Deneysel İktisadın Tarihi

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 2142 - 2162, 30.09.2023

Sefa Erkuş Burak Kağan Demirtaş

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1280016

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı Türkçe yazında görece yeni olan deneysel iktisat alanına, iktisatta kontrollü deneylerin kullanımının tarihsel gelişimine ilişkin referans olabilecek şekilde katkı sunmaktır. Şüphesiz ki deneysel iktisat çalışacak araştırmacılar için deneysel iktisadın tarihsel gelişim sürecini öğrenmek oldukça önem arz etmektedir. İktisatta deneysel yöntemin tarihini öğrenmek araştırmacılara yöntemin geçmişte karşılaştığı sorunları analiz etme imkanı sunarken, yöntemin şimdi ve gelecekteki yönü hakkında yapılabilecek araştırmalar hakkında da ipuçları vermektedir.
İktisatta kontrollü deneylerin kullanımına özellikle iktisatçılar uzun süre direnç göstermiş olsa da bugün iktisat alanında kontrollü deneylerin kullanıldığı çalışmaların sıklıkla yayınlandığı görülmektedir. Soğuk savaş döneminde oyun teorik modellerin deneyler yürütülerek sınanması deneysel yöntemin yaygınlaşması için ilk itici güç olmuştur. 80’li yıllardan itibaren insan davranışlarını açıklama çabası ile davranışsal iktisatçıların yürüttüğü deneyler, yöntemin iktisatçılar arasında yaygınlaşmasını sağlayan bir diğer önemli etken olmuştur. 2002 yılında Nobel İktisat Ödülü’nün piyasa mekanizmasını kontrollü laboratuvar deneyleri yürüterek araştırdığı ve deneysel iktisat yöntemine katkıda bulunduğu için Vernon L. Smith’e verilmesi, iktisatta deneysel yöntemin artık ana akım yöntemlerden biri haline geldiğinin de bir tescili olarak göz önünde bulundurulabilir.
Deneysel iktisat tarihinin yazımına ilişkin bazı güçlükler bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan biri yöntemin disiplinler arası bir karakter taşıması iken diğeri de deneysel yöntemin erken dönemine ilişkin bilgilerin çoğunlukla kişisel anılara, hikayelere dayanmasıdır . Deneysel iktisadın tarihsel gelişimi incelendiğinde çoğunlukla bireysel tercihler, piyasaların işleyişi ve oyun teorik modellerin teorik öngörülerinin sınanmasına ilişkin deneylerin gerçekleştirildiği görülmektedir. Bu sebeple bu çalışmada da deneysel iktisadın tarihsel gelişimi bu üç ana başlık altında toplanmıştır. Bunlara ek olarak, deneysel iktisadın gelişimine etki eden önemli teorik gelişmelere ve kişilere de çalışmada ayrıca değinilmektedir.

Keywords

Deneysel İktisat, İktisat Metodolojisi, Laboratuvar Deneyleri, İktisat Tarihi, İktisatta Yöntem

The History of Experimental Economics

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to contribute to the relatively new field of experimental economics in Turkish literature, serving as a reference for the historical development of the controlled experiments in economics. It is undeniably essential for researchers studying experimental economics to understand the historical progression of this method. By learning about the history of the experimental method in economics, researchers can analyze past challenges and gain insights into current and future research directions.
Although economists resisted the use of controlled experiments in economics for a long time, it is observed today that studies employing controlled experiments are frequently published in the field of economics. The testing of game theoretical models through experiments during the Cold War period served as the initial driving force behind the widespread adoption of the experimental method. Additionally, the experiments conducted by behavioral economists since the 1980s to explain human behavior have further popularized this method among economists. The awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Vernon L. Smith in 2002 for his research on the market mechanism through controlled laboratory experiments and his contributions to the field of experimental economics, can be considered as a recognition of the fact that experimental methods have now become one of the mainstream approaches in economics.
There are certain difficulties related to the writing of the history of experimental economics. One of them is the interdisciplinary nature of the method, while the other is that information about the early period of experimental method mostly relies on personal recollections and stories. When examining the historical development of experimental economics, it is observed that experiments were primarily conducted to test individual preferences, market functioning, and the theoretical predictions of game-theoretic models. Therefore, in this study, the historical development is categorized under these three main subjects. Additionally, significant theoretical developments and individuals that influenced the historical development of experimental economics are also discussed.

Keywords

Experimental Economics, Economics Methodology, Laboratory Experiments, History of Economics, Method in Economics

References

• Akın, Z. & Urhan, B. (2010). İktisat Deneysel Bir Bilim Olmaya Mı Başlıyor?. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 25(288), 9-28.
• Aktan, C. C., Basılgan, M., Genç Y., Yay, S. & Göcen, S. (2020). Davranışsal İktisat Deneysel İktisat ve Nobelite. İzmir: Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Derneği Yayınları.
• Alan, S., Ertac, S., Kubilay, E., & Loranth, G. (2020). Understanding gender differences in leadership. The Economic Journal, 130(626), 263-289.
• Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907921
• Allais, M. (1979). The 1952 Allais Theory of Choice Involving Risk. M. Allais & O. Hagen (Ed.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox içinde (ss. 27-145). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1
• Anbarcı, Nejat, Feltovich N. & Gürdal, M. Y. (2013). The contractor game: a theoretical and experimental analysis, School Working Paper, 2013/7
• Basılgan, M. (2013). İktisat ve Deneysel Yöntem: Deneyler, Tartışmalar ve Geleceği, İÜ Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 48,61-89.
• Basılgan, M. & Ertürk, E. (2015). İktisat Öğretiminde Deneysel Yöntem: Sınıf Deneyleri Ve Uluslararası İktisat Uygulamaları, Ege Akademik Bakış, 4(15), 467-479.
• Bayındır, E. E., Gürdal, M. Y., Özdoğan, A., & Sağlam, I. (2020). Cheap talk games with two- senders and different modes of communication. Games, 11(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/g11020018
• Baymul, Ç. (2018). Perceived Income Inequality and Corruption, Global Relations Forum Young Academics Program Analysis, Paper Series No.2.
• Becker, G. M., Degroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090304
• Bellman, R., Clark, C. E., Malcolm, D. G., Craft, C. J., & Ricciardi, F. M. (1957). On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game. Operations Research, 5(4), 469-503. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.5.4.469
• Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
• Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909829
• Caltech. (2022). Detailed History of Experimental Economics at Caltech. https://lindeinstitute.caltech.edu/research/ctess/history/detailed-history
• Camerer, C. (1995). Individual Decision Making. J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Ed.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics içinde (ss. 3-111). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzsmff5
• Cardenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. P. (2005). Three themes on field experiments and economic development. Field experiments in economics içinde (Vol. 10, pp. 71-123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Chakravarty, S., Friedman, D., Gupta, G., Hatekar, N., Mitra, S., & Sunder, S. (2011). Experimental Economics: A Survey. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(35), 39-78.
• Chamberlin, E. H. (1948). An Experimental Imperfect Market. Journal of Political Economy, 56(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.1940.tb02281.x
• Chew, S. H., & MacCrimmon, K. R. (1979). Alpha-nu Choice Theory: A generalization of Expected Utility Theory (ss. 1-30). UBC Working Paper.
• Davidson, D., & Marschak, J. (1959). Experimental Tests of Stochastic Decision Theory. P. Ratoosh & C. W. Churchman (Ed.), Measurement: Definitions and Theories içinde (ss. 233-269). Wiley.
• Davidson, D., Supper, P., & Siegel, S. (1957). Decision Making: An Experimental Approach. Stanford University Press.
• Demirtaş, B. K. (2021a). Vergi Uyumu Davranışı ve Laboratuvar Deneyleri: Bir Yazın Taraması. Maliye Dergisi, (180), 115–143.
• Demirtaş, B. K. (2021b). Deneysel Çalışma Ekonomisi: İşgücü Arzı ve Hediye-Değişim Teorisi Üzerine Bir Literatür Taraması, M. Yiğit, & A. Yiğit (Ed.), İktisadi Konulara Davranışsal Yaklaşım içinde (ss. 59-91). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Demirtaş, B. K. (2021c). Çevrimiçi Deneyler. Volkan Yurdadoğ, Neslihan Koç & Oğuzhan Bozatlı (Ed.), Bireyden Yapay Zekaya Sosyal Bilimler Çalışmaları içinde (ss. 15-24). Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi.
• Demirtaş, B. K. (2022). Sahada Laboratuvar Deneyleri. Ahmet Arif Eren & Emre Günerşer Bozdağ (Ed.), Dünden Bugüne İktisadi ve Finansal Konular Üzerine Tartışmalar içinde (ss. 3-14). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Dibo, M., Seçilmiş, E. & Güran, M.C. (2018). Deneysel İktisatta Ödül Mekanizmasının Rolü: Parasal Teşvik ve Ders Notu Karşılaştırması. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar. 636, 37-46.
• Dilek, S. & Yıldırım, R. (2023a). Migrants And The Bargaining Process In The Labor Market: Application Of Ultimatum Game. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10 (1) , 189-202.
• Dilek, S. & Yıldırım, R. (2023b). Gender Differences in Wage Negotiations: An Ultimatum Game Experiment, Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 12 (1), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1132446
• Dimand, R. W. (2005). Experimental economic games: The early years. P. Fontaine & R. Leonard (Ed.), The Experiment in the History of Economics içinde (ss. 5-24). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134287604
• Duman, P. (2020). Does informational equivalence preserve strategic behavior? Experimental results on Trockel’s model of Selten’s chain store story. Games, 11(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/g11010009
• Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324
• Erkuş, S. (2023). Topluluk Önünde Konuşmada Cinsiyet Farklılıkları: Deneysel İktisat Uygulamaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
• Ertac, S., & Gurdal, M. Y. (2012). Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 24-30.
• Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2003). Why Labour Market Experiments?. Labour Economics, 10, 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00050-2
• Flood, M. M. (1952). Some Experimental Games (Research Memorandum). RAND Corporation.
• Flood, M. M. (1958). Some Experimental Games. Management Science, 5(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.5.1.5
• Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
• Frechette, G. R., K. Sarnoff, & Yariv, L. (2021). Experimental economics: Past and future. Annual Review of Economics, 14, 777-794, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081621-124424
• Giritligil, A. E. (2022). Deneysel İktisatta Yalan Söyleme Davranışının İncelenmesi: Temel Paradigmalar, Bulgular ve Araştırma Hedefleri Üzerine Düşünceler. REFLEKTİF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.47613/reflektif.2022.63
• Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 623-638.
• Guala, F. (2010). Experimental economics, history of. Behavioural and Experimental Economics içinde (ss. 99-106). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280786_13
• Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
• Gürdal, M. Y., Ozdogan, A. & Saglam, I. (2014). Truth-telling and trust in sender–receiver games with intervention: An experimental study. Review of Economic Design, 2014, 18, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10058-013-0155-9
• Gürdal, M. Y., Torul, O. & Vostroknutov, A. (2020). Norm compliance, enforcement, and the survival of redistributive institutions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 178, 313– 326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.07.031
• Harrison, G. W. (2005). Field Experiments and Control. Harrison G. W., Carpenter, J., And List, J.A. (Ed.) Field Experiments in Economics içinde, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Heinz, M., Juranek, S., & Rau, H. A. (2012). Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 105-110.
• Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383-451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01004149
• Horton, J. J., Rand, D.G. & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011), The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399-425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9
• Jacquemet, N., & Haridon, O. L. (2018). Experimental Economics: Method and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
• Kalisch, G. K., Milnor, J. W., Nash, J. F., & Nering, E. D. (1954). Some Experimental n-Person Games. In R. Thrall, C. Coombs, & R. Davis (Ed.), Decision processes (ss. 301-327). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Kırış, Ş. & Dilek, S. (2021). Müslüman Dindarlık Tipolojileri ile Diğerkâmlık Arası İlişkilerin İncelemesi: Ültimatom ve Diktatör Oyunu Uygulaması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 1470-1492.
• Lewis, M. (2016). The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed The World. Penguin.
• Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031207
• List, J. A. (2002). Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The “More Is Less” Phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636-1643. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024692
• Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 805. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232669
• Luca, M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2020). The Power of Experiments: Decision Making in a Data-Driven World. The MIT Press.
• Machina, M. J. (1982). “Expected Utility” Analysis without the Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 50(2), 277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912631
• May, K. O. (1954). Intransitivity, Utility, and the Aggregation of Preference Patterns. Econometrica, 22(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/0012-9682
• McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1995). Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 6-38. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1023
• Mill, J. S. (1967). Essays on Economics and Society Part I, Robson, J. M. (Ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume IV., Routledge.
• Moscati, I. (2007). Early experiments in consumer demand theory: 1930-1970. History of Political Economy, 39(3), 359-401. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2007-015
• Moscati, I. (2021). History of Utility Theory. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Economics içinde (ss. 23-36). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739793-3
• Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An Experimental Measurement of Utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371-404.
• Moulin, H. (1986). Game Theory for the Social Sciences. New York University Press.
• Muijs, D. (2004) Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. SAGE Publications.
• Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1313-1326.
• Nebioğlu, D. & Giritligil, A. E. (2018a), Wealth Effects and Labor Supply: An Experimental Study, BELIS Working Papers: 2018-01, BELIS, Istanbul Bilgi University.
• Nebioğlu, D. & Giritligil, A. E. (2018b). Labor/leisure trade-off in the laboratory. BELIS Working ˘ Papers 2018-2, BELIS, Istanbul Bilgi University.
• Nobelprize.org. (2021, Aralık 26). All Prizes in Economic Sciences. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-prizes-in-economic-sciences/
• Öneş, U. (2019). Davranışsal İktisat Deneylerinde Toplumsal Cinsiyet Temelli Farklar. Mülkiye Dergisi, 43 (2), 411-434.
• Pareto, V. (1900). Sunto di alcuni capitoli di un nuovo trattato di economia pura del Prof. Pareto. Giornale degli Economisti, 20(11), 216-235.
• Preston, M. G., & Baratta, P. (1948). An Experimental Study of the Auction-Value of an Uncertain Outcome. The American Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 183-193.
• Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7
• Rapoport, A., & Orwant, C. (1962). Experimental games: A review. Behavioral Science, 7(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830070102
• Roth, A. (1995). Introduction to Experimental Economics. J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Ed.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics içinde (ss. 3-111). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzsmff5
• Roth, A. E., & Sotomayor, M. A. O. (1990). Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052139015X
• Rousseas, S. W., & Hart, A. G. (1951). Experimental Verification of a Composite Indifference Map. Journal of Political Economy, 59(4), 288-318. https://doi.org/10.1086/257092
• Samuelson P.A. & W. Nordhaus. (1985). Principles of economics, 12° ed. McGraw-Hill.
• Sauermann, H., & Selten, R. (1959). Ein Oligopolexperiment. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft / Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 115(3), 427-471.
• Sauermann, H., & Selten, R. (1960). An experiment in oligopoly. L. von Bartalanffy & A. Rapoport (Ed.), General Systems Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research 5 içinde (ss. 85-114).
• Schelling, T. C. (1957). Bargaining, communication, and limited war. Conflict Resolution, 1(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275700100104
• Seçilmiş, E. (2018). An experimental analysis of moral self-regulation. Applied Economics Letters, 25:12, 857-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1374530
• Seçilmiş, İ. E. & M. C. Güran (2011). Deneysel İktisatta İç ve Dış Geçerlilik: Metodolojik Bir İnceleme. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 26(306): 25-51.
• Seçilmiş, İ. E. & Güran, M.C. (2010). Kamusal Malların Sağlanmasında Bedavacılık Problemi ve Deneysel İktisat Uygulamaları Perspektifinden Değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 221-256.
• Selten, R. (2003). Emergence and Future of Experimental Economics. Galavotti, M. C. (Ed.), Observation and Experiment in the Natural and Social Sciences içinde (ss. 63-71). Springer.
• Siegel, S., & Fouraker, L. E. (1960). Bargaining and group decision making: Experiments in bilateral monopoly. McGraw-Hill.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Smith, V. L. (1962). An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 70(2), 111-137.
• Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory. The American Economic Review, 66(2), 274-279.
• Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science. The American Economic Review, 72(5), 923-955.
• Smith, V. L. (2017). Tribute to Sidney Siegel (1916-1961): A Founder of Experimental Economics. Southern Economic Journal, 83(3), 664-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12196
• Suppes, P., & Atkinson, R. C. (1960). Markov learning models for multiperson interactions. Stanford University Press.
• Svorenčík, A. (2015). The Experimental Turn in Economics: A History of Experimental Economics [University of Utrecht]. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2560026
• Tetik, M. & Tetik, G. (2021). Ultimatum Game Bargaining Behaviour: A Classroom Experiment. Studies in Microeconomics, 10(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/23210222211024
• Thrall, R. M., Coombs, C. H., & Davis, R. L. (1954). Decision processes (R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, & R. L. Davis, Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800010420
• Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The Indifference Function. Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2), 139-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1931.9918964
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
• van Dijk, E., & De Dreu, C. K. (2021). Experimental games and social decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 415-438.
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
• Wallis, W. A., & Friedman, M. (1942). The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions. O. Lange (Ed.), Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics içinde (ss. 175-189). University of Chicago Press.
• Weimann, J., & Brosig-Koch, J. (2019). Methods in Experimental Economics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93363-4
• Yavuzaslan, K. (2018a). Yeni İktisat Paradigmasında Bir Yöntem Olarak Deneysel İktisat. Kafkas Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 9(18), 41-657.
• Yavuzaslan, K. (2018b). Deneysel İktisat ve Kültürel Farklılıkların Deneysel İktisatla İfadesi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33, 217-231. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.425851
• Yavuzaslan, K. (2019). İktisat Bilimi Laboratuvara mı Taşınıyor? Deneysel İktisat Ve Oyun Teorisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışma Dergisi, 11(21), 428-444. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.531935