Post Keynesyen Makro İktisadın Metodolojik Temelleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1, 95 - 129, 13.07.2017

Sinem Kutlu László Horváth

https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2017321548

Öz

Post Keynesyen Okul genel olarak Keynes’in izinden giden bir grup
heterodoks iktisatçının fikirlerine dayanmaktadır. Heterojen yapısı ve
çoğulcu metodolojik yaklaşımı ile Post Keynesyenlerin, ana-akım makro
iktisada alternatif ne derece tutarlı bir düşünce okulu olduğu
literatürde oldukça tartışmalı bir konudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Post
Keynesyen makro iktisadın metodolojik temellerini literatür taraması
bulgularından yararlanarak incelemektir. Bu bağlamda, Post Keynesyen
Okulun makro iktisadi vizyonunu farklı kılan unsurun temelde metodolojik
olduğunun gösterilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları
değerlendirildiğinde, Post Keynesyen makro iktisadın kendine özgü
düşünce bütünlüğünün tümüyle içsel tutarlılıktan yoksun olmadığı ancak
günümüzün iktisadi sorunlarına cevap verebilmek için gerek teorik
gerekse de politik düzeyde daha fazla inisiyatif kullanılması gerektiği
sonuçlarına ulaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Post Keynesyen Okul, heterodoks iktisat, iktisat metodolojisi

An Inquiry Into the Methodological Foundations of Post Keynesian Macroeconomics

Öz

The Post Keynesian School is based on the ideas of a group of heterodox economists who follow Keynes’s lead. To what extent Post Keynesians, with their heterogeneous structure and pluralist methodology, could be coherent as a school of thought alternative to the mainstream macroeconomics is a controversial issue in the literature. The purpose of this study is to investigate the methodological foundations of Post Keynesian macroeconomics by the help of the findings of the literature review. In this context, it is aimed to demonstrate that the factor which makes the macroeconomic vision of the Post Keynesian School different is fundamentally methodological. Based on the evaluation of the findings of the study, it is concluded that the distinctive body of thought of the Post Keynesian macroeconomics doesn’t lack internal coherence entirely but Post Keynesians should take more initiative both at theoretical and political level in order to meet current economic issues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Post Keynesian School, heterodox economics, economic methodology

Kaynakça

• BHASKAR, R. (1975), A Realist Theory of Science, Leeds Books, Leeds.
• BHASKAR, R. (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Harvester, Brighton.
• BROWN, A. (2003), “Critical Realism”, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, (Ed. J.E. King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 82-86.
• CALDWELL, B.J. (1989), “Post-Keynesian methodology: an assessment”, Review of Political Economy, 1(1), 43-64.
• CHICK, V. (2004), “On Open Systems”, Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), (93), 3-16.
• DAVIDSON, P. (2002), Financial Markets, Money and the Real World, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• DORNBUSCH, R., FISCHER, S. (1990), Macroeconomics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• DOW, S. (1985), Macroeconomic Thought: A Methodological Approach, Blackwell, Oxford. Reprinted in a revised and extended version as The Methodology of Macroeconomic Thought [1996], Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• DOW, S. (1991), “The Post-Keynesian School”, A Modern Guide to Economic Thought: An Introduction to Comparative Schools of Thought in Economics, (Eds. D. Mair, A.G. Miller), Edward Elgar, Aldershot, 176-206.
• DOW, S. (2001), “Post Keynesian methodology”, A New Guide to Post Keynesian Economics, (Eds. R. P.F. Holt, S. Pressman), Routledge, London, 11-20.
• DOW, S. (2003), “Babylonian Mode of Thought”, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, (Ed. J. E. King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 11-15.
• DOW, S. (2013), “Methodology and Post-Keynesian Economics”, The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics, Vol. 2: Critiques and Methodology, (Eds. G.C. Harcourt, P. Kriesler), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 80-99.
• EMAMI, Z., RIORDAN, T. (1998), “Tony Lawson on Critical Realism: What’s Teaching Got to Do with It?”, Review of Social Economy, 56 (3), 311-323.
• HARROD, R.F. (1939), “An Essay in Dynamic Theory”, The Economic Journal, 49(193), 14-33.
• HART, N., KRIESLER, P. (2014), “Keynes, Kalecki, Sraffa: Coherence?”, Australian School of Business Research Paper, No. 2014–06.
• HART, N., KRIESLER, P. (2015), “Post-Keynesian Economics – A User’s Guide”, UNSW Business School Research Paper, No. 2015 ECON 12.
• HOLT, R.P.F. (2007), “What is Post Keynesian economics?”, Post Keynesian Macroeconomics: Essays in honour of Ingrid Rima, (Eds. M. Forstater, G. Mongiovi, S. Pressman), Routledge, London, 89-107.
• HOLT, R.P.F., PRESSMAN, S. (2001), “What is Post Keynesian economics?”, A New Guide to Post Keynesian Economics, (Eds. R.P.F. Holt, S. Pressman), Routledge, London, 1-10.
• JESPERSEN, J. (2009), Macroeconomic Methodology –A Post-Keynesian Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• JESPERSEN, J. (2012), “Macroeconomic Methodology”, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, 2nd Edition, (Ed. J.E. King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 379-383.
• KALDOR, N. (1970), “The new monetarism”, Lloyds Bank Review, 1-17.
• KATZNER, D.W. (2003), “The Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium”, Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, (Ed. J.E. King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 126-131.
• KEEN, S. (2003), “Growth Theory”, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, (Ed. J. E. King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 175-180.
• KEYNES, J.M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, London.
• KING, J.E. (2002), A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since 1936, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• KING, J.E. (2013), “A Brief Introduction to Post Keynesian Macroeconomics”, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, 39(4), 485-508.
• LAVOIE, M. (2014), Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• LAWSON, T. (1997), Economics and Reality, Routledge, London.
• LAWSON, T. (2003), Reorienting Economics, Routledge, London.
• LEE, F.S. (2003), “Theory foundation and the methodological foundations of Post Keynesian economics”, Applied Economics and the Critical Realist Critique, (Ed. P. Downward), Routledge, London, 170-193.
• PALLEY, T.I.. (1996), Post Keynesian Economics: Debt, Distribution and the Macro Economy, Macmillan, London.
• PALLEY, T.I. (2003), “Income Distribution”, The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, (Ed. J.E.King), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 181-186.
• PINKSTONE, B. (2003), “Critical realism and applied work in economic history: some methodological implications”, Applied Economics and the Critical Realist Critique, (Ed. P. Downward), Routledge, London, 220-232.
• ROBINSON, J. (1972), “The Second Crisis in Economic Theory”, The American Economic Review, 62(1/2), 1-10.
• ROBINSON, J. (1979), Collected Economic Papers, Vol. V, Blackwell, Oxford.
• SNOWDON, B., VANE, H.R. (2005), Modern Macroeconomics Its Origins, Development and Current State, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• WEINTRAUB, E.R. (1993), “Neoclassical Economics”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html, (10.04.2016).
• The New School for Social Research, The History of Economic Thought Website, http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/schools/historic.htm, (12.04.2016).