A Brief History of Homo Economicus From The Economics Discipline Perspective

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 28 - 36, 01.06.2019

Efe Efeoğlu Yurdanur Çalışkan

Öz

Klasik ve neo-klasik teorilerin temel önermesi olan homo
ekonomikus ya da ekonomik insan, karar veren ve kendi çıkarı peşinde koşan
rasyonel bir bireyi belirtmektedir. Fakat insanoğlu her zaman rasyonel bir
birey değildir. Çünkü çoğu zaman, rasyonellikten ziyade diğer bazı faktörler
insan davranışını belirler. Bu nedenle; ekonomiye özgü farklı bir bakış açısı
getiren davranışsal iktisat, insanların rasyonel karar veremediklerini ve
kararlarında sadece sınırlı ölçüde rasyonel olabileceğini savunmaktadır. Bu
çalışma, homo ekonomikus’un ekonomi disiplininde kalıplaşmasında tarihsel bir
perspektif sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Davranışsal İktisat, Homo Ekonomikus, İktisat, Klasik İktisat, Neo-Klasik İktisat, Modern İktisat

A Brief History of Homo Economicus From The Economics Discipline Perspective

Öz

Homo Economicus or economic man, which is the main postulate of
classical and neo-classical theories indicate a rational person who makes
decisions and pursues wealth for his self-interest. But, human-being is not a
rational agent all the time. Because most of the time, some other factors
determine human behavior than rationality. These could be repetition,
imitation, or social norms. Therefore; behavioral economics, having introduced
a distinctive perspective to economics, argues that people cannot make rational
decisions and can be rational only to a limited extent in their decision. This
study aims to present a historical perspective in molding the Homo Economicus
in the Economics Discipline.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Behavioral Economics, Homo Economicus, Economics, Classical Economics, Neoclassical Economics, Modern Economics

Kaynakça

• Allen, R. G. (1934). The nature of indifference curves. The Review of Economic Studies, 1(2), 110-121. Bentham, J. (1843). A manual of political economy. History of Economic Thought Books. Bryson, G. (1945). Man and society: The Scottish inquiry of the eighteenth century. Can, Y. (2012), İktisatta Psikolojik İnsan Faktörü, Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 91-98. Cartwright, E. (2011), Behavioral Economics, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. Drakopoulos, S. A., & Katselidis, I. (2017). The Relationship between Psychology and Economics: Insights from the History of Economic Thought. Gattegno, C. (1984). Homo Economicus. Educational Solutions Worldwide Inc: New York. Gradinaru, A. (2014), ‘’Behavioral Economics and The Need of Psychology in Economic Research’’, The USV Annals of Economic and Public Administration,1(19), 86. Günör, R. B. (2016). Bernard Mandevılle’in Arıların Masalı Adlı Eseri Hakkında Bir İnceleme. İdil Sanat ve Dil Dergisi, 5(22), 521-536. Hicks, J. R. (1931). The theory of uncertainty and profit. Economica, (32), 170-189. Hirshleifer, J. (1985). The expanding domain of economics. The American Economic Review, 75(6), 53-68. Jevons, W. S. (1879). The theory of political economy. Macmillan and Company. Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge university press. Logachev, M. (2016). Akratic Homo Economicus: Does the Neoclassical Economic Theory" Rational Agent" Assumption Accurately Depict Human Nature?. Menger., C. (1888). Zur Theorie des Kapitals. JNS, v.51, p.1-49 Mill, J. S. (1895). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company. Mondal, A. L. (2016). Mill’s Critique of Bentham’s Utilitarianism (Vol. 4). DOI: 10.14355/ijps.2016.04.003. Morgan, M. S. (2006). Economic man as model man: ideal types, idealization and caricatures. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 28(1), 1-27. Pareto., V. (1905). Il Crepuscolo della Libertà", 1905, Rivista d'Italia. Manuale di economia politica, con una introduzione alla scienza sociale, 1906 [Italian 1906 ed: bk, av] [Expanded French 1909 ed, Manual d'economique politique]; [English 1971 trans. Manual of Political Economy]. Rodriguez-Sickert, C. (2009). 30 Homo economicus. Handbook of economics and ethics, 223. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). Some aspects of the pure theory of capital. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51(3), 469-496. Selten, R. (1965). Spieltheoretische behandlung eines oligopolmodells mit nachfrageträgheit: Teil i: Bestimmung des dynamischen preisgleichgewichts. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, (H. 2), 301-324. Shiller, R. J. (1980). Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends?. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118. Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments, ed. DD Raphael & AL Macfie. Liberty Fund.(Original work published in 1759.) Smith, V. L. (1962). An experimental study of competitive market behavior. Journal of political economy, 70(2), 111-137. Thaler, R. H. (1987). Anomalies: the January effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 197-201 Thaler, R. H. (2000). From homo economicus to homo sapiens. Journal of economic perspectives, 14(1), 133-141. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. Walras, L. (2013). Elements of pure economics. Routledge. Weber, M. (1913) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisations, A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons (Trans) (New York: Free Press, 1947). Wilkinson, N. and Klaes, M. (2012), An Introduction to Behavioral Economics, Palgrave Macmillan : St Martin’s Press LLC. Wilson, D., & Dixon, W. (2012). A History of" homo Economicus": The Nature of the Moral in Economic Theory. Routledge.