Douglass C. North, Metodolojik Bireycilik ve Rasyonalite

Year 2024, Volume: 42 Issue: 4, 555 - 568, 25.12.2024

Yusuf Kaan Acar

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1416667

Abstract

Yeni Kurumsal İktisadın en önemli isimlerinden biri Douglass C. North”tur. North’un “Bir toplumda oynanan oyunun kuralları” olarak belirlediği kurum tanımı günümüzdeki birçok kurumsal iktisatçı tarafından benimsenmiş durumdadır. Bunun yanında North, kariyerinin son dönemlerinde kurumların sadece toplumsal rollerini vurgulamakla kalmamış, bireysel etkilerini de ele alacak şekilde daha geniş bir kurumsal perspektif ortaya koymuştur. Bunu yaparken de Neoklasik İktisadın bireyini eleştirel bir biçimde ele alarak çeşitli bireysel analizler için farklı bir yol sunmuştur. Bunun sonucunda Neoklasik İktisattan bir hayli uzaklaşmış, hatta zaman zaman heterodoks bir yaklaşım olan eski kurumsalcılıkla ortak bazı temalara da değinmiştir. Zihinsel modellerin ve kültürün önemini vurgulayan North, bu alanda yaptığı çalışmalarla iktisatçılara yeni bir ufuk açmıştır. Vardığı noktada ise iktisatçıların bireyi daha doğru bir şekilde analiz etmeleri gerektiğini ve bunu bilişsel bilimler ile iktisat arasında ortak temalar belirleyerek yapabileceklerini ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı North’un eleştirileri bağlamında iktisat biliminin bireyci yaklaşımını ele alarak, bu yaklaşımın nasıl daha sağlıklı hale getirilebileceğinin tartışılmasıdır.

Keywords

Kurum, Metodolojik Bireycilik, Rasyonalite

Douglass C. North, Methodological Individualism and Rationality

Abstract

One of the most important names of the New Institutional Economics is Douglass C. North. North” 's definition of institutions as “the rules of the game played in a society” has been adopted by many institutional economists today. In addition, late in his career, North emphasized the social role of institutions and introduced a broader institutional perspective to address their individual effects. In doing so, he critically analyzed the individual in Neoclassical Economics and offered a different way for various individual analyses. As a result, he has moved away from Neoclassical Economics and even occasionally touched upon some common themes with old institutionalism, which is a heterodox approach. Emphasizing the importance of mental models and culture, North opened a new horizon for economists with his studies in this field. He concluded that economists need to analyze the individual more accurately and that they can do this by establishing common themes between cognitive sciences and economics. This study aims to discuss the individualist approach of economics in the context of North”s criticisms and how this approach can be made healthier.

Keywords

Institutions, Methodological Individualism, Rationality

References

• Acar, Y. K. (2023). Douglass C. North’un düşüncesinde kurumlar ve rasyonalite ilişkisi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi.
• Arnsperger, C., & Varoufakis, Y. (2006). What is neoclassical economics? The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrelevance and, thus, discursive power. Panoeconomicus, 53(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN0601005A
• Arrow, K. J. (1994) Methodological individualism and social knowledge. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 84(2), 1–9.
• Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
• Çetin, T. (2012). Yeni kurumsal iktisat. Sosyoloji Konferansları. (45), 43-73.
• Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Idelogies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1994.tb02246.x
• Dequech, D. (2008). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(2), 279-301. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27746799
• Elster, J. (1982). The case for metholodogical individualism. Theory and Society, 11(4), 453-482.
• Fine, B., & Milonakis, D. (2003). From principle of pricing to pricing of principle: Rationality and irrationality in the economic history of Douglass North. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 45(3), 546-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417503000252
• Groenewegen, J., F. Kerstholt, & A. Nagelkerke (1995). On integrating the new and oldInstitutionalisms: Douglass North Building Bridges. Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2), 467-475. Hodgson, G.M. (1986). Behind methodological individualism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 10(3), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a034996
• Hodgson, G.M. (1988). Economics and institutions: A manifesto for a modern institutional economics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(2), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780701394094
• Hodgson, G. M. (2009). Institutional economics into the twenty-first Century, Studi e Note di Economia, (1), 3-26.
• Hodgson, G. M. (2016). Introduction to the Douglass C. North memorial Issue. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137416000400
• Kirdina, S. (2015). Methodological individualism and methodological institutionalism for interdisciplinary research. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 11(1), 53-67.
• Kjosavik, D. J. (2003). Methodological individualism and rational choice in neoclassical economics: A review of institutionalist critique. Forum for Development Studies, 30(2), 205-245.
• Knight, J. & North, D. C. (1997). Explaining economic change: The interplay between cognition and institutions. Legal Theory, 3(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000768
• Neck, R. (2021). Methodological individualism: Still a useful methodology for the social sciences?. Atlantic Economic Journal, 49, 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-022-09740-x
• North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
• North, D. C. (1993). Institutions and credible commitment. Journal of Institutional andTheoretical Economics, 149(1), 11-23.
• North, D. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change, Princeton University Press.
• North, D. C. ([1990] 2010). Kurumlar, kurumsal değişim ve ekonomik performans, (G. Çağalı Güven, Çev.). Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Rutherford, M. (1995). The old and the new institutionalism: Can bridges be built? Journal of Economic Issues, 29(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1995.11505681
• Rutherford, M. (2001). Institutional economics: Then and now. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.3.173
• Simon, H. A. (1987). Bounded rationality. The new palgrave: A dictionary of economics. (John Eatwell, Murray Milgate ve Peter Newman, Ed.). New York: Stockton Press, 266-268.
• Vanberg, V. (1986). Spontaneous market order and social rules. Economics and Philosophy, 2, 75-100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000808
• Vandenberg, P. (2002). North’s institutionalism and the prospect of combining theoretical approaches. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26(2), 217-235.
• Watkins, J. W. N. (1952). The principle of methodological individualism. The British Journal forthe Philosophy of Science, 3(10), 186-189. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/iii.10.186
• Williamson, O. (1993a). Transaction-cost Economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 233-261.