A NEW HETERODOX APPROACH: WACKONOMICS

Öz

The neo-classical economics approach, which implies that markets are effective, has begun to be discussed frequently with the participation of various disciplines within the theory of economics. One of the critical approaches that emerged with these discussions is criticized as wackonomics. This approach is basically opposed to the assumptions of neo-classical economics as well as the methodological and empirical basis. This approach, which was able to go until 50 years ago, but became active in the theoretical level after the second half of the 90's, especially after Kahneman's Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, has not been taken into consideration in our country or in developing countries. Within the scope of the study, various sub-approaches that can be evaluated under the wackonomics are discussed. It should be noted that this approach will probably contribute to the further development of economics in terms of its scientific basis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Wackonomics,Economics of Sports,Economics of Religious,Economics of Health,Economics of Law

Kaynakça

1. BECKER, Gary S. (1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach”, The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), p. 169-217.
2. BECKER, Gary S. (1992). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101, p. 385.
3. CORNES, R. and Sandler, T. (1996), “the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. 2nd Ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, New York
4. DAVID, S. (2004). “The art of teaching economics”. International Review of Economic Education, 3(1), p. 63-76.
5. DENNIS W., and Avi, W. (2001). “The economics of religion, Jewish survival, and Jewish attitudes toward competition in Torah education”. Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), p. 253-275.
6. EGGERTSSON, T. (1995), “On the economics of economics”. Kyklos, 48(2), p. 201-210. FIONA, G., Dennis, T., and Robert, W. (2000), “Team performance: The case of English premiership football”. Managerial and Decision Economics”, 21(1), p. 31-45.
7. FRANCESCO, F., Galbiati, R., and Vertova, P. (2009), “The deterrent effects of prison: Evidence from a natural experiment”, J.P.E, 117 (2), p. 257-80.
8. FREY, B.S. and Meier, S. (2003), “Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists”, Zurich IEER Working Paper, No. 103

9. GÜRPINAR, B. (2008), “Hukuk ve Ekonominin Ortak Temelleri” Hukuk ve Ekonomi’ Akımı”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 28, p. 161-180.
10. LAURENCE, R. (1990), “Religious practice: A human capital approach”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(3), p. 297- 314.
11. MARGARET, M., and Peter, T. (2000), “Death and dignity terminal Illness and the market for non-treatment”, Journal of Public Economics, 76(2), p. 263-294.
12. POLINSKY, A. (1989). Mitchell, An introduction to law and economics, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
13. STEPHEN, H., and David, P (2001), “Economics and euthanasia”, Health Services Management Research, 14(1), p. 62-63.
14. SHEILA C. (2007), “Variety of methodological approach in economics”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(3), p. 447-465.
15. STEPHEN, D., and John, G. (1996). “The demand for football in the regions of England and Wales”, Regional Studies, 30(5), p. 43-453.
16. (1998), “Performance, revenue, and cross subsidization in the football league, 1927-1994”, Economic History Review, 51(4), p. 763-785.
17. THOMAS, F. (1996), “Legal pragmatism and the law and economics movement”, Georgetown Law Journal, 84.
18. TOM, C. (2004), “What do we know about ourselves? On the economics of economics”. Kyklos, 57(2), p. 197-215.