Hayek’in Toplum ve İktisat Anlayışı: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme

Abstract

Bu çalışmada serbest piyasa düzeninin felsefi savunucularından biri olan ekonomist ve siyaset bilimci F. A. Hayek’in daha çok toplum ve iktisat düşüncesi üzerinde durularak Hayekçi anlayışa yönelik eleştirel bir kavrayış geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Hayek, “kurucu rasyonalizm” adını verdiği belirgin bir eğilime sert eleştiriler yönelterek liberal değer ya da kurumların “kendiliğindenliğine” vurgu yapan neo-klasik/pragmatist bir yaklaşım geliştirmiştir. Hayekçi epistemoloji, bireyci rasyonalizmle kolektif rasyonalizm arasında palyatif/pragmatik bir ayrım yaparak bu iki kategorinin bambaşka içerimleri olduğunu varsaymaktadır. Hâlbuki “akılcı/bireyci kendiliğindenlik” ile “akılcı/kolektif kendiliğindenlik” nosyonları arasındaki eş-kökenliği açıkça ihmal eden bu yaklaşım felsefi açıdan tutarsızdır. Hayek’in düşünsel mirasını en iyi tarif eden şey “akılcı pragmatizm”dir. Gerçekten de bireyselden genele yararcı bir mantık sıçraması Hayek’in tüm epistemolojisini baştan sona örüntülemekte ve ilginç bir şekilde “birikimci bir geleneksellik vurgusu” akılcı bir özgürleşme çağrısının büyülü göstergesi olarak resmedilmektedir. Bu niteliğiyle Hayek’in düşüncesi, kaçınılmaz bir şekilde ve öngörülenin tam da aksine, “öngörülebilir olmayanının öngörülebilir bir ontolojisi” olarak temayüz etmektedir.

Keywords

• Liberalizm, Hayek, Kendiliğinden Doğan Düzen, Akılcı Pragmatizm, Kurucu Rasyonalizm

Hayek’s Understanding of Society And Economy: A Critical Overview

Abstract

This study is intended to put forward a critical conception of Hayekian understanding by elaborating especially on economist and political scientist F. A. Hayek’s perceptions of society and economy, who is one of the philosophical advocates of free market order. Directing harsh criticisms against an established tendency which he calls as “constructivist rationalism”, Hayek has developed a neo-classical/pragmatist approach stressing on the spontaneity of liberal values or institutions. By offering a palliative/pragmatic distinction between individualist rationalism and collective rationalism, Hayekian epistemology assumes that these two categories have fully different implications. Nevertheless this approach which explicitly ignores the equi-origin of the two notions “rationalist/individualist spontaneity” and “rationalist/collective spontaneity” is philosophically inconsistent. The best term to define the Hayekian thought heritage is “rationalist pragmatism”. So indeed, a logical jumping “from individual up to general” is thoroughly patterned within the entire epistemology of Hayek, and oddly enough, “a stress for the accumulative traditionality” is described as a magical indicator of a call for the rationalist emancipation. By this characteristic, the thought of Hayek, inevitably and just contrary to what would have been foreseen, appears as nothing but “the foreseeable ontology of the unforeseeable”.

Keywords

• Liberalism, Hayek, Spontaneous Order, Rationalist Pragmatism, Constructive Rationalism

References

1. Akıncı, Mehmet (2014), “Hayek’in Soyal ve Siyasal Teorisi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:39, s. 73-89.
2. Berggren, N. Constit Polit Econ (2006), “Legal positivism and property rights: a critique of Hayek and Peczenik,” Constitutional Political Economy, September, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 217–235. Erişim:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-006-9004-y
3. Berlin, Isaiah (1953), The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
4. Berlin, Isaiah (1969), Four Essays On Liberty, ed. Henry Hardy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. Boettke, Peter J. (1995), “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom Revisited: Government Failure in the Argument Against Socialism,” Eastern Economic Journal, 21: 7–26.
6. Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock (1962), A Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7. Burczak, Theodore (2009), Socialism After Hayek, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8. Butler, Eamon (1996), Hayek, çev. Yusuf Ziya Çelikkaya, Liberal Düş. Top. Yay., İstanbul.

9. Caldwell, Bruce J. (2001), “Hodgson on Hayek: a critique”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 539–553, Erişim: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/25.4.539
10. Caldwell, Bruce J. (2004), Hayek’s Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press.
11. Cottrell, Allin F. and Cockshott, W. Paul (1994), “A Critique of Hayek”, Information and Economics, Erişim: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/hayek/hayek.pdf
12. Critical Review (1997), Special Issue on F. A. Hayek, 11: 1.
13. Feinberg, Joel (1970), Doing & Deserving, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14. Feser, Edward (ed.), (2006), The Cambridge Companion to Hayek, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Fukuyama, Francis, (2011), “Friedrich A. Hayek, Big-Government Skeptic,” Sunday Book Review, New York Times, May 6. Erişim:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/books/review/f-a-hayek-big- government-skeptic.html
16. Gamble, Andrew (1996), Hayek: The Iron Cage of Liberty, Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
17. Gaus, Gerald (2007), “Social Complexity and Evolved Moral Principles,” in Liberalism, Conservatism, and Hayek’s Idea of Spontaneous Order, Peter McNamara (ed.), London: Palgrave Macmillan, 149–76.
18. Gaus, Gerald, (2016), The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice In a Diverse Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Gray, John (1984), Hayek on Liberty, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
20. Griffiths, Simon (2014), Engaging Enemies: Hayek and the Left, Rowman & Littlefield International.
21. Hamowy, Ronald (1981), “Hayek’s Concept of Freedom: A Critique”, New Individualist Review, editor-in-chief Ralph Raico, introduction by Milton Friedman, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
22. Hasnas, John (2009), “Four Solutions to Sandefur’s Problems”, Cato Unbound A Journal of Debate, Erişim: solutions-sandefurs-problems
23. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/12/09/john-hasnas/four
24. Hayek, F. A. (1944), The Road to Serfdorm, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
25. Hayek, F. A. (1948), Individualism and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
26. Hayek, F. A. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
27. Hayek, F. A. (1978a), “Competition as a Discovery Procedure”, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
28. Hayek, F. A. (1978b), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, London: Routledge.
29. Hayek, F. A. (1994), Hukuk Yasama Faaliyeti ve Özgürlük: Kurallar ve Düzen, çev. Atilla Yayla, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yay., Ankara.
30. Hayek, F. A. (1995), Kanun, Yasama Faaliyeti Ve Özgürlük, C. 2 Sosyal Adalet Serabı, çev. Mustafa Erdoğan, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yay., Ankara.
31. Hayek, F. A. (1997), Hukuk Yasama ve Özgürlük: Özgür Bir Toplumun Siyasi Düzeni, çev. Mehmet Öz, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yay., İstanbul.
32. Higgs, R. (1988-89), “Who will be persuaded?” Human Studies Review, Winter, 8-9.
33. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1997), Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back Into Economics, University of Michigan Press.
34. Holm, C. (2014), F. A. Hayek's Critique of Legislation, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, x+504 pp. Uppsala: Department of Law.
35. Hoy, Calvin (1984), A Philosophy of Individual Freedom, Westport: Greenwood.
36. Lee, Seong-Ju (2004), A Reconstruction and Critique of Hayek´s Theory of Free Market Economy, bremen.de/diss/docs/E-Diss1048_lee.pdfMachlup, Fritz (ed.), (1976), Essays on Hayek, Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press. tezi, Erişim
37. https://elib.suub.uni
38. Lister, Andrew (2001), “The ‘Mirage’ of Social Justice: Hayek Against (and For) Rawls”, Oliver Smithies Lecture, Trinity Term, May 10, Balliol College, Oxford.
39. Mises, Ludvig (1960), “Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty”, Christian Economics, August 1.
40. Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Belknap.
41. Pennington, Mark (2011), Robust Political Economy, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
42. Pleasants, Nigel (1997),“The Epistemological Argument against Socialism: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Hayek and Giddens,” Inquiry, vol. 40, no. 1 (March, 1997): pp. 23–45.
43. Posner, Richard A. (2003), “Hayek, the Mind, and Spontaneous Order: A Critique”, Transactional Viewpoints, Great Barrington, Massachusetts, 01230 Vol. II, No. 3 Summer.
44. Rawls, John (1955), “Two Concepts of Rules,” The Philosophical Review, 64: 3–32.
45. Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
46. Rothbard, Murray (2002), The Ethics Of Liberty, New York University Press, New York.
47. Sandefur, Timothy (2009), “Four Problems with Spontaneous Order”, Cato Unbound A Journal of Debate, Erişim: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/12/07/timothy- sandefur/four-problems-spontaneous-order
48. Schmidtz, David (2006), Elements of Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Schmidtz, David (2008), Person, Polis, Planet, New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Shearmur, Jeremy (1996), Hayek and After: Hayekian Liberalism as a Research Programme, London: Routledge.
51. Tebble, A. J. (2009), “Hayek and social justice: a critique”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Volume 12, Issue 4.
52. Tebble, A. J. (2015), Epistemic Liberalism: a Defense, London: Routledge.
53. Wainwright, Hilary (1994), Arguments for a New Left, Answering the Free Market Right, Oxford, Blackwell, 1994.
54. Yayla, Atilla (2000), Özgürlük Yolu Hayek’in Sosyal Teorisi, Liberte Yay., Ankara.
55. Yumer, Ruhdan (1984), “Hayekçi Liberalizmin Temel İlkesi”, İktisat Dergisi, İÜ. İktisat Fak. Mezunları Cemiyeti Yay., Sayı: 241.