HUKUK VE EKONOMİNİN ORTAK TEMELLERİ - HUKUK EKONOMİ AKIMI

Abstract

This paper is trying to illustrate why economic analysis is important for lawyers, judges and legal scholars, and how legal rules structure economic activity. In many respects, the economy and the law are interdependent and synergistic. This relationship is brought to light by ‘law and economics’ movement. The history of the discipline now known as “law and economics” goes back hundreds of years. Indeed, ‘law and economics’ is a success story of interdisciplinary scholarship, and the success has been attributed to the strength of economics in providing a sound behavioral theory. It is argued in this paper, however, that this is only a partial explanation, for many issues in law are not directly related to human behavior per se. As such, in analyzing these issues, the legal economists rely mainly on the analytical logic of economic analysis

Keywords

• Law and economics, Economic analysis of law, Interdisciplinary, Behavioral Theory

HUKUK VE EKONOMİNİN ORTAK TEMELLERİ - HUKUK EKONOMİ AKIMI

Abstract

Bu makale, hukuk kuralları tarafından ekonomik aktivitelerin nasıl şekillendirildiğini ve ekonomik analizin hukuk bilimciler, yargıçlar ve hukukçular açısından niçin önemli olduğunu göstermeye çalışıyor. Birçok açıdan hukuk ve ekonomi birbiriyle bağımlı ve eş etkililik içindedir. Bu ilişki ‘hukuk ve ekonomi’ hareketi tarafından ortaya çıkarılmıştır. ‘Hukuk ve ekonomi’ disiplinin tarihi yüzyıllar öncesine kadar gider. Aslında “hukuk ve ekonomi’ disiplinler arası bilimin başarı öyküsü olup bu başarı ekonominin sağlam bir davranışsal teori oluşturmadaki gücüne atfedilir. Bu makalede ise bunun sadece kısmi bir açıklama olduğu savunulur çünkü hukuktaki pek çok problem doğrudan insan davranışının yalnızca kendisiyle ilgili değildir. Bu nedenle, söz konusu sorunları veya hukuksal uyuşmazlıkları incelerken hukuk ekonomistleri daha çok ekonomik analizin analitik mantığına itimat ederler

Keywords

• Hukuk ve Ekonomi, Hukukun ekonomik analizi, Disiplinler arası disiplin

References

1. Akad, A.S., (2006), “Hukuk ve Ahlak”, Vatan Gazetesi, 16.03.2006.
2. Baker, J.B. (1999). “Developments in Antitrust Economics”, Journal of
3. Economic Perspectives, Vol: 13, No: 1, s: 181-194. Baker, J.B. (1997). “Econometric Analysis in FTC vs. Staples”, www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/stspch.htm (20.01.2007)
4. Baker, J.B. (1996). “Contemporary Empirical Merger Analysis”, Working
5. Paper, www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/gmu5.htm (23.12.2006)
6. Becker, G.S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, Chicago:
7. University of Chicago Press. Berolzheimer, F. (1968). The World’s Legal Philosophies, Reprint, South
8. Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprint. Bork, R. H. (1978). The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books.

9. Calabresi, G. (1970). The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis,
10. Yale University Press. Coase, R.H. (1994) Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Coase, R.H. (1988) The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Coase, R.H. (1960). “The problem of social cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1-44.
13. Cole, D.H. ve Grossman, P.Z. (2004). Principles of Law and Economics, New
14. Jersey, Pearson-Prentice Hall. Cooke, C.A. (1937). “The Legal Content of the Profit Concept”, Yale Law
15. Journal (46), ss: 436-437, aktarım T.E.C. Leslie, Essay in Political and Moral Philosophy, 1879, s. 404.
16. Cooter, R.D. and Rubinfeld, D.L. (1989). “Economic analysis of legal disputes and their resolution”, Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1067-97.
17. Cooter, R.D. and Ulen, T. (2003). Law and Economics. 4nd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18. Easterbrook, F.H. (1984). The Supreme Court, 1983 Term---Foreword: the court and the economic system. Harvard Law Review, 98, 4-60.
19. Evensky, J. (1994). Professor Malloy, Judge Posner, and Adam Smith’s moral philosophy. in Robin P. Malloy and Jerry Evensky eds., Adam Smith and the Philosophy of Law and Economics, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Holmes, O.W. (1897) “The Path of the Law”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.: 10, 1897, s. 457-469.
21. Hsiung, B., (2004) “An interpretation of Ronald Coase’s analytical approach”,
22. History of Economics Review, 39, 12-32. İmregün, O. (1991). Kara Ticareti Hukuku Dersleri, Dokuzuncu Bası, İstanbul, Gür-ay Matbaası.
23. Jasquemin, A. ve Schrans, G. (1970) le Droit Economique, Paris, Press
24. Universitaires de France. Kumcu, E. (2004), “Rekabet Üzerine Çeşitlemeler”, Hürriyet Gazetesi, 30.05.2004
25. Landes, W.M. and Posner, R.A. (1988) The Economic Structure of Tort Law.
26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Malloy, R.P. (1990). Law and Economics: A Comparative Approach to Theory and Practice. St. Paul, MN: West Pusblishing.
27. Mercuro, N. and Medema, S.G. (2006). Economics and the Law (From Posner to Postmodernism and Beyond), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress.
28. Mimaroğlu, S.K. (1973). “Ekonomi Hukuku, Ticaret Hukuku ve İşletme Hukuku
29. Kavramlarında Yeni Gelişmeler”, Prof.Dr. Kemal Fikret Arık’a Armağan, Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF ve TODAİE Yayını. Posner, R. A. (2003). Economic Analysis of Law. 6th ed., New York: Aspen Publishers
30. Posner, R. A. (1996). The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform, Cambridge,
31. MA: Harvard University Press. Posner, R. A. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Posner, R. A. (1987a). “The law and economics movement”, American Economic Review, 75(2), 1-14.
33. Posner, R. A. (1987b). “The decline of law as an autonomous discipline: 1962- 1987”, Harvard Law Review, 100, 761-80.
34. Posner, R. A. (1979). “Some uses and abuses of economics in law”, University of Chicago Law Review, 46(2), 281-306.
35. Posner, R.A. and Parisi, F. (1997). Law and economics: an introduction. in
36. Richard A. Posner and Francesco Parisi eds., Law and Economics. Vol. I-III, Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, N.H.: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shapiro, F. R. (1996). “The most-cited law review articles revisited”, Chicago- Kent Law Review, 71, 751-79.
37. Shavell, S. (1988). Economic analysis of accident law, Cambridge, MA:
38. Harvard University Press. Sirel, E. (2001). “Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamalarında Ekonomik Analiz”,
39. Rekabet Kurumu Perşemde Konferansları, Ankara, Rekabet Kurumu Yayını, Nisan 2001.
40. Thompson, J. S. (1998). “Empirical Methods in Antitrust Economics:A Survey and New Techniques”, Auburn University, Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi
41. Türkkan, E. (2001). İkinci En İyi, Ankara, Liberte Yayınları.
42. Ulen, T.S. (1998). Law and economics: settled issues and open questions. In
43. Nicholas Mercuro ed. Law and Economics, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Ulen, T.S. (1997). Firmly grounded: economics in the future of the law.
44. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 433-63.