A STUDY ON THE PROBLEM OF FORMALISM IN ECONOMICS

Abstract

One of the main characteristics of the contemporary economic theory is its formalist perspective. Formalism, whose foundations trace back to 1950s, started to dominate economics in 1980s. Formalism debate in economics generally focuses on the relationship between formal models and economic reality. The primary criticism against formalism, which shapes modern mainstream economics and determines its boundaries, is that it pushes economics in an abstract viewpoint which is ignorant of the real world. The increasing impression of postmodernism in the area of economic methodology is taken as a striking feature of the growing hegemony of formalism in economics. The objective of this study is to deal with the economics and formalism relationship from the contextual and historical perspective. In this framework, the study aims to address the problems created by formalism in economics and to shed light on the discussions about such problems.

Keywords

• Economics, Formalism, Methodology of Economics, Postmodernism.

İKTİSATTA FORMALİZM SORUNU ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Çağdaş iktisat teorisinin temel karakteristiklerinden biri formalist bakış açısıdır. Temelleri 1950’lere dayanan formalizm 1980’lerde iktisada egemen olmaya başlamıştır. İktisattaki formalizm tartışmaları genellikle formel modellerle iktisadi realite arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanmaktadır. Modern ana-akım iktisadı biçimlendiren ve sınırlarını belirleyen formalizmin iktisadı gerçek dünyaya karşı kayıtsız ve soyut bir bakış açısına ittiği en temel eleştirilerden biridir. İktisat metodolojisi alanında postmodernizmin izlerinin artması da formalizmin hegemonyasının modern iktisatta giderek büyümesinin çarpıcı etkilerinden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kavramsal ve tarihsel açıdan iktisat ve formalizm ilişkisini ele almaktır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, formalizmin iktisatta yarattığı sorunlar üzerinde durarak söz konusu sorunlara yönelik tartışmalara ışık tutmayı hedeflemektedi

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İktisat, Formalizm, İktisat Metodolojisi, Postmodernizm.

Kaynakça

1. Amariglio, Jack & Ruccio, David F., “The transgressive knowledge of “ersatz” economics”, What Do Economists Know?, Ed. by Robert F. Garnett, Jr, Routledge, London, 1999, 19-36.
2. Arestis, Philip & Brown, Andrew & Sawyer, Malcolm, “Critical realism and the political economy of the Euro”, Applied Economics and the Critical Realist Critique, Ed. by Paul Downward, Routledge, London, 2004, 233-246.
3. Arrow, Kenneth J. & Debreu, Gerard, “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy”, Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 3., Jul., 1954, 265-290.
4. Backhouse, Roger E., “If Mathematics is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Must be Informal Too”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 108, No. 451, Nov., 1998, 1848-1858.
5. Blaug, Mark, “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics”, Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism, and Social Construction, Ed. by Uskali Mäki, Cambridge University Press, 2002, 35-56.
6. Blaug, Mark, “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s”, A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, Ed. by Warren J. Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle, John B. Davis, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, 395-410.
7. Blaug, Mark, “Formalizmin Sorunları”, Çev. Gökmen Tarık Acar, Post Otistik İktisat, Ed. Kaya Ardıç, İstanbul, İFMC Dergisi Yayınları, 2004, 164- 170.
8. Brown, Doug, “Postmodernism”, The Elgar Companion To Feminist Economics, Ed. by Janice Peterson and Margaret Lewis, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, 1999, 628-634.

9. Chick, Victoria, “On Knowing One’s Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics”, The Economic Journal, 108, November 1998, 1859- 1869.
10. Chick, Victoria & Dow, Sheila C., “Formalism, Logic and Reality: A Keynesian Analysis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 25, 2001, 705-721.
11. Cullenberg, Stephen & Amariglio, Jack & Ruccio, David F., Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge, Routledge, London, 2001.
12. Gloria-Palermo, Sandye, “In search of the right tool: From formalism to constructivist modelling”, GREDEG Wp. No. 2013-33.
13. Hands, D. Wade, “The Did Milton Friedman’s positive methodology license the formalist revolution?”, Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, Ed. by Uskali Mäki, Cambridge University Press, 2009, 143-164.
14. Hodgson, Geoffrey M., Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx: Essays on Institutional and Evolutionary Themes, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2006.
15. Innocenti, Alessandro, “Paradoxes versus formalism in economics. Evidence from the early years of game theory and experimental economics”, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Università di Siena, Working Paper N. 433, July 2004.
16. Kesting, Peter & Vilks, Arnis, “Formalism”, The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, Ed. by John Davis, Alain Marciano and Jochen Runde, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004, 283-298.
17. Klamer, Arjo, “Late Modernism and the Loss of Character in Economics”, Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge, Ed. by Stephen Cullenberg, Jack Amariglio and David F. Ruccio, Routledge, London, 2001, 77-101.
18. Lawson, Tony, Economics and Reality, Routledge, London, 1997.
19. Lawson, Tony, Reorienting Economics, Routledge, London, 2003.
20. McCloskey, Donald N., “Formalism in Economics, Rhetorically Speaking”, Ricerche Economiche, XLIII, 1-2, 1989, 57-75.
21. Streeten, Paul, “What’s wrong with contemporary economics?”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2002, 13-24.
22. Yay, Turan, “İktisadın Kapsamı ve Yöntemi Üzerine”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, Cilt: 16, Sayı: 57, 2005, 1-33.