Neoklasik İktisat: Anaakım mı, Ortodoks mu?

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 65 - 80, 17.06.2019

Hüsnü Bilir

https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.566690

Cited By: 2

Abstract

İktisat literatüründe neoklasik iktisadı tanımlamak üzere ‘ortodoks’, ‘anaakım’, ‘geleneksel’, ‘dominant’, ‘modern’, ‘geçerli’ veya ‘standart’ gibi kavramlar kullanılmaktadır. Ancak kullanılan bu kavramlar farklı anlamlara sahiptir. Kaldı ki bu sıfatların aynı anlamda kullanıldığını kabul etsek bile, iktisat disiplini evrilen bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu bağlamda ‘ortodoks’ ve ‘anaakım’ gibi kavramlar da zaman içinde değişikliğe uğramaktadır. Dolayısıyla örneğin bugün anaakım olan bir düşünce okulu veya yaklaşım gelecek dönemde anaakım dışında kalabilmekte veya bugün anaakım olmayan bir düşünce okulu gelecek dönemde anaakıma dâhil olabilmektedir. Aynı şekilde disiplinin ortodoksisi de zaman içerisinde değişebilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, neoklasik iktisadın günümüzde iktisat disiplinine hâkim olan yaklaşım olduğu noktasından hareketle, neoklasik iktisadın disiplinin ortodoksisini temsil ettiğinin, ancak anaakım iktisadın Neoklasik İktisattan ibaret olmadığının ve anaakımın Neoklasik İktisat dışında başka yaklaşım ve düşünce okullarını da barındırdığının altını çizmektir.

Keywords

Neoklasik İktisat, Anaakım İktisat

References

• Backhouse, R. E. (2000). Austrian economics and the mainstream: View from the boundary. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 3 (2), 31-43.
• Backhouse, R. E. & Bateman, B. W. (2011). Capitalist Revolutionary: John Maynard Keynes. New York: Harvard University.
• Bilir, H. (2017). Nöroiktisat: Neoklasik İktisadın Yenilenen Yüzü mü, Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım mı? (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Bilir, H. (2018). Neoklasik İktisadın Tanımlanmasına Yönelik Bir Deneme. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7 (2), 658-670.
• Black, J., Hashimzade, N. & Myles, G. (2013). A Dictionary of Economics. Oxford: Oxford University.
• Boettke, P. J., Leeson, P. T. & Smith, D. J. (2008). The evolution of economics: Where we are and how we got here. The Long Term View, 7 (1), 14-22.
• Cevizci, A. (1999). Paradigma Felsefe Sözlüğü (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Paradigma.
• Colander, D. (2000). The death of neoclassical economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2), 127-143.
• Colander, D. (2005). The future of economics: The appropriately educated in pursuit of the knowable. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (6), 927-941.
• Colander, D. (2007). Pluralism and Heterodox Economics: Suggestions for an ‘Inside the Mainstream’ Heterodoxy. Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper, No: 07-24.
• Colander, D., Holt, R. & Rosser Jr., B. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Reviews of Political Economy, 16 (4), 485-499.
• Davis, J. B. (2006). The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2 (1), 1-20.
• Davis, J. B. (2008). The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32 (3), 349-366.
• Davis, J. B. (2009). The Nature of Heterodox Economics. Edward Fullbrook (Ed.), Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and His Critics içinde (s. 83-92). London: Routledge.
• Dequech, D. (1999). Expectations and confidence under uncertainty. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 21 (3), 415-430.
• Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 279-302.
• Dow, S. C. (2000). Prospects for the progress in heterodox economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2), 157-170.
• Dow, S. C. (2008). Plurality in orthodox and heterodox economics. Journal of Philosophical Economics, 1 (2), 73-96.
• Estey, J. A. (1936). Orthodox economic theory: A defense. Journal of Political Economy, 44 (6), 791-802.
• George, D. A. R. (2007). Consolations for the economist: The future of economic orthodoxy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21 (3), 417-425.
• Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35 (1), 3-11.
• Hamermersh, D. (2013). Six decades of top economic publishing. who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51, 162-172.
• Hands, D. W. (2015). Orthodox and heterodox economics in recent economic methodology. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 8 (1), 61-81.
• Heukelom, F. (2014). Mainstreaming behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21 (1), 92-95.
• Kelly, M. & Bruestle, S. (2011). Trends of subjects published in economic journal 1969-2007. Economic Inquiry, 49, 658-673.
• Krugman, P. (2009). How did economists get it so wrong? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html, (07.02.2018).
• Lavoie, M. (2006). Do heterodox theories have anything in common: A post-Keynesian poitn of view. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 3 (1), 87-112.
• Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and Reality. London: Routledge.
• Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 (4), 483-505.
• Lawson, T. (2013). What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37 (5), 947–983.
• Lee, F. S. (2011). A note on the pluralism debate in economics. Review of Radical Political Economics, 43 (4), 540-551.
• Lee, F. S. (2012). Heterodox economics and its critics. Review of Political Economy, 24 (2), 337-351.
• Lee, F. S. & Keen, S. (2004). The incoherent emperor: A heterodox critique of neoclassical microeconomic theory. Review of Social Economy, 62 (2), 169-199.
• Madra, Y. M. (2016). Late Neoclassical Economics: The Restoration of Theoretical Humanism in Contemporary Economic Theory. London and New York: Routledge.
• Marx, K. (1859). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress.
• Mearman, A. (2012). ’Heterodox economics’ and the problems of classification. Journal of Economic Methodology, 19 (4), 407-424.
• Morgan, J. (2016). Introduction: The Meaning and Significance of Neoclassical Economics. Jamie Morgan (Ed.), What is Neoclassical Economics? Debating the Origins, Meaning and Significance içinde (s. 1-29). London and New York: Routledge.
• Rabin, M. (2002). A perspective on psychology and economics. European Economic Review, 46 (4), 657-685.
• Rothbard, M. N. (1997). The Logic of Action: Method, Money and the Austrian School. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Santos, A. C. (2011). Behavioural and experimental economics: Are they really transforming economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35 (4), 705-728.
• Sent, E. M. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36 (4), 735-760.
• Varoufakis, Y. (2012). A most peculiar failure on the dynamic mechanism by which the inescapable theoretical failures of neoclassical economics reinforce its dominance. https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/neoclassical-economics-as-a-most-peculiarfailure.pdf, (22.11.2017).
• Veblen, T. B. (1900). The preconceptions of economic science III. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 14 (2), 240-269.
• Weintraub, E. R. (1985). General Equilibrium Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
• Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 595-613.
• Wolff, R. D. & Resnick, S. A. (2012). Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. Cambridge and London: The MIT.