integration turns into asimulacrum. All these insights boil down tothe main thing: dignity isa way ofthinking that turns vulnerability into aresource for co-creation. When wesay “anti-cognitive architecture”, weare not declaring war oncognition. Weare only rejecting reductionism, which reduces aperson toa variable ina utility function. The culture ofdignity isa metacognitive regime inwhich differences are not erased, but carried together; inwhich mistakes are not hidden, but announced; inwhich weaknesses are not stigmatized, but become points ofgrowth. Itis this architecture that gives integration achance tosurvive another cycle ofcrisis and populism. CONCLUSION Cognitive biases are not adisease tobe eliminated, but amirror ofour conditioning. Integration without dignity looks into this mirror and sees anenemy. Integration with dignity sees aninterlocutor. The first turns politics into amarketplace offears; the second into aspace ofcoexistence. And ifwe are destined tobuild alliances that can withstand the pressure oftime, then wewill have todo sonot only byreforming the rules, but also bycultivating dignity, asan ethic ofmutual recognition, asa discipline oftransparency, asa pedagogy oftrust. Inthis sense, the culture ofdignity isan anti-cognitive architecture ofintegration: itdoes not promise sterility ofthinking, but creates conditions inwhich human weaknesses become the basis ofresilience. 130 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 4.3 COGNITIVE PREDICTIONS AND PSYCHOLOGY OFMANAGEMENT DECISIONS ININTEGRATION PROCESSES Integration processes inthe modern world resemble acomplex game onthe border ofrationality and emotionality. Astep forward can bedetermined not bycold calculation, but bysudden fear, prejudice orsymbolic gesture. What textbooks call “economic strategies” inreality often turns out tobe acombination ofcognitive distortions and political compromises. Integration isnot only aset ofagreements, but also apsychological game with ideas about justice, dignity and control. Classical economics has long ignored this psychological dimension, drawing anabstract homo economicus who chooses optimal solutions like amachine. But research inrecent decades proves that the real driver ofintegration processes ishomo sapiens affectivus— aperson who reacts torisk through emotions, not through rational formulas[41, 50]. Itis these biases— the “status quo effect”, the “anchor”, the “illusion ofcontrol”— that become the “invisible parliament” that votes for oragainst economic unions. Take, for example, the “loss effect”. Inintegration negotiations, governments often exaggerate the potential loss ofsovereignty and underestimate the benefits ofcooperation. This psychological bias explains why even profitable deals encounter resistance: the familiar seems more valuable than the new. Inthis sense, any integration process isnot only aneconomic but also atherapeutic experiment inovercoming collective anxiety. Another barrier is“anchor thinking”. The first number orfact voiced innegotiations often shapes the perception ofthe deal regardless ofthe real data. When one side mentions “inflated expectations” or“catastrophic risks”, even the strongest arguments then revolve around this starting point. Asa result, compromises are not built onobjective calculations, but onpsychologically imposed guidelines. Ukrainian economists and philosophers, inparticular V. Kebuladze and O. Gerasymchuk, rightly note that integration inthe case ofUkraine isprimarily achallenge inovercoming “mental traps”, and not only inchanging legislation [59]. Indeed, institutional reforms are blocked not somuch bya lack ofresources asby cognitive inertia— fear ofthe new, belief inthe “eternity” ofold practices. Brexit isa vivid example ofhow prejudices determine the fate ofintegration projects. The “loss effect” played akey role here. The British were afraid oflosing their imaginary independence, even ifthe economic benefits from the EU were obvious. Logic said “remain”, but the symbols ofthe red passport, fear ofmigrants and the illusion ofrestored control prevailed. This isnot economic arithmetic, but the psychology ofimages, which can outweigh rational calculation [51]. Asimilar situation occurred with the failure ofthe EU Constitution inFrance and the Netherlands in2005. Citizens who enjoyed the benefits ofintegration voted against its symbolic consolidation. Here aconservative psychological mechanism manifested itself. People overestimated the risks ofchange and underestimated the risks ofstagnation [23]. Inother words, ahistorical chance was lost not because ofeconomic calculations, but because ofpsychological discomfort with the unknown. Onan international scale, the “trade wars” between the US and China also show psychological logic. “Groupthink” and the “hostility effect” push the parties toescalate, even when compromise would bemore beneficial [53]. Instead ofrational dialogue, itis possible tosee atheater ofsymbols, where the stakes are determined byprestige and fears, not economic models. CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 137 REFERENCES 1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Publishers. Available at: https://ia801506.us.archive.org/27/items/WhyNationsFailTheOriginsODaronAcemoglu/Why-Nations-Fail_-The-Origins-o-Daron-Acemoglu.pdf 2. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 512. Available at: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374533557/thinkingfastandslow 3. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press, 480. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Trust/Francis-Fukuyama/9780684825250 4. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. University of Chicago Press, 374. 5. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, 541. 6. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200 7. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, 293. Available at: https://books.google.com.ua/books/about/Nudge.html?hl=it&id=dSJQn8egXvUC&redir_esc=y 8. World development report 2020: Trading for development in the age of global value chains (2020). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1457-0 9. von Weizsäcker, E. U., Wijkman, A. (2018). Come On! Capitalism, short-termism, population and the destruction of the planet. New York: Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7419-1 10. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., Tummers, L. (2016). Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology. Public Administration Review, 77 (1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609 11. Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity, 134. Available at: https:// books.google.com.ua/books/about/Cold_Intimacies.html?id=uf2s70bUC-0C&redir_esc=y 12. Welsch, W. (2001). Transculturality: The changing form of cultures today. Filozofski vestnik, 22 (2), 59–86. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248149689_Transculturality_The_ changing_form_of_cultures_today 13. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 4 7(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 14. Keohane, R. O., Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and interdependence. Longman. 15. Akerlof, G. A., Shiller, R. J. (2010). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400834723 16. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828609 17. McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001 18. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. 19. World development report 2017: Governance and the law (2017). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/9781-4648-0950-7 138 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 20. Welsch, W. (1997). Undoing Aesthetics. SAGE Publications, 209. 21. Ariely, D. (2012). The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone–Especially Ourselves. Harper, 304. 22. Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput.’ Political Studies, 61 (1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x 23. Matthijs, M., McNamara, K. (2015). The Euro Crisis’ Theory Effect: Northern Saints, Southern Sinners, and the Demise of the Eurobond. Journal of European Integration, 37 (2), 229–245. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07036337.2014.990137 24. Tieku, T. K. (2019). The African Union: Successes and challenges of continental peace and security governance. Global Governance, 25 (1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02501009 25. Ricoeur, P. (2005). The Course of Recognition. Harvard University Press, 297. https://doi.org/10.2307/ j.ctv1dv0tv0 26. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 27. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business Press. 28. Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Shambhala. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08685-000 29. Krymskyi, S. B. (2003). Tsinnisni vymiry suchasnoi osvity. Kyiv: Paradyhma, 420. 30. Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. William Collins. 31. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 32. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1 (1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00055564 33. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C.; Worchel, S., Austin, W. G. (Eds.) (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall, 7–24. 34. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 35. Sunstein, C. R. (2020). Too much information: Understanding what you don’t want to know. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12608.001.0001 36. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663 37. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin. 38. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin, 304. 39. Bail, C. A. (2021). Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691216508 40. Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “Short-Termism”: The Debate, The Unresolved Issues, and The Implications for Management Practice and Research. Academy of Management Review, 21 (3), 825–860. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9702100316 CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 139 41. Moore, D. A., Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115 (2), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.502 42. Flyvbjerg, B., Gardner, D. (2023). How Big Things Get Done. Currency. 43. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown Publishers, 272. 44. Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (7), 2521–2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116 45. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 46. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678 47. Ostrom, E. (2006). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. https://doi. org/10.1515/9781400831739 48. Acharya, A. (2012). The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of a Region. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814311250 49. Subotić, J. (2018). Political memory, identity, and conflict in Europe. Memory Studies, 11 (3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017701610 50. Schuman, R. (2010). The Schuman Declaration (1950). European Union. https://doi.org/10.2860/5862 51. Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral and Drive Major Economic Events. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691189970 52. Eurobarometer. Public opinion in the European Union. European Commission. Available at: https:// europa.eu/eurobarometer 53. Akerlof, G. A., Shiller, R. J. (2016). Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400873265 54. Bischof, G. (2015). Willy Brandt and Ostpolitik. Journal of European Integration History, 21 (2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9511-2015-2-225 55. Murithi, T. (2019). The African Union at 20: Pan-Africanism and the progress of integration. African Affairs, 118 (470), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady040 56. Darby, J. (2001). The Effects of Violence on Peace Processes. United States Institute of Peace Press, 144. 57. Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., et al. (2019). Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence? Scientific American, 25 (3), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/ scientificamerican0217-25 58. Assmann, A. (2011). Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996306 59. Illouz, E. (2017). Emotions as Commodities: Capitalism, Consumption and Authenticity. Routledge, 234. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315210742 140 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 60. Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice. Harvard University Press, 480. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wpqm7 61. Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford University Press. 62. Hobolt, S. B. (2016). The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23 (9), 1259–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785 63. Kaina, V., Karolewski, I. P. (2013). EU governance and European identity. Living Reviews in European Governance, 8. https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2013-1 64. Singer, T., Lamm, C. (2009). The Social Neuroscience of Empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156 (1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x 65. Acharya, A. (2012). The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of a Region. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814311250 66. Brick Murtazashvili, J., Mylovanov, T., Shapoval, N., Murtazashvili, I. (2024). The political economy of public procurement in Ukraine. Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, 39 (1), 118–138. https:// doi.org/10.1332/25156918y2024d000000005 67. Fighting bid rigging in public procurement in the energy sector in Ukraine: A review of public procurement at Ukrenergo (2021). OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/corruption/fightingbid-rigging-in-public-procurement-in-the-energy-sector-in-ukraine.pdf 68. Enhancing resilience by boosting digital business transformation in Ukraine (2024). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4b13b0bb-en 69. Schmidt, V., Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration, 97 (4), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12615 70. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (2019). High-Level Expert Group on AI. European Commission. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai 71. Fishkin, J. S. (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking: Revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198820291.001.0001 72. Bambra, C., Riordan, R., Ford, J., Matthews, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 74 (11), 964–968. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214401 73. Greer, S. L., King, E. J., Massard da Fonseca, E., Peralta-Santos, A. (Eds.) (2021). Coronavirus politics: The comparative politics and policy of COVID-19. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/ mpub.11927713 74. Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134824 75. Quintana, D. S., Lischke, A., Grace, S., Scheele, D., Ma, Y., Becker, B. (2020). Advances in the field of intranasal oxytocin research: lessons learned and future directions for clinical research. Molecular Psychiatry, 26 (1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00864-7 76. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74 (4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238 CHAPTER 4. CULTURE OF DIGNITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE OF INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 141 77. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1 (9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 78. Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M. et al. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (28), 6971–6973. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706499114 79. Bertsou, E. (2019). Rethinking political distrust. European Political Science Review, 11 (2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773919000080 80. Martins, D., Collignon, O., Pooresmaeili, A. (2022). Oxytocin modulates neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning. Progress in Neurobiology, 213, 102267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2022.102267 81. Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (2022). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en 82. Digitalisation for recovery in Ukraine (2022). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c5477864-en 83. Ansell, C., Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381 84. Floridi, L., Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1 85. Lee, J. I., Pekaar, K., Bakker, A. B. (2023). Understanding the integral relationship between emotion and trust in organizations: A review. Group & Organization Management, 48 (6), 1242–1276. https://doi. org/10.1177/10596011221118499 86. Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Routledge, 196. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675008 87. Wachner, J., Adjerid, I., Loewenstein, G. (2020). How disclosure laws fail to protect consumers. Behavioural Public Policy, 4 (2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.13 88. Sabel, C. F., Zeitlin, J. (2018). Experimentalist governance in the EU: A new architecture with promise. Regulation & Governance, 12 (4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12232 89. Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust and power. Polity Press. 90. Habermas, J. (2019). The crisis of the European Union: A response. Polity. 91. Maier, B., Meyer, M. (2019). Emotions in economic decision-making: The role of affect in negotiations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 72, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.01.007 92. Nussbaum, M. C. (2018). The monarchy of fear: A philosopher looks at our political crisis. Simon & Schuster, 249. 93. Ariely, D. (2016). Payoff: The hidden logic that shapes our motivations. Simon & Schuster, 128. 94. Krueger, F., Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2023). Neural mechanisms of trust and social decision-making: From brain circuits to culture. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 24 (1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41583-022-00645-7 95. Zabuzhko, O. (2020). Planet Wormwood: Essays on culture and memory. Krytyka. 96. Camerer, C. F., Mobbs, D. (2022). Differences in brain networks for trust and reciprocity: Insights from social neuroeconomics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (9), 783–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tics.2022.06.004 142 INTEGRATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES 97. Popovych, M. (2018). Being and culture: Essays on modern identity. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Press. 98. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs, 691. 99. Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. Jossey-Bass. 100. Ricoeur, P., Blamey, K., Pellauer, D. (2004). Memory, History, Forgetting. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226713465.001.0001