The New Generation (Late Neoclassical) Theories in Economics, the Transformation of the State and the Reflection to the Development Paradigm

Abstract

The current global economic crisis has led to a growing dissatisfaction with the neo-liberal economic paradigm that became more widely known as the Washington Consensus. Washington Consensus which is as a type of free market capitalism is neoclassical economics greatly influenced by neo-liberalism, particularly in its anti-state attitudes, as with deregulation, privatization and liberalization. While the paradigm itself evolved from the late 1990s, in a more nuanced approach under the guise of a post-Washington Consensus, began to recognize a role for the state in correcting for market (largely informational) failures, neo-liberalism largely superseded by the new mainstream economics or late neoclassical economics – namely the new institutional economics, new growth theory, new economic geography and so on. Unlike the mainstream neoclassical economic paradigm the late neoclassical economics is based on the idea that markets are imperfect. Theoretically the late neoclassical economics, upon which the post-Washington Consensus draws, explain both market and non-market outcomes as the rational response to market imperfections. There is now widespread recognition, in some quarters, at least, that the state should engage in a more active role in guiding industrial development, primarily to negate market failure and to overcome the negative conditions of global economic crisis. This paper is largely focused on the paradigm shift of neo-liberalism, primarily from the market fundamentalism to negate market failure, government transformation in the light of late neoclassical theories in economics, and also seeks to demonstrate that policies based on this new paradigm, governments shifted slightly to a revised neoliberal model that approved different version of (market-friendly) state intervention.

Keywords

• Neoliberalism,Mainstream Neoclassical Economics,Late Neoclassical Economics,Development Economics,Market İmperfections,Government Intervention

References

1. Amsden, A (1989) Asia’s Next Giant, South Korea and Late Industrialization, New York: Oxford Unıversity Press.
2. Amsden, A (2001) The Rise of “The “Rest”: Challenges to the West From Late-Industrializing Economies, Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Banet-Weser, S ( 2017) “Krizi markalaştırmak”, M. Castells, J. Caraça ve G. Cadoso (der.) Sonrası Ekonomik Kriz Kültürleri, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayını içinde, 113-137.
4. Bakker, K (2009) Neoliberal Nature, Ecological Fixes and Pitfalls of Comparative Research”, Environment and Planning, 41, 1781-1787.
5. Bellofıore, R ve G. Vertova (2006) “ The Geographical and Political Dimension of Uneven Capitalist Development”, G. Vertova (der.) The Changing Economic Geography of Globalization, Reinventing Space, Routledge: London.
6. Brenner, N ve N. Theodore (2002) “Preface: From the “New Localism” to the Spaces of Neoliberalism”, Antipode: 341-347.
7. Boschma, R ( 2015) “Toward an Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Resilience”, Regional Studies, No: 5,733-751.
8. Chang, H-J, (2002) Kicking Away the Ladder, Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, Wimbledon Publıshing Company. Eserin Türkçe çevirisi, Kalkınma Reçetelerinin Gerçek Yüzü, İletişim Yayınları, 2003, İstanbul.

9. Chang, H-J. ve I. Rabel (2004) Kalkınma Yeniden, Alternatif İktisat Politikaları Elkitabı, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
10. Castells, M (2005) Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi Toplum ve Kültür, Cilt 1, Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, Nisan.
11. Castells, M, J. Caraça ve G. Cardoso (der.) (2017) Sonrası Ekonomik Kriz Kültürleri, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayını içinde, 113-137.
12. Colander, D, R.P. Holt ve J. B. Rosser (2004) “ The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics”, Review of Political Economy, 16 (4), 485-499.
13. Cowling, K ve P. R. Tomlinson (2011) “ Post the ‘Washington Consensus’: Economic Governance and Industrial Strategies for the Twenty-First Century”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35, 831-852.
14. Dardot, P ve C. Laval (2012) Dünya’nın Yeni Aklı: Neoliberal Toplum Üzerine Deneme, Çev: I. Ergüden, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayını.
15. Dequech, D (2007) “ Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox and Heterodox Economics”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economıcs, 30/2), 279-302.
16. Dollar, D (1992) “Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence From 95 LDCs, 1976-1985”, Economic Development and Culturel Change, 40.
17. Dornbush, R. (1990) “Policies to Move From Stabilization to Growth”, Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development 1990, Washington, D.C: World Bank.
18. Dosi, G, C. Freeman, R.Nelson, G.Silverberg ve L.Soete (der.) (1988) Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Francis Pinter, Columbia University Press.
19. Duménil, G ve D. Levy (2008) “Neoliberal (Karşı) Devrim”, A. Saad-Filho ve D. Johnson (der.) Neoliberalizm, Muhalif Bir Seçki, Yordam kitap içinde, 25-41.
20. Dünya Bankası (2007) An East Asian Renaissance, Ideas for Economic Growth, The World Bank, Washington DC.
21. Dünya Bankası (2009) World Development Report 2009, Reshaping Economic Geography, The World Bank, Washington DC. Edwards, S (1993) “Openness, Trade Liberalization and Growth in Developing Countries”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol: xxxı, September, 1358-1393.
22. Eraydın, A (2013a) “ Değişen Neoliberalizm ve Kentsel Alana Yansımaları: Seçenekleri ve Sonrasını Düşünmek”, KBAM 4 Kentsel ve Bölgesel Araştırmalar Ağı Sempozyumu, Neoliberalizm Sonrası Mekansal Müdahele Biçimleri ve Yansımaları Bildiriler Kitabı, 28-30 Kasım 2013, Mersin. www.kbam.metu.edu.tr, erişim:12.05.2016
23. Eraydın, A (2013b) “Bölgesel Ekonomik Uyum Kapasitesi: Türkiye’deki Bölgelerin Ekonomik Krizler ve Sonrasındaki Başarımlarını Belirleyen Etkenler”, ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 40, Ağustos, 179-208.
24. Eraydın, A (2015) “The Role of Regional Policies Along with the External and Endogenous Factors in the Resilience of Regions”, Cambridge Journal of Regıons, Economy and Socıety, 1-18
25. Eser, U (1991) “ İktisat Politikası Anayasası ve Bir Anayasal Reform Önerisi Üzerine Düşünceler”, Toplum ve Bilim, 51/52, 33-49.
26. Eser, U (1997) “ Anayasal İktisat ya da Yeni Liberal Siyasal İktisatın Ekonomik Anayasa Önerisi”, Ekonomide Durum, Bahar-Yaz.
27. Eser, U (2011) “Mekan Yeniden Keşfedilirken İktisadın Mekanla İmtihanı”, KBAM 2. Kentsel ve Bölgesel Araştırmalar Sempozyumu Bildiriler kitabı, Planlamanın Dünü Bugünü Yarını ve Planlamada Yeni Söylem Arayışları, 8-9 Aralık 2011, Ankara, www.kbam.metu.edu.tr, erişim: 09.08.2016
28. Eser, U (2015) “ İktisatın Krizi ve İktisatta Yeni (Anaakım) Yaklaşımlar, İktisat ve Toplum, Sayı: 59, Eylül.
29. Eser, U (2017) “ Finansallaşmış Enformatik Kapitalizm: Sermayenin Coğrafyası Üzerine notlar”, İktisat ve Toplum, sayı: 75, Ocak.
30. Fine, B. (2002) “Neither Washington nor Post-Washington Consensus”, erc/metu International Conference in Economics III, Ankara, http://www.networkideas.org/featart/ sep2002/Washington. pdf, erişim: 14.06.2005.
31. Fine, B (2005) “Beyond the Developmental State: Towards a Political Economy of Development”, Lapavitsas ve M. Noguchi (2005) (der.) Beyond Market-Driven Development, Drawing on the Experience of Asia and Latin America, Routledge: London içinde.
32. Fine, B (2008) Sosyal Sermaye Sosyal Bilime Marşı, Yordam Kitap.
33. Fine, B ve D. Milonakis (2014) İktisat Emperyalizminden Acayip İktisata, Heretik Yayınları.
34. Freeman, C ve F. Louça (2013) Zaman Akıp Giderken, Sanayi Devrimlerinden Bilgi Devrimine, İthaki yayınları.
35. Foucalt, M (2015) Biyopolitikanın Doğuşu, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi yayını.
36. Fuchs, C (2011) Foundation of Critical Media and Information Studies, Abington: Routledge.
37. Fuchs, C (2014) “Bilişsel Kapitalizm ya da Enformasyonel Kapitalizm?”, M. A. Peters ve E. Bulut (2014) Bilişsel Kapitalizm, Eğitim ve Digital Emek, Notabene Yayınları içinde, 137-188.
38. Gore, C (2000) “The Rise and Fall of Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries”, World Development, 28 (5).
39. Gough, J (2004) “ Changing Scale as Changing Class Relations: Variety and Contradiction in the Politics of Scale”, Political Geography, 23, 185-211.
40. Grossman,G.M ve E. Helpman (1994) “Endogenous Innovations in the Theory of Growth”, Journal of Economıc Perspectıves, 8( 1): 23-44.
41. Gürkan. C (2016) “ Foucalt’da Neoliberal Yönetimselliğin Tarihsel Boşlukları: Erken Neoklasik İktisat ve Kamusal Seçim Teorisi”, Felsefelogos, 63, 2016/4, 87-106.
42. Hardt, M ve A. Negri ( 2012) İmparatorluk, Ayrıntı Yayınları.
43. Harvey, D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalizm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D (2011) Sermayenin Mekanları, Eleştirel Bir Coğrafyaya Doğru, Sel Yayıncılık.
44. Harvey, D (2012) Sermayenin Sınırları, Çev. U. Balaban, Tan Kitabevi.
45. Harvey, D (2015) Neoliberalizmin Kısa Tarihi, Sel Yayıncılık.
46. Helpman, E ve P. Krugman (1985) Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy, Cambridge: MIT Press.
47. Hodgson, G (2001) How Economists Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specifity in Social Science ? Routledge: London.
48. Hudson, R (2010) “ Resilient Regions in an Uncertain World: Wishfull Thinking or Practical Reality?”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy ana Society, 3 (1), 11-26.
49. Jessop, B (2009) Kapitalist Devletin Geleceği, Epos yayınları.
50. Kayıran, M ( 2016) “Kalkınma Paradigmasındaki Dönüşümün Temelleri Üzerine”, İktisat Dergisi, Ekim, sayı: 534.
51. Krugman, P (1991)"Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”, Journal of Political Economy, 99: 483-499.
52. Krugman, P (1995) Development, Geography and Economic Theory, MIT Press.
53. Kuczynski, P. ve J. Williamson (2003) After the Washington Consensus, Restarting Growth and Reform in Latin America, Washington: Insititute for International Economics, www.iie.com, erişim: 26.05.2005.
54. Lapavitsas ve M. Noguchi ( 2005) (der.) Beyond Market-Driven Development, Drawing on the Experience of Asia and Latin America, Routledge: London.
55. Martin, R (2010) “ Regional Economic Resilience, Hysterisis ana Recessionary Shocks” Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 10, https://econ.geo.uu.nl./peeg /peeg.html, erişim: 16.07.2017
56. Martin, R ve P. Sunley (2014) “ On the Notion of Regional Economic Resilience: Conceptualization and Explanation” Journal of Economic Geography, July 2, 1-42.
57. Martin, R, P. Sunley ve P. Tyler (2015) “Local Growth Evolutions: Recession, Resilience and Recovery”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy ana Society, 8, 141-148.
58. McKinsey Global Institute (2016a) Digital Globalization: The New Era of Global Flows, February, www. mckinsey.com, erişim: 21.10.2016.
59. McKinsey Global Institute (2016b) Industry 4.0 After the Initial Hype. www.mckinsey.com, erişim: 1.10.2016
60. Mosco, V. ve C. Fuchs (der.) (2014) Marx Geri Döndü, Medya Meta ve Sermaye Birikimi, Notabene Yayınları.
61. Nelson, R ve S.G.Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
62. Noland, M. ve H. Pack (2003) Industrial Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons from Asia, Washington: Institute for International Economics, www.iie.com, erişim: 25.05.2005.
63. North, D (1999) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
64. OECD (2009) How Regions Grow, Trends and Analysis, www.oecd.org, erişim: 08.05.2011
65. OECD (2012) Promoting Growth in All Regions. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
66. Oğuz, Ş (2013) “ Kurumsalcı Bir Kurgu Olarak Kalkınmacı Devlet: Tarihsel ve Kuramsal Bir Eleştiri”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 46, Sayı 4.
67. Öniş, Z ve F. Şenses (2005) “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus”, Development and Change 36(2), 263-290.
68. Özdemir, A.M (2007) “Uluslararası Ekonomi Politiğe Marksist Yaklaşımlar”, M. Ataman (der.) Küresel Güç ve Refah, Uluslararası Ekonomi Politik Teorileri ve Alanları, Nobel Yayınları içinde, 54-107.
69. Peck, J ( 2010) “ Zombie Neoliberalizm and the Ambidextrous State”, Theoretical Crimonology, 14 (1), 104-110.
70. Peck, J ve N. Theodore (2010) “Reanimating Neoliberalism: Process Geographies of Neoliberalization”, Social Antropology, 20, 177-185.
71. Peck, J ve A. Tickell (2002) “ Neoliberalizing Space”, Antipode: 380-403.
72. Peet, R ve E. Hartwick (2009) Theories of Development, Contentıons, Arguments, Alternatives, The Guılford Press, New York, London.
73. Peet, R (2013) “Finans Kapitalizminin Çelişkileri”, Monthly Review, Şubat, sayı:32.
74. Peters, M.A ve E. Bulut (2014) Bilişsel Kapitalizm, Eğitim ve Digital Emek, notabene yayınları.
75. Pike, A, A. Rodriguez-Pose ve J. Tomaney (2007) “What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom?”, Regional Studies, Vol: 41.9, 1253-1269.
76. Pike, A, Dawley, S ve Tomaney, J (2010) “ Resilience, Adaptation and Adabtability”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3 (1).
77. Rodrik, D (1999) New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work, Washington, D.C, Overseas Development.
78. Rodrik, D ve A. Subramanian (2003) “ The Primacy of Institutions, What This Does and Does Not Mean”, Finance and Development, June, 31-34.
79. Rodrik, D (2016) “ Premature Deindustrialization”, Journal of Economic Growth, 21, 1-33.
80. Romer, P.M (1986) “ Increasing Returns and Long run Growth”, Journal of Polıtıcal Economy, 94 (5).
81. Saad-Filho, A ve D. Johnston (der.) (2007) Neoliberalizm. Muhalif Bir Seçki, Çev: Ş. Başlı ve T. Öncel, Yordam Kitap.
82. Stiglitz, J.E (1998) “Towards A New Paradigm for Development”, 9th Raul Prebisch Lecture, 19 October, Palais des Nations, Geneva, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
83. Stiglitz, J.E (2002), Globalization and its Discontents, New York: Norton. Eserin Türkçe çevirisi, Küreselleşme Büyük Hayal Kırıklığı, Plan B, İstanbul.
84. Şenses, F ( 2009) Neoliberal Küreselleşme ve Kalkınma: Seçme Yazılar, İletişim Yayınları.
85. Tatar-Peker, A (1996) “Dünya Bankası: Büyüme Söyleminden “İyi Yönetişim” Söylemine”, Toplum ve Bilim, 69, Bahar, 6-61.
86. Theodore, N, J. Peck ve N. Brenner (2011) “ Neoliberal Urbanism: Cities and the Rule of Markets”, G. Bridge ve S. Watson (der.) The New Blackwell Companion to the City, Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.
87. UNCTAD (2016) Trade and Development Report, 2016, Structural Transformation for Inclusive and Sustained Growth, United Nations Publication,: New York and Geneva.
88. Vercellone, C (2015) (der.) Bilişsel Kapitalizm, Post-Fordist Dönemde Bilgi ve Finans, Otonom Yayıncılık.
89. Wacquant, L (2012) “ Three Steps to a Historical Anthropology of Actually Existing Neoliberalism”, Social Anthropology, 20 (1), 66-79.
90. Wade, R. (1990) Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton University Press.
91. Weiss, L ve J. M. Hobson ( 1999) Devletler ve Ekonomik Kalkınma, Karşılaştırmalı Bir Tarihsel Analiz, Dost Kitabevi.
92. Wolf, R. D ve S. A. Resnick (2016) Çatışan İktisadi Teoriler, İletişim Yayınları.
93. Williamson, J (1990) “Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened ?”, Washington: Institute for International Economics, www.iie.com,erişim: 16.05.2005
94. Williamson, J (2004) “ A Short History of the Washington Consensus”, Conference on “From the Washington Consensus Towards a New Global Governance”, Barcelona, September 24-25, 2004. www.iie.com, erişim: 14.05.2005.
95. Yalman, G (2003)” Neoliberal Hegemonya ve Siyasal İktisat: Latin Amerika Dersleri”, A. H. Köse, F. Şenses ve E. Yeldan (der), Küresel Düzen: Birikim, Devlet ve Sınıflar, İktisat Üzerine Yazılar I, İletişim Yayınları, 2003 içinde, 453-474.
96. Yalman, G (2009) Transition to Neoliberalism: The Case of Turkey in the 1980s, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayını.
97. Yılmaz D. Ö (2011) “Kalkınmanın Yeni Mekanları; Alternatif Bir Kavramlaştırma Denemesi”, İktisat Dergisi, Aralık, Sayı: 519.
98. Zabcı, F (2009) Dünya Bankası: Yanılsamalar ve Gerçekler, Yordam Kitap, İstanbul.