İKTİSADİ ANALİZ TARİHİNE NASIL YAKLAŞMAK GEREKİR?

Year 2001, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 19 - 38, 31.12.2001

Hüseyin Özel

Abstract

Bu yazı, iktisadi analiz tarihine nasıl yaklaşılması gerektiğine ilişkin
yöntembilgisel bir nottur. Yazıda, analiz tarihinin temel birimi olarak kabul
edilen “düşünce okulu” kavramının, esas olarak Schumpeter’in “bilim öncesi
vizyon” dediği “metafizik çekirdek” ile ona dayanan “analitik” yapının, yani
teori, model ve hipotez gibi iktisadın “teknik” boyutunun bir birleşimi olduğu
ileri sürülmektedir. Yazıda, bu kavram kullanılarak iki temel düşünce okulu,
yani Klasik-Marksist düşünce okulu ile Neoklasik düşünce okulu tanımlanmakta ve
bu okulların benimsedikleri temel analitik çerçeveler ele alınmaktadır. Yazıda
vurgulanmaya çalışılan düşünce, bu iki okul arasındaki analitik farklılıkların,
esas olarak onların benimsedikleri “vizyonlar” arasındaki farklılıktan
kaynaklandığı düşüncesidir.

Keywords

Mutlakçılık, Görececilik, “bilim öncesi vizyon”, düşünce okulu, Klasik-Marksist okul; Neoklasik düşünce okulu

İKTİSADİ ANALİZ TARİHİNE NASIL YAKLAŞMAK GEREKİR?

Abstract

This paper is a methodological note concerning basic
principles and methods in approaching to the history of economic analysis. It
is argued that the notion of the “school of thought”, which is taken as the
basic unit of the history of analysis, can be considered as a mixture of what
Schumpeter calls the “preanalytical vision”, that is, the “metaphysical core”
constituted by perceptions and prescientific outlook of the researcher towards
reality, and the analytical “superstructure”, constituted by the “technical”
aspects of economic theory-such as models, assumptions and hypotheses-on the
basis of this core. Based upon this notion, a distinction is drawn between the
two alternative schools, namely the Classical-Marxist and the Neoclassical
schools of thought , and the respective analytical frameworks adopted by these
schools are explored. The basic idea defended and emphasized in the paper is
that the fundamental differences between these two schools stem from the
differences in the respective “visions”.

 

Keywords

Absolutism, Relativism, “prescientific vision”, school of thought, Classical-Marxist school, Neoclassical school

References

• Arestis, Philip, Stephen P. Dunn and Malcolm Sawyer (1999), “Post Keynesian Economics and Its Critics,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 527-49.
• Buğra, Ayşe, İktisatçılar ve İnsanlar, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1989.
• Blaug, Mark (1992), Economic Theory in Retrospect, 4th edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Demir, Ömer (1995), İktisat ve Yöntem, İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 1995.
• Divitçioğlu, Sencer (1976) Değer ve Bölüşüm: Marxist İktisat ve Cambridge Okulu, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Yayını.
• Eatwell, John and Murray Milgate (1983), Keynes's Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
• Eren, Ercan (1994), İktisatta Yöntem, 3. Basım, Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi, 1994.
• Erol, Ümit (1997), Eleştirel Bir Gözle Serbest Piyasa, İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
• Feyerabend, Paul A. (1975), Against Method: An Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London: New Left Books.
• Giddens, Anthony (1999), Toplumun Kuruluşu: Yapılaşma Kuramının Ana Hatları, Çeviren: Hüseyin Özel, Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat.
• Hollis, Martin and Edward Nell (1975), Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neo-Classical Economics, London: Cambridge University Press.
• Hollis, Martin (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hunt E.K,. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective, 2nd edition, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.
• Keynes J.M., (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Paperback edition: New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc. 1965.
• Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1970 (Türkçe çevirisi, Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı, çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş, İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık, 1985).
• Marx, Karl (1970). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Maurice Dobb (ed.), New York: International Publishers.
• Marx, Karl (1981), Capital, Vol. 3, Translated by D. Fernbach. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Milgate, Murray (1982), Capital and Employment, New York: Academic Press, 1982.
• Özel, Hüseyin (2000), “The Explanatory Role of General Equilibrium Theory: An Outline onto a Critique of Neoclassical Economics”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt 18, sayı 1, s. 257-285.
• Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press. Redman, Deborah (1991), Economics and Philosophy of Science. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1949), “Science and Ideology”, Daniel Hausman, The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, içinde, s. 260-275.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sraffa, Pierro (1960), Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stigler, George, J. (1952), The Theory of Price, New York: Macmillan.
• Sunar, İlkay (1999), Düşün ve Toplum, Ankara: Doruk Yayınları.
• Walters, B. and D. Young (1997), “On the Coherence of Post Keynesian Economics,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 44, no. 3, p. 329-349.