The Road to Serfdom against The Great Transformation: A Comparison with Reference to Unintended Consequences

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 1930’larda Avrupada faşizm ile sosyalizmin gelişimini açıklama amacını güden iki yapıtı, Karl Polanyi’nin Büyük Dönüşümkitabı ile Friedrich A. Hayek’in Kölelik Yolu kitabını, “niyetlenilmemiş sonuçlar” argümanı çerçevesinde karşılaştırma amacı gütmektedir. Genel olarak bireysel eylemin nasıl olup da bir sosyal düzene, ya da onun yıkılışına yol açtığını dikkate alan bu argüman, sosyal teorinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak kendini göstermektedir. Bu bakımdan bu iki yazarın aynı argümanı, birbirine tümüyle karşıt sonuçlara ulaşan iki farklı anlayışı geliştiriken kullanmaları ilginç görünmektedir. Bununla birlikte, çalışmada, ilk olarak bu argümanın, özellikle Hayek’te etkin bir sosyal düzeni yaratma “görevini” yerine getiremediği, buna karşılık Polanyi’de daha somut bir düzeyde, sosyal düzenin çelişki ve kurumsal gerilimlerini ortaya koymada daha başarılı olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Yine de, çalışmanın ikinci bir iddiası, niyetlenilmemiş sonuçlar argümanının kendi başına bir sosyal teori oluşturmak için yeterli olmadığı ve iki düşünür arasındaki temel farkın, insan ve özgürlüğü hakkındaki benimsedikleri “vizyonlar” olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. 

Keywords

• Karl Polanyi
• Friedrich A. Hayek
• niyetlenilmemiş sonuçlar
• Büyük dönüşüm
• Kölelik Yolu

The Road to Serfdom against The Great Transformation: A Comparison with Reference to Unintended Consequences

Abstract

The present paper attempt at comparing two opposite accounts, developed to explain the same phenomenon, the rise of fascism and socialism in Europe in the 1930s, namely, Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, and Friedrich A. Hayek’s The Road of Serfdom, in reference to the notion of the “unintended consequences.” The idea of unintended consequences, postulates, as an answer to the problem of “order” that even though the actions of individual human beings are carried out on their intentions, they will have some consequences that were not intended by any of these individuals, is taken as a reference point because both Polanyi and Hayek use this idea as an important ingredient of their social theories. However, it is argued in the paper firstly that the idea of unintended consequences cannot fulfil its promise, namely to explain the social order, especially in Hayek’s case. In Hayek, it remains essentially a mere abstraction and reduces to a functional argument based on the “representative individual” whereas in Polanyi it was conceived in terms of interactions between individuals who belong to different sections of the society, and thus it is helpful in presenting the institutional strains and contradictions of capitalism on a more concrete level. But, secondly, it is argued that it is not the differences in the use of the idea of unintended consequences per se but the difference between the respective visions of these two thinkers, concerning human beings and freedom, which actually constitutes the essential, unbridgeable gap between their social theories.

Keywords

• Karl Polanyi
• Friedrich A. Hayek
• Unintended Consequences
• Great Transformation
• Road to Serfdom

References

1. Bhaskar, Roy (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Brighton: Harvester.
2. Berlin, Isaiah (1969). “Historical Inevitability,” in Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.
3. Caldwell, Bruce (1997), “Hayek and Socialism”, The Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 1856-1890.
4. Caldwell, Bruce (2004), Hayek’s Challenge: An Intellectual Biography, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
5. Dalton, George (ed.) (1968). Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi, New York: Anchor Books.
6. Giddens, Anthony (1981). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (vol. 1:) Power, Property and State, London: Macmillan, 1981.
7. Giddens, Anthony (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. Gould, Stephen J. and R. C. Lewontin (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proc. B. Soc. Lond. B, Vol. 205, p. 581-98.

9. Güzel, C. and H. Özel (2011), “İktisat ve Sosyal Teoride Evrim Düşüncesi, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt 44, Sayı 3, Eylül, pp. 1-26.
10. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1937) “Economics and Knowledge,” Economica, vol.4; reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 33- 56 (page number references are given to the latter edition).
11. Hayek, F.A. (1942), “Scientism and the Study of Society, Part I,” Economica, vol. 9, no. 35, August, pp. 267-291.
12. Hayek, F.A. (1943a), “Scientism and the Study of Society, Part II”, Economica, vol. 10, no. 37, February 1943, pp. 34-63.
13. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1943b) “The facts of the Social Sciences,” Ethics, vol. 54; reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 57-76 (page number references are given to the latter edition).
14. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (RS). The Road to Serfdom, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1944.
15. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1945) “The use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, vol. 35, no.4, pp. 519-30; reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 77-91 (page number references are given to the latter edition).
16. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1946) “Individualism: True and False,” in Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 1-32 (page number references are given to the latter edition).
17. Hayek, F. A. (1948), Individualism and Economic Order, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
18. Hayek, Friedrich von (1973), Law Legislation and Liberty, Vol. I. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
19. Hayek, Friedrich von (1976), Law Legislation and Liberty , Vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
20. Hayek, Friedrich von (1979), Law Legislation and Liberty , Vol. III. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
21. Hayek, Friedrich von (1984), “Competition as a Discovery Procedure”, Nishiyama, C. - K. Leube (Eds.), The Essence of Hayek, Stanford, Ca.: Hoover Institution Press, p. 254-265.
22. Hirschman, Albert O. (1982). “Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 20, December, pp. 1463-84.
23. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1991), “Economic Evolution: Intervention Contra Pangloss”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 25, No. 2 (June), p. 519-533.
24. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1993), Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
25. Hollis, Martin (1994), The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
26. Kirman, Alan P. (1992), “Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 117-36.
27. Lewontin, Richard (1991), “Facts and the Factitious in Natural Sciences”, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 18, Autum, p. 145-46.
28. Lewontin, Richard (2007), Üçlü Sarmal: Gen, Organizma ve Çevre, Ankara: TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
29. Little, Daniel (1991), Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Boulder: Westview Press.
30. Mahner, Martin and Mario Bunge (2001), “Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 1 (March), p. 75-94.
31. Mandeville, Bernard (1962), The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, I. Primer (Ed.), New York: Capricorn Books.
32. Özel, Hüseyin (1997). Reclaiming Humanity: The Social Theory of Karl Polanyi, Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of Utah.
33. Özel, Hüseyin (2003), “Closing the Open Systems: Two Examples for the “Double Hermeneutics in Economics,” METU Studies in Development, vol. 30, December 2003, pp. 223-248.
34. Özel, Hüseyin (2009), “İktisat ve Sosyal Teoride ‘Görünmez El’ Eğretilemesi,” Amme İdaresi Dergisi, cilt 42, sayı 2, Haziran, s. 45-65 (English translation: “The ‘Invisible Hand’ Metaphor in Economics and Social Theory,” TODAİE’s Review of Public Administration, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 51-74).
35. Özel, Hüseyin (2018), “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Marx, Weber, Schumpeter, and Polanyi,” Yıldız Social Science Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 111-24.
36. Özel, Hüseyin (2019), “Commodification,” in Exploring the Thought of Karl Polanyi, Christopher Holmes, Gareth Dale, and Maria Markantonatou (eds.), London: Agenda Publishing, pp. 131-49, forthcoming.
37. Polanyi-Lewitt, Kari and Marguerite Mendell (1989). “The Origins of Market Fetishism,” Monthly Review, vol. 41, no. 2, June, pp. 11-32.
38. Polanyi, Karl. (1935) “The Essence of Fascism” in Christianity and The Social Revolution, J. Lewis, K. Polanyi, D.K. Kitchin (eds.), London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1935.
39. Polanyi, Karl (GT). The Great transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, New York: Rinehart & Co., 1944 (paperback edition: Boston: Beacon Press, 1957)
40. Polanyi, Karl (1946), “Whither Civilization? British Thinkers Ponder the Atomic Age,” Commentary, vol. II, July-December, 280-285.
41. Polanyi, Karl (1947). “On Belief in Economic Determinism” The Sociological Review, vol. 39, Section One, 1947, pp. 96 102.
42. Polanyi, Karl (1977). The Livelihood of Man, ed. by Harry W. Pearson, New York; Academic Press.
43. Polanyi, Karl, Condrad M. Arensberg and Harry W. Pearson (eds.) (1957), Trade and Markets in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, New York: The Free Press.
44. Popper, Karl R. (1950). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
45. Rotschild, Emma (1994), “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May, p. 319-322.
46. Russel, Bertrand (1945), A History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon and Schuster.
47. Sarfati, Metin (2007), “Smith’de Bütünlük Sorunu”, İktisat Dergisi, Sayı 490, (Ekim-Kasım), s. 32-47.
48. Shearmur, Jeremy (1986). “The Austrian Connection: Hayek’s Liberalism and the Thought of Carl Menger,” in Austrian Economics: Historical and Philosophical Background, W. Grassl and B. Smith (eds.), New York, New York University Press.
49. Smith, Adam (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, Edwin Cannan (Ed.), The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
50. Ullmann-Margalit, Edna (1997), “Invisible Hand and the Cunning of Reason”, Social Research, Vol. 64, No. 2, Summer, p. 181-99.