İktisat, Kurumsal İktisat ve İktisat Sosyolojisi

Abstract

İktisat ile sosyoloji arasında 1970'li yıllara kadar devam eden bir entelektüel işbölümü mevcuttu. İktisat rasyonel seçim teorisi çerçevesinde piyasa analizine odaklanırken, sosyoloji ise yapılar, kültür ve değerleri açıklamaya odaklanmıştı. Yeni kurumsal iktisat ile iktisat sosyolojisinin gelişimi ile birlikte bu disiplin tanımları 1970'li yıllar başlarında radikal bir biçimde değişmeye başladı. İktisatta ortodoksi ile heterodoksi arasındaki ilişkinin doğası da aynı yıllarda hızla değişmeye başladı. Bu çalışmanın amacı iktisatta ortodoksi ve heterodoksideki gelişmelere odaklanarak iktisat ile sosyoloji arasındaki ilişkiyi tartışmaktır. Kurumsal iktisat hem ortodoks hem de heterodoks iktisadın kullandığı bir tanım olduğundan, tartışma bu okul üzerinden yürütülecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kurumsal iktisat, iktisat sosyolojisi, ortodoksi, heterodoksi

Keywords

• Kurumsal iktisat, iktisat sosyolojisi, ortodoksi, heterodoksi

References

1. Beckert, J. (1996), “What Is Sociological about Economic Sociology? Uncertainty and the Embeddedness of Economic Action”, Theory and So- ciety 25, 803–840.
2. Beckert, J. (2003), “Economic Sociology and Embeddedness: How Shall We Conceptualize Economic Action?” Journal of Economic Issues 37: 3, 769-87.
3. Bernstein, R. J. (1983), Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
4. Bögenhold, D. (2010), “From Heterodoxy to Othodoxy and Vice Versa: Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work”, Ame- rican Journal of Economics and Sociology, 69: 5, 1566-1590.
5. Caille, A. (2007), “Sociology as Anti-Utilitarianism”, European Journal of Social Theory, 10: 2, 277-286.
6. Clarke, S. (1982), Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology, London: Macmillan
7. Colander, D. (2000) The death of neoclassical economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22, 127–143.
8. Colander, D., Holt, R. P. F. and Rosser, J. B., (2004), “The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics”, Review of Political Economy, 16: 4, 485-499.

9. Davis, J. B. (2006), “The Nature of Heterodox Economics”, Post-Autistic Economics Review, 40, 23-30.
10. Davis, J. B. (2008), “The Turn in Recent Economics and Return of Ort- hodoxy”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32, 349-366.
11. Dow, S. C. (2011), “Heterodox Economics: History and Prospects”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35, 1151-1165.
12. Frey, B. and Benz, M. (2004), “From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology”, D. J., Marciano, A. and R. J. (eds), The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13. Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
14. Granovetter, M. (1992), “Economic Institutions as Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis”, Acta Sociologica, 35, 3-11.
15. Groenewegen, J., C. Pitelis, and S-E. Sjostrand (eds.) (1995), On Eco- nomic Institutions, Theory and Application, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
16. Heiskala, R. (2007), “Economy and Society: from Parsons through Ha- bermas to Semiotic Institutionalism”, Theory and Methods, 46: 2, 243-272.
17. Hodgson, G. M. (1994), “The Return of Institutional Economics”, N.Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds.) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Hodgson, G. M. (2004), The Evolution of Institutional Economics, Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routlege.
19. Hodgson, G. M. (2008), “Prospects for Economic Sociology”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 38: 1, 133-149.
20. Ingham, G. (1996), “Some Recent Changes in the Relationship Between Economics and Sociology”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20, 243-275.
21. Joas, H. (1993), Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22. Joas, H. (1996), The Creativity of Action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Kalberg, S. (2007), “A Cross-National Consensus on a Unified Sociolo- gical Theory? Some Inter-Cultural Obstacles”, European Journal of Social Theory, 10: 2, 206-219.
24. Kilpinen, E. (2003), “Does Pragmatism Imply Institutionalism.” Journal of Economic Issues, 37: 2 291-304.
25. Lawson, T. (2006), “The Nature of Heterodox Economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 483-505.
26. Lee, F. S. (2010), “A Case for Ranking Heterodox Journals and Depart- ments”, On the Horizon, 16: 4, 241-251.
27. O’Hara, P. A. (2010), “Can the Principles of Heterodox Political Economy Explain Its Own Re-Emergence and Development?”, On the Horizon, 16: 4, 260-278.
28. Parsons, T. ([1937] 1968), The Structure of Social Action, New York: The Free Press.
29. Robbins, L. (1932), An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Eco- nomic Science. London: Macmillan
30. Rorty, R. (1981), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Prin- ceton University Press.
31. Rutherford, M. (2011), The Institutionalist Movement in American Eco- nomics, 1918-1947, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Smelser, N. J. And R. Swedberg (1994), “The Sociological Perspective on the Economy”, N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princetion: Princeton University Press.
33. Swedberg, R. (1991), “Major Traditions of Economic Sociology”, Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 251-276.
34. Swedberg, R. (2003), Principles of Economic Sociology, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Veblen, T. B. ([1923] 1964) Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.
36. Veblen, T. B. ([1919] 1990), The Place of Science in Modern Civilization and Other Essays. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
37. Veblen, T. B. ([1921] 1990), The Engineers and the Price System. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
38. Veblen, T. B. ([1899] 1994), The Theory of Leisure Class. New York: Dover Publications.
39. Velthuis, O. (1999), “The Changing Relationship Between Economic Sociology and Institutional Economics: From Talcott Parsons to Mark Gra- novetter”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58: 4, 629-649.
40. Yılmaz, F. (2003), “İktisat ve Sosyoloji: Rakip Kardeşlerin Hakimiyet Kavgası”, Toplum ve Bilim, 95, 61-84
41. Yılmaz, F. (2007), “Veblen and the Problem of Rationality”, Journal of Economic Issues, 41: 3, 841-862.
42. Yılmaz, F. (2011), “Düşünceden Kaçış Çabasının Öyküsü: İktisadın Fel- sefeden Kopuşu”, O. İşler ve F. Yılmaz (der.) İktisadı Felsefeyle Düşünmek, İstanbul: İletişim
43. Yonay, Y. and Breslau, D. (2006), “Marketing Models: The Culture of Mathematical Economics”, Sociological Forum, 21: 3, 345-386.
44. Young, C. (2009), “The Emergence of Sociology from Political Economy in the United States: 1890 to 1940”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 45: 2, 91-116.
45. Zafirovski, M. (2004), “Paradigms for Analysis of Social Institutions: A case for sociological institutionalism”, International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 14:3, 363-397.