Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Homoeconomicus’tan Girişimciye İktisat Sosyolojisinden Girişimcilik Sosyolojisine Bir Disiplinin Yol Haritası

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 108 - 128, 30.09.2023

Abstract

Amaç: iktisat ve sosyoloji disiplinlerinin kesişiminde bir alan iktisat sosyolojisi ile girişimcilik sosyolojisi arasındaki bağların irdelenmesi ve iktisat disiplininin öznesi ile sosyoloji disiplinin öznesini tanıtarak, girişimcilik sosyolojisi alt disiplininin öznesini araştırmak bu çalışmanın temel amaçları olarak sıralanabilir.
Yöntem: İlgili literatürdeki temel kaynaklardan yararlanılarak sosyolojik bakış açısını da içerecek biçimde betimsel analiz yapılacak ve böylece girişimcilik sosyolojisine ilişkin bir yol haritası çıkarılmaya çalışılacaktır.
Bulgular: Modern bilim anlayışı ile suni bir biçimde birbirinden ayrışan sosyal disiplinlerin bütüncül bir bakış açısı ile ele alınması durumunda daha kapsayıcı analizlerin yapılmasının mümkün olabileceği görülmüştür.
Sonuç ve Katkılar: Bu çalışma ile oldukça yeni bir disiplinler arası çalışma alanı olan girişimcilik sosyolojisinin ana hatlarıyla tanıtılması ve girişimcilik sosyolojisinin öznesinin kimliğinin deşifre edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu sayede ileride bu alanda çalışmak isteyen bilim insanları için bir yol haritası çıkarılmaya çalışılacaktır. Böylece ilgili alandan özellikle Türkçe literatüre bir katkı sunulması hedeflenmektedir.
Sınırlılıklar: Çalışmada ilgili literatürde temel uğrak olarak değerlendirilebilecek düşünürlerin görüşlerine yer verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Elbette gerek veri tabanları gerekse fiziki kaynakların incelenmesi sonucu gözden kaçmış kaynaklar söz konusu olabilir

References

  • Abell, P. (1991). Homo sociologicus: do we need him/her?, Sociological Theory 9(2), 195–198.
  • Agassi, J. (1975). Institutional Individualism, The British Journal of Sociology 26(2),144-145.
  • Aldrich, H. (2005). Entrepreneurship. N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds), Handbook of economic sociology (451–477). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Alter, M. (1982). Carl Menger and ‘homo oeconomicus’: Some thoughts on Austrian theory and methodology. Journal of Economic Issues. 16(1), 149-160.
  • Boudon, R. (1982). The unintended consequences of social action. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Browne, K. (1998). An introduction to sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Callero, P. L. (1985). “Role-Identity Salience.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48: 203–214.
  • Can, C. & Özek, S. (2018). Girişimcilik sosyolojisi: Sosyal kurumlar çerçevesinde girişimcilik, İstanbul: Kriter Yayınevi.
  • Comte, A. (2015). Pozitif Felsefe dersleri ve pozitif anlayış üzerine konuşma. Çev. Erkan Ataçay. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayıncılık.
  • Cremaschi, S. (2012). Review: a history of homoeconomicus, History of Economic İdeas, 20(3), 172-75.
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Homo sociologicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Davis, J. B. (2012). The homo economicus conception of the individual: an ontological approach. U. Mäki (Ed.). Philosophy of economics (459-482). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • DeGarmo, D. S. & Forgatch, M.S.(2002). Identity salience as a moderator of psychological and marital distress in stepfather families. Social Psychology Quarterly 65(3): 266–284.
  • Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. New York: Free Press.
  • Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
  • Elahi, K. (2014). Behavioral controversy concerning homo economicus: A human perspective. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 7(2), 2-29.
  • Elahi, K. (2015). Homo economicus in neoclassical economics: Some conceptual curiosities about behavioural criticisms. Homo Oeconomicus, 32(1), 23-51.
  • Eren, A.A. & Kırmızıaltın E. (Eds.) (2018). İktisat Sosyolojisi. Ankara: Heretik.
  • Ergun, D. (1973). 100 soruda sosyoloji el kitabı. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi.
  • Ferber, M. A. & Nelson, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Fine, B. & Milonakis, D. (2014). İktisat emperyalizminden acayip iktisada.Ankara: Heretik.
  • Giddens, A. (2008). Sosyoloji, (yayına hazırlayan: C. Güzel) İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları.
  • Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics, 35(3), 311-322.
  • Grampp, W. D. (1948). Adam Smith and the economic man. Journal of Political Economy 56(4): 315–336.
  • Guler, A. D., & Ozer-Imer, I. (2019). At the crossroads of history and theory: Weber, Schumpeter and economic sociology. Panoeconomicus, 66(4), 465-485.
  • Güçlü, A., Uzun, E., Uzun, S., Yolsal, Ü. H., & Hüsrev, F. S. (2007). Felsefe sözlüğü. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Güvel, A.E. (1998). Politik iktisat ve akıl. İstanbul: Alfa.
  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Hirsch, P, Stuart, M. & Friedman, R. (1987). “Dirty hands vs. clean models: Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics?” Theory and Society 16: 317–336.
  • Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2002). Social psychology. London: Prentice Hall.
  • Hogg, M. A., Deborah J. T. & White,K.M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 58(4): 255–269.
  • Huppes, T. (Ed.). (1982). Economics and sociology: towards an integration. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Işık, E. & Serdaroğlu,U.(2015). Kadın emeği: feminist iktisadın yol haritası üzerinden bir okuma. Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi (56), 6-15.
  • Işık, E. (2020). Kadın Emeği (Farklı Feminizm ve Feminist İktisat Anlayışları Temelinde Bilgi Kuramsal Bir İrdeleme). Ankara:Yetkin Yayınevi.
  • Işık, E. (2021). Görünmeyen Sınırların Kesişiminde Bir Alan: İktisat Sosyolojisi. Ş. Karabulut (Ed.). İktisadi Teori ve Gelişmelere Gelenekçi ve Yenilikçi Yaklaşımlar (187-210). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Kabaş, T. (2017). İktisat Sosyolojisi, Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi.
  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prosoect theory: an analysis of decision under Risk. Econometrica,47(2), 263-292.
  • Keister, L. (Ed.) (2005). Research in the sociology of work: entrepreneurship (Vol. 15). Oxford:Elsevier.
  • Kırmızıaltın, E. (2018). Davranışsal iktisat, A.A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Kornblum, W. & Smith, C. D. (2008) Sociology in a changing world. Thomson Wadsworth.
  • Kuiper, E. & Sap, J. (Eds.). (1995). Out of the margin: Feminist perspectives on economics. Psychology Press.
  • Kurz, H.D.(2018). Klasik Politik Ekonomi, A.A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Levine, D. N. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nelson, J. (1995). Feminism, objectivity and economics, New York: Routledge.
  • Ng, I. & Tseng, L. (2008). Learning to be sociable the evolution of homo economicus. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(2), 265-286.
  • O’Boyle, E. J. (2007). Requiem for Homo Economicus, Journal of Markets and Morality 10(2) ,321-337.
  • Oakley, A. (1994), Classical economic man: Human agency and methodolgy in the political economy of Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The ethology of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221-231.
  • Pujol, M. (1992). Feminism and anti-feminism in early economic thought. Aldershat: Edward Edgar.
  • Rankin, D. J. (2011). The social side of homo economicus. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(1), 1-3.
  • Ritzer, G. (2014). Klasik sosyoloji kuramları. De ki yayıncılık.
  • Rodriguez-Sickert, C. (2009). Homo economicus. J. Peil and I. van Stareven(Eds.). Handbook of economics and ethics (223-229). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Ruef, M. (2015). Sociology of entrepreneurship. R. Scott and S. Kosslyn Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (1-8) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
  • Ruef, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Introduction: The sociology of entrepreneurship. The Sociology of Entrepreneurship, 25, 1-29.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1951). Imperialism and Social Classes: Two Essays. USA: Kelley Publication.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. London:Allen and Unvin.
  • Serdaroğlu, U. (2010). İktisat ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
  • Simon, H. (1959). “Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science” The American Economic Review, 49 (3),253-283.
  • Smelser, N. J. & Swedberg R. (1994). Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Sørensen, J. & Fassiotto, M. (2011).Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(5), 1322-1331.
  • Steiner, P. (2010). Durkheim and the birth of economic sociology. Princeton: Priceton University Press.
  • Stets, J. E. & Burke, P.J. (2000). Identity Theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly (63), 224–237.
  • Strober, M. (1994). “Can Feminist Thought Improve Economics? Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens”, M.A. Ferber ve J.A. Nelson (Eds.) Beyond Economic Man (Feminist Theory and Economics) (144-153) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Swedberg, R. (1990). Economics and Sociology: redefining their boundaries: conversations with economists and sociologists. Princeton University Press.
  • Swedberg, R. (1991). Major traditions of economic sociology. Annual review of Sociology, 17(1), 251-276.
  • Swedberg, R. (2018). İktisat Sosyolojisi, .A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Tesler, P. H. (2009). Good-bye homo economicus: Cognitive dissonance,brain science and highly effective collaborative practice. Hofstra Law Review, 38(2), 635-684.
  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward A Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1(1), 39-60.
  • Thoits, P.A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly (55), 236–256.
  • Thornton, P. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology (25), 19-46.
  • Turner, R. H. (1956). Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior. American Journal of Sociology 61(4), 316–328.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decision. The Journal of Business,39(4/2), 251-278.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainity: heuristics and biases Science,185 (4157), 1124-1131.
  • Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice: A critical guide. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley CA: University of California Press.
  • Wirth, L. (1948). American sociology, 1915-47. American Journal of Sociology, 1-52.

A Discipline's Roadmap from Homoeconomicus to Entrepreneurship from Economic Sociology to Sociology of Entrepreneurship

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 108 - 128, 30.09.2023

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between economic sociology and entrepreneurship sociology and to investigate the subject of entrepreneurship sociology.
Methodology: By making use of the relevant literature, a descriptive analysis will be made, including the sociological perspective, and thus a roadmap for the sociology of entrepreneurship will be tried to be drawn.
Findings: It has been seen that it is possible to make more inclusive analyzes if the social disciplines that are artificially separated from each other with the modern understanding of science are handled with a holistic perspective.
Implications: With this study, it is aimed to introduce the sociology of entrepreneurship, which is a new interdisciplinary field, and to decipher the identity of the subject of the sociology of entrepreneurship. In this way, a road map will be tried to be drawn for scientists who want to work in this field in the future. Thus, it is aimed to contribute from the related field, especially to the Turkish literature.
Limitations: In the study, it was tried to include the views of the authors that can be considered as the main moment in the related literature. Of course, there may be articles and books that have been overlooked by examining both databases and physical sources.

References

  • Abell, P. (1991). Homo sociologicus: do we need him/her?, Sociological Theory 9(2), 195–198.
  • Agassi, J. (1975). Institutional Individualism, The British Journal of Sociology 26(2),144-145.
  • Aldrich, H. (2005). Entrepreneurship. N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds), Handbook of economic sociology (451–477). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Alter, M. (1982). Carl Menger and ‘homo oeconomicus’: Some thoughts on Austrian theory and methodology. Journal of Economic Issues. 16(1), 149-160.
  • Boudon, R. (1982). The unintended consequences of social action. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Browne, K. (1998). An introduction to sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Callero, P. L. (1985). “Role-Identity Salience.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48: 203–214.
  • Can, C. & Özek, S. (2018). Girişimcilik sosyolojisi: Sosyal kurumlar çerçevesinde girişimcilik, İstanbul: Kriter Yayınevi.
  • Comte, A. (2015). Pozitif Felsefe dersleri ve pozitif anlayış üzerine konuşma. Çev. Erkan Ataçay. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayıncılık.
  • Cremaschi, S. (2012). Review: a history of homoeconomicus, History of Economic İdeas, 20(3), 172-75.
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Homo sociologicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Davis, J. B. (2012). The homo economicus conception of the individual: an ontological approach. U. Mäki (Ed.). Philosophy of economics (459-482). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • DeGarmo, D. S. & Forgatch, M.S.(2002). Identity salience as a moderator of psychological and marital distress in stepfather families. Social Psychology Quarterly 65(3): 266–284.
  • Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. New York: Free Press.
  • Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
  • Elahi, K. (2014). Behavioral controversy concerning homo economicus: A human perspective. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 7(2), 2-29.
  • Elahi, K. (2015). Homo economicus in neoclassical economics: Some conceptual curiosities about behavioural criticisms. Homo Oeconomicus, 32(1), 23-51.
  • Eren, A.A. & Kırmızıaltın E. (Eds.) (2018). İktisat Sosyolojisi. Ankara: Heretik.
  • Ergun, D. (1973). 100 soruda sosyoloji el kitabı. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi.
  • Ferber, M. A. & Nelson, J. A. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Fine, B. & Milonakis, D. (2014). İktisat emperyalizminden acayip iktisada.Ankara: Heretik.
  • Giddens, A. (2008). Sosyoloji, (yayına hazırlayan: C. Güzel) İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları.
  • Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics, 35(3), 311-322.
  • Grampp, W. D. (1948). Adam Smith and the economic man. Journal of Political Economy 56(4): 315–336.
  • Guler, A. D., & Ozer-Imer, I. (2019). At the crossroads of history and theory: Weber, Schumpeter and economic sociology. Panoeconomicus, 66(4), 465-485.
  • Güçlü, A., Uzun, E., Uzun, S., Yolsal, Ü. H., & Hüsrev, F. S. (2007). Felsefe sözlüğü. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Güvel, A.E. (1998). Politik iktisat ve akıl. İstanbul: Alfa.
  • Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Hirsch, P, Stuart, M. & Friedman, R. (1987). “Dirty hands vs. clean models: Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics?” Theory and Society 16: 317–336.
  • Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2002). Social psychology. London: Prentice Hall.
  • Hogg, M. A., Deborah J. T. & White,K.M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 58(4): 255–269.
  • Huppes, T. (Ed.). (1982). Economics and sociology: towards an integration. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Işık, E. & Serdaroğlu,U.(2015). Kadın emeği: feminist iktisadın yol haritası üzerinden bir okuma. Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi (56), 6-15.
  • Işık, E. (2020). Kadın Emeği (Farklı Feminizm ve Feminist İktisat Anlayışları Temelinde Bilgi Kuramsal Bir İrdeleme). Ankara:Yetkin Yayınevi.
  • Işık, E. (2021). Görünmeyen Sınırların Kesişiminde Bir Alan: İktisat Sosyolojisi. Ş. Karabulut (Ed.). İktisadi Teori ve Gelişmelere Gelenekçi ve Yenilikçi Yaklaşımlar (187-210). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Kabaş, T. (2017). İktisat Sosyolojisi, Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi.
  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prosoect theory: an analysis of decision under Risk. Econometrica,47(2), 263-292.
  • Keister, L. (Ed.) (2005). Research in the sociology of work: entrepreneurship (Vol. 15). Oxford:Elsevier.
  • Kırmızıaltın, E. (2018). Davranışsal iktisat, A.A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Kornblum, W. & Smith, C. D. (2008) Sociology in a changing world. Thomson Wadsworth.
  • Kuiper, E. & Sap, J. (Eds.). (1995). Out of the margin: Feminist perspectives on economics. Psychology Press.
  • Kurz, H.D.(2018). Klasik Politik Ekonomi, A.A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Levine, D. N. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nelson, J. (1995). Feminism, objectivity and economics, New York: Routledge.
  • Ng, I. & Tseng, L. (2008). Learning to be sociable the evolution of homo economicus. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(2), 265-286.
  • O’Boyle, E. J. (2007). Requiem for Homo Economicus, Journal of Markets and Morality 10(2) ,321-337.
  • Oakley, A. (1994), Classical economic man: Human agency and methodolgy in the political economy of Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The ethology of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221-231.
  • Pujol, M. (1992). Feminism and anti-feminism in early economic thought. Aldershat: Edward Edgar.
  • Rankin, D. J. (2011). The social side of homo economicus. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(1), 1-3.
  • Ritzer, G. (2014). Klasik sosyoloji kuramları. De ki yayıncılık.
  • Rodriguez-Sickert, C. (2009). Homo economicus. J. Peil and I. van Stareven(Eds.). Handbook of economics and ethics (223-229). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Ruef, M. (2015). Sociology of entrepreneurship. R. Scott and S. Kosslyn Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (1-8) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
  • Ruef, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Introduction: The sociology of entrepreneurship. The Sociology of Entrepreneurship, 25, 1-29.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1951). Imperialism and Social Classes: Two Essays. USA: Kelley Publication.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. London:Allen and Unvin.
  • Serdaroğlu, U. (2010). İktisat ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
  • Simon, H. (1959). “Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science” The American Economic Review, 49 (3),253-283.
  • Smelser, N. J. & Swedberg R. (1994). Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Sørensen, J. & Fassiotto, M. (2011).Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22(5), 1322-1331.
  • Steiner, P. (2010). Durkheim and the birth of economic sociology. Princeton: Priceton University Press.
  • Stets, J. E. & Burke, P.J. (2000). Identity Theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly (63), 224–237.
  • Strober, M. (1994). “Can Feminist Thought Improve Economics? Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens”, M.A. Ferber ve J.A. Nelson (Eds.) Beyond Economic Man (Feminist Theory and Economics) (144-153) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Swedberg, R. (1990). Economics and Sociology: redefining their boundaries: conversations with economists and sociologists. Princeton University Press.
  • Swedberg, R. (1991). Major traditions of economic sociology. Annual review of Sociology, 17(1), 251-276.
  • Swedberg, R. (2018). İktisat Sosyolojisi, .A. Eren, E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.) İktisat Sosyolojisi Ankara: Heretik.
  • Tesler, P. H. (2009). Good-bye homo economicus: Cognitive dissonance,brain science and highly effective collaborative practice. Hofstra Law Review, 38(2), 635-684.
  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward A Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1(1), 39-60.
  • Thoits, P.A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly (55), 236–256.
  • Thornton, P. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology (25), 19-46.
  • Turner, R. H. (1956). Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior. American Journal of Sociology 61(4), 316–328.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decision. The Journal of Business,39(4/2), 251-278.
  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainity: heuristics and biases Science,185 (4157), 1124-1131.
  • Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice: A critical guide. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley CA: University of California Press.
  • Wirth, L. (1948). American sociology, 1915-47. American Journal of Sociology, 1-52.
There are 77 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Heterodox Economics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ebru Işık 0000-0001-6001-527X

Publication Date September 30, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 7 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Işık, E. (2023). Homoeconomicus’tan Girişimciye İktisat Sosyolojisinden Girişimcilik Sosyolojisine Bir Disiplinin Yol Haritası. Başkent Üniversitesi Ticari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 108-128.