İKTİSADİ ANALİZDE METODOLOJİK ÇOĞULCULUK: BİR SAVUNU

Abstract

Bu çalışma, metodolojik çoğulculuğun iktisatta ontolojik bir zorunluluk olduğunu savunmaktadır. “Ontolojik zorunluluk” ifadesi, metodolojik çoğulculuğun tek başına sosyal gerçekliği açıklamak için yeter koşul olduğu iddiasını değil; sosyal gerçekliğin açık sistem niteliği kabul edilidiğinde, metodolojik tekçiliğin sürdürülemez hale geldiğini, bu anlamda çoğulculuğun ihmal edilemeyecek bir gereklilik olduğunu anlatmak üzere kullanılmaktadır. Ana akım iktisat, iktisadi gerçekliği kapalı bir sistem olarak ele alan tümdengelimci metodolojiye dayanmaktadır. İktisatçıların kullandığı formalist yöntemlerin çoğu, uygulanabilmeleri için olay düzenliliklerinin varlığını gerektirir; yani, kapalı sistemlerin varlığını kabul ederler. Fakat sosyal gerçeklik, tabakalaşmış, dinamik yani süreç odaklı ve aynı zamanda içsel olarak ilişkiseldir, yani açık bir sistemdir. Ana akımın zayıf performans göstermesinin başlıca nedeni işte tercih ettiği bu metodolojinin sosyal gerçekliğin ontolojisine uygunsuz olmasıdır. Yalnızca kapalı sistemlerde uygulanabilir olan tek bir metodolojiye bağlı kalmak, iktisadi analizin gücünü sınırlamaktadır. İktisadi gerçekliği daha kapsayıcı ve derinlemesine analiz etmek, gerçekliğin kendisine ilişkin bir sorgulama ile birlikte bu gerçekliğe uygun metodolojilerin seçimiyle mümkün olur. Metodoloji tercihinde bir keyfilikten ziyade, ortak bir ontolojiye dayanmak, metodolojinin ehemmiyetinin korunmasında önemli bir görev üstlenir. Sosyal gerçekliğin açık bir sistem olarak kavranması şeklindeki bir ortak ontoloji, böylece, iktisadi analizde metodolojik çoğulculuğu savunmanın en ikna edici biçimini oluşturur.

Keywords

• Çoğulculuk
• Metodolojik Çoğulculuk
• Formalizm
• Açık Sistem.

METHODOLOGICAL PLURALISM IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: A DEFENSE

Abstract

This study argues that methodological pluralism is an ontological necessity in economics. The expression ‘ontological necessity’ is not used to claim that methodological pluralism is, by itself, a sufficient condition for explaining social reality; rather, given the open-system character of social reality, it conveys that methodological monism becomes untenable, and that pluralism, in this sense, constitutes an indispensable requirement. Mainstream economics is based on a deductivist methodology that treats economic reality as a closed system. Most of the formalist methods employed by economists require the existence of event regularities to be applicable; in other words, they assume the existence of closed systems. However, social reality is stratified, dynamic—that is, process-oriented—and inherently relational, meaning that it is an open system. The primary reason for the weak performance of mainstream economics lies in the fact that its chosen methodology is ontologically incompatible with social reality. Restricting economic analysis to a single methodology that is only applicable in closed systems limits its explanatory power. A more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of economic reality is possible only through a critical examination of reality itself and the selection of methodologies suited to it. Rather than being an arbitrary choice, methodological selection should be grounded in a shared ontology, which plays a crucial role in preserving the significance of methodology. Thus, a shared ontology that recognizes social reality as an open system provides the most compelling justification for advocating methodological pluralism in economic analysis.

Keywords

• Pluralism
• Methodological Pluralism
• Formalism
• Open System

References

1. Bhaskar, Roy. A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Leeds Books, 1975.
2. Blaug Mark. “Book Review: Beyond Positivism”, The Wall Street Review of Books, (1983).
3. Blaug, Mark. “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” İçinde A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, Editörler Warren J. Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle, and John B. Davis, 395–410. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Caldwell, Bruce. Beyond Positivism. London: Routledge, 1982.
4. Caldwell, Bruce. “The Case for Pluralism.” İçinde Popperian Legacy in Economics, edited by Neil de Marchi, 231-244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
5. Caldwell Bruce. “Post-Keynesian Methodology: An Assessment”, Review of Political Economy, 1 no 1, (1989): 43-64.
6. Chick Victoria ve Sheila Dow. “The meaning of open systems”. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12 no 3, (2005): 363-381.
7. Colander, David & Holt, Richard & Rosser, J. Barkley. “The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics”. Review of Political Economy, 16 no 4 (2004): 485–499.
8. Davis John. “The Nature of Heterodox Economics,” Post- Autistic Economics Review, 40 no 1, (2006): 23–30.

9. Davis, John. “Specialization, Fragmentation, and Pluralism in Economics.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26, no. 2 (2019): 271–293.
10. Demir Ömer. Bilim Felsefesi. İstanbul: Sentez Yayınları, 2021.
11. Dow Sheila. "Methodological pluralism and pluralism of method". İçinde A Modern Reader in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics. Ed. Geoffrey M. Hodgson. 136-146. Edward Elgar Publishing. 1997.
12. Feyerabend, Paul. Yönteme Karşı. Çev. Ertuğrul Başer, İstanbul: Ayrıntı, 2020.
13. Garnett Robert. “Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics”, Review of Political Economy, 18 no 4, (2006):521-546.
14. Gräbner Claudius and Birte Strunk, “Pluralism in Economics: Its Critiques and Their Lessons,” Journal of Economic Methodology 27, no. 4 (2020): 1-19.
15. Hands, D. Wade. “Did Milton Friedman’s Positive Methodology License the Formalist Revolution?” In Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, Editör Uskali Mäki, 143–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
16. Hands, D. Wade. “The Many Faces of Unification and Pluralism in Economics: The Case of Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 88, (2021): 209-219.
17. Hermann-Pillath Carsten. “On the ontological foundations of evolutionary economics”. İçinde Evolutionary Economics: Program and Scope. Editör Kurt Dopfer. 89–140. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 2001.
18. Hodgson, Geoffrey, Uskali Mäki and Donald McCloskey.“A Plea for a Rigorous and Pluralistic Economics.” American Economic Review, 82 no 2 (1992): xxv.
19. Kuhn, Thomas. Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. Çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş. İstanbul: Kırmızı 2021.
20. Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”. İçinde Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Ed. I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, Cambridge University Press, 1970.
21. Lawson Tony. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge, 1997.
22. Lawson Tony. Reorienting Economics, London: Routledge. 2003.
23. Lawson Tony. “Reorienting economics: on heterodox economics, themata and the use of mathematics in economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology 11 no 3 (2004):329–40.
24. Lawson Tony, “The Nature of Heterodox Economics,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 no 2, (2006): 483–507.
25. Lawson Tony. “Ontology, Modern Economics, And Pluralism”. İçinde Economic Pluralism, Editörler Robert Garnett, Erik Olsen ve Martha Starr, 99 – 113. London: Routledge, 2010.
26. Lawson Tony. “Mathematical Modelling and Ideology in the Economics Academy: Competing explanations of the failings of the modern discipline?”, Economic Thought, 1 no 1, (2012): 3-22.
27. Lawson Tony. “What Is This School Called Neoclassical Economics”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37, (2013): 947-983.
28. Lee, Frederic. “The Pluralism Debate in Heterodox Economics”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 43 no 4, (2009): 540¬ –551.
29. Masterman, Margaret, “Paradigmanın Doğası”, İçinde Bilginin Gelişimi ve Bilginin Gelişimiyle İlgili Teorilerin İncelenmesi, Ed. I. Lakatos ve A. Musgrave, çev. Hüsamettin Arslan, 70-110, İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 1992.
30. McCloskey, Deirdre N. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
31. Milonakis Dimitris. “Neoclassical economics”. İçinde The Elgar Companion to Marxist E conomics, Editörler Ben Fine, Alfredo Saad-Filho, ve Marco Boffo, 246-252, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012.
32. Sent, Esther-Mirjam , “Pleas for Pluralism”, İçinde Real World Economic. A Post-Autistic Reader Ed. Edward Fullbrook, 177 – 184. London, 2006.
33. Van Bouwel Jeroen. “Towards a Framework for Pluralism in Economics.” Post- Autistic Economics Review, 30 no 3 (2005).