Yeni Kurumsalcı Bakış Açısından Düzenlemeler ve Düzenleyici Otoriteler

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3, 26 - 41, 30.09.2019

Mete Dibo

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2019.03.002

Öz

Ekonomi biliminin önemli hedeflerinden birisi iktisadi etkinliği arttırmaya yönelik politikalar geliştirmektir. İktisadi teorilerin ortaya çıkışı da genel olarak bu politika önerileri doğrultusunda gerçekleşmektedir. Politika önerilerindeki farklılıklar ilgili teorileri birbirinden ayrıştıran bir etken olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Kurumsal iktisadi yaklaşım da sözü edilen teorilerden birisidir ve ülkelerin ekonomik performansının büyük ölçüde politika yapıcılar tarafından benimsenen kurumsal yapı ve işleyişlere bağlı olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Bu çalışma, yeni kurumsalcı yaklaşımın türleri olan rasyonel tercih kurumsalcılığı, sosyolojik kurumsalcılık, tarihsel kurumsalcılık ve söylemsel kurumsalcılık yaklaşımlarının, iktisadi ve politik yapının oluşumuna yönelik görüşlerine yer vermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Kurumsalcılık, Regülasyon, Rasyonel Tercih Kurumsalcılığı, Tarihsel Kurumsalcılık, Söylemsel Kurumsalcılık

Kaynakça

• Alchian, A. A. (1979). Some Implications of Recognition of Property Right Transactions Costs. In K. Brunner (Ed.), Economics and Social Institutions Insights from the Conferences on Analysis and Ideology (1st ed., pp. 233–254). New York: The Center for Research in Government Policy and Business.
• Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1973). The Property Right Paradigm. The Journal of Economic History, 33(1), 16–27.
• Alexander, E. R. (2005). Institutional transformation and Planning: From Institutionalization Theory to Institutional Design. Planning Theory, 4(3), 209–223.
• Ayres, C. E. . (1951). The Co-Ordinates of Institutionalism. The American Economic Review, 41(2), 47–55.
• Benham, L. (2008). Licit and Illicit Responses to Regulation. In C. Menard & M. M. Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics (pp. 591–608). Heidelberg: Springer.
• Carrigan, C., & Coglianese, C. (2011). The Politics of Regulation: From New Institutionalism to New Governance. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 107–129.
• Delreux, T., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). Introduction. Use and Limitations of the Principal--Agent Model in Studying the European Union. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The Principal Agent Model and the European Union (pp. 1–34). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Eroğlu, Y. M. (2018). Kurumsal İktisatta Açılan Yeni Bir Pencere: Douglass C. North Perspektifinden Kurumların Değerlendirilmesi. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 163–178.
• Fligstein, N. (1991). The Structural Transformation of American Industry: An Institutional Account of the Causes of Diversification in the Largest Firms, 1919-1979. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 311–336). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Gilardi, F. (2004). The Politics of Regulation. (J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur, Eds.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science And The Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
• Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Economics and Social Institutions Insights from the Conferences on Analysis and Ideology. In K. Brunner (Ed.), Economics and Social Institutions Insights from the Conferences on Analysis and Ideology (1st ed., pp. 163–232). New York: The Center for Research in Government Policy and Business.
• Kelley, T. (2010). Beyond the Washington Consensus and New Institutionalism : What is the Future of Law and Development ? North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 35(3), 539–554.
• Koelble, T. A. (1995). The New Institutionalism in Political Science and Sociology. Comparative Politics, 27(2), 231–243.
• Mueller, D. (2003). Public Choice III. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• North, D. C. (2010). Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans (2nd ed.). İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
• Panizza, F., & Miorelli, R. (2013). Taking Discourse Seriously: Discursive Institutionalism and Post-structuralist Discourse Theory. Political Studies, 61(2), 301–318.
• Peters, B. G. (1999). Institutional Theory In Political Science: The “New Institutionalism” (1st ed.). London: Pinter.
• Rutherford, M. (1994). Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism. (C. D. Goodwin, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmid, A. A. (1981). Predicting the Performance of Alternative Institutions. In W. J. Samuels & A. A. Schmid (Eds.), Law and Economics: An Institutional Perspective (pp. 76–94). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
• Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326.
• Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.’ European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.
• Schmidt, V. A. (2011). Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism. In D. Beland & H. R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas And Politics In Social Science Research (pp. 47–64). New York: Oxfor University Press.