THE ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN ECONOMICS AND CRITICAL REALISM: A METHODOLOGICAL INQUIRY

Öz

Increasing scrutiny of the explanatory power of economic theories has brought a reconsideration of their underlying ontological assumptions to the center of methodological debates. The relationship between economics and ontology is of critical importance for understanding the structural and conceptual depth of economic thought. The positivistbased conception of human behaviour and markets within mainstream economics has been criticized for failing to grasp the multidimensional and evolutionary nature of economic phenomena. According to critical realism—a leading approach that has significantly influenced the economics methodology literature in recent years—the modern discipline of economics requires a fundamental reorientation directly connected to ontology. The aim of this study is to evaluate the methodological framework of mainstream economics by opening it to discussion through the lens of the relationship between economics and ontology. In this context, the study seeks to examine the conceptual framework offered by critical realism— an approach that aims to develop an alternative methodology to mainstream economics— and to discuss the potential theoretical contributions this perspective can provide to economic methodology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Methodology
• Ontology
• Critical Realism.

İKTİSATTA ONTOLOJİ SORUNU VE ELEŞTİREL REALİZM: METODOLOJİK BİR İNCELEME

Öz

İktisat teorilerinin açıklayıcı gücüne yönelik artan sorgulamalar, bu teorilerin dayandığı ontolojik kabullerin yeniden düşünülmesini metodolojik tartışmaların merkezine taşımıştır. İktisat ve ontoloji arasındaki ilişki, iktisadi düşüncenin yapısal ve kavramsal derinliğini kavramak açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Anaakım iktisadın pozitivist temelli insan ve piyasa anlayışının, ekonomik olguların çok boyutlu ve evrimsel karakterini kavramakta yetersiz kaldığı yönünde eleştiriler bulunmaktadır. Son yıllarda iktisat metodolojisi literatürünü önemli ölçüde etkileyen yaklaşımların başında gelen eleştirel realizme göre modern iktisat disiplini, ontoloji ile doğrudan bağlantılı köklü bir yönelim değişikliğine ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, anaakım iktisadın metodolojik çerçevesini, iktisat ve ontoloji ilişkisi ekseninde tartışmaya açarak değerlendirmektir. Bu bağlamda, anaakım iktisadın eleştirisinden hareketle ona alternatif bir metodoloji geliştirmeyi hedefleyen eleştirel realizmin, iktisadi olguların ontolojik temellerine dair sunduğu kavramsal çerçevenin incelenmesi ve bu yaklaşımın iktisat metodolojisine sağlayabileceği teorik katkıların tartışılması hedeflenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İktisat Metodolojisi
• Ontoloji
• Eleştirel Realizm

Kaynakça

1. Acar, Gökmen Tarık. “Neoklasik İktisat Teorisine Metodolojik Açıdan Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım.” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2005.
2. Arrow, Kenneth J. “Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge.” The American Economic Review 84, no 2 (1994): 1-9.
3. Bhaskar, Roy. A Realist Theory of Science. 3. Baskı. London & New York: Verso, 1997.
4. Bhaskar, Roy. The Possibility of Naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. 1.Baskı. London: Routledge, 1999.
5. Blaug, Mark. The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain. 2. Baskı. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
6. Blaug, Mark. “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” İçinde A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, editörler Warren J. Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle ve John B. Davis, 395-410. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
7. Boland, Lawrence A. The Foundations of Economic Method: A Popperian Perspective. 2. Baskı. London: Routledge, 2003.
8. Cavalcante, Carolina Miranda ve Emmanoel de Oliveira Boff. “John Maynard Keynes Between Old and New Institutionalism.” Brazilian Keynesian Review 7, no 1 (2021): 14-39.

9. Davidsen, Bjørn-Ivar. “Critical realism in economics: A different view.” İçinde Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his critics, editör Edward Fullbrook, 40-57. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
10. Eren, Ercan. “Yeni İktisatta Ortak Noktalar.” İktisadi Düşünce Girişimi’nin düzenlediği İktisatta Yeni Yaklaşımlar Çalıştayı’nda sunulan tebliğ. İstanbul, 17 Nisan 2009.
11. Filho, Hélio Afonso de Aguilar. “Critical Realism and Institutionalism in Economics: A New Perspective on an Old Debate.” Journal of Economic Issues 54, no 4 (2020): 1139–160.
12. Fleetwood, Steve. “Situating Critical Realism In Economics.” İçinde Critical Realism In Economics: Development and Debate, editör Steve Fleetwood, 127-135. London: Routledge, 1999.
13. Fleetwood, Steve. “Why Neoclassical Economics Explains Nothing At All.” Post-Autistic Economics Review, 17:2 (2002). Erişim Tarihi: Eylül 28, 2025. https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue17/Fleetwood17.htm.
14. Friedman, Milton. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” İçinde Essays in Positive Economics, 3-43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
15. Hands, D. Wade. “The Did Milton Friedman’s positive methodology license the formalist revolution?”. İçinde Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, editör Uskali Mäki, 143-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
16. Hanedar, Avni Önder. “İktisat Bilimi ve Metodolojik Bir Sınama: Nitel Ve Nicel Teknikler Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme.” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir, 2007.
17. Hutchison, Terence W. The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. London: Macmillan, 1938.
18. Katz, Avery Wiener. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Economics.” Michigan Law Review 94, no 7 (1996): 2229–269.
19. Kesting, Peter ve Arnis Vilks. “Formalism.” İçinde The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, editörler John Davis, Alain Marciano ve Jochen Runde, 283-98. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004.
20. Kincaid, Harold. “Methodological Individualism/ Atomism.” İçinde The Handbook of Economic Methodology, editörler John B. Davis, D. Wade Hands ve Uskäli Maki, 294-300. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998.
21. Koslowski, Peter. Principles of Ethical Economy, Issues in Business Ethics, vol. 17. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.
22. Lagueux, Maurice. “The rationality principle and classical economics.” History of Economics Society’nin yıllık toplantısında sunulan tebliğ, Charleston, S.C., June 20–23, 1997.
23. Lawson, Tony. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge, 1997.
24. Lawson, Tony. “Developments In Economics As Realist Social Theory.” İçinde Critical Realism in Economics: Development and Debate, editör Steve Fleetwood, 3-20. London: Routledge, 1999.
25. Lawson, Tony. “Economics and Explanation.” Revue Internationale De Philosophie 3, no 217 (2001): 371-93. Lawson, Tony. Reorienting Economics. London: Routledge, 2003.
26. Lawson, Tony. “What Has Realism Got to Do with It?” İçinde The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, editör Daniel M. Hausman, 439-453. 3.Baskı. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
27. Lewis, Paul. “Transforming economics? On heterodox economics and the ontological turn in economic methodology.” İçinde Transforming Economics: Perspectives on the critical realist project, editör Paul Lewis, 1-32. London: Routledge, 2004.
28. Losch, Andreas. “On the Origins of Critical Realism.” Theology and Science 7, no 1 (2009): 85-106.
29. Mill, John Stuart. On The Logic of The Moral Sciences. The Collected Works Volume VIII, Book VI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.
30. Neris Jr, Celso Pereira, ve José Ricardo Fucidji. “Economic theory and (ontological) reductionism: some pitfalls in the road of the microfoundations project.” Brazilian Keynesian Review 6, no 2 (2021): 192-214.
31. Olsen, Erik K. “Social Ontology and the Origins of Mode of Production Theory.” Rethinking Marxism 21, no 2 (2009): 177-195.
32. Özsoy, Seda. “Kütleçekimi ve Görünmeyen El Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme.” Kaygı Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, no 22 (2014): 75-90.
33. Popper, Karl. “The Rationality Principle.” İçinde Popper Selections, editör David Miller, 357–365. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. (Orijinal baskı 1967.)
34. Reis, Julian. “Critical realism and the mainstream.” Journal of Economic Methodology 11, no 3 (2004): 321 327.
35. Van Bouwel, Jeroen. “The division of labour in the social sciences versus the politics of metaphysics. Questioning Critical Realism's interdisciplinarity.” Graduate Journal of Social Science 2, no 2 (2005): 32-39.
36. Walters, Bernard ve David Young. “Critical Realism as a Basis for Economic Methodology: a Critique.” Review of Political Economy 13, no 4 (2001): 483-501.