Georgist İdeoloji ve Ekonomi Politik: Kuram, Konum, Katkı, Kılgı

Öz

Kapitalizmin tarihsel gelişimi boyunca ortaya çıkan sorunlar, sosyalizmin doğuşu ile liberal ve neoklasik düşüncenin eleştirisine zemin hazırlamış; ancak bu karşıt görüşler arasında uzlaştırıcı yahut alternatif bir düşünsel çözüm de üretilememiştir. Bu çelişki karşısında Henry George tarafından önerilen paradigmatik açılım, ana akım ekonomi politiğin her iki kampından herhangi birine tam olarak yerleşmeyen bir fikri sentez ve müdahale olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Literatürde, betimleyici değerlendirmesi, savunusu ve eleştirisinin, özel mülkiyetin özünü tartışmaya açan felsefi yönünün, ideolojik mahiyetinin ve ait olması gerektiği düşünsel kampın, ekonomik krizin genel teorisi ve etkinlik kaybı sorununa çözüm olma iddiasının, güncel yorumlarının, uygulama girişimi örnek ve sonuçlarının, parçalı ve dağınık biçimde tartışıldığı görülen Georgizm’in; kuramsal bütünlüğünü, ideolojik özgünlüğünü, kriz teorisi ve etkinlik kaybı çözümünün önemi ile uygulama araçlarının teknik içerik olarak dönüşümünü ve tarihsel pratiğini, bir arada ele alan bir çalışmanın yokluğu Georgist fikriyatın anlaşılabilirliğinin ve değerinin azalmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu azalma da Georgizm’in kalıtsal yoksulluğu ve sürdürülemez ekonomik düzeni tersine çevirecek ideal politika ve strateji olma yönündeki büyük iddiasını unutturabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Georgist ideoloji ve ekonomi politiğin tüm boyutlarıyla dört eksende birden (-kuram, -konum, -katkı, -kılgı) ele alınarak bütünsel bir değerlendirmesinin yapılmasıdır. Bu sayede Georgizm’in tam kapsamlı bir temel analiz çerçevesinin literatüre kazandırılması hedeflenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Henry George
• Georgizm
• Georgist Ekonomi Politik
• Rant Vergilendirme
• Rant Kamulaştırma

Georgist Ideology and Political Economy: Theory, Position, Contribution, Practice

Öz

The problems that emerged throughout the historical development of capitalism paved the way for the emergence of socialism and the critique of liberal and neoclassical thought; however, no conciliatory or alternative intellectual solution could be produced between these opposing views. In the face of this contradiction, the paradigmatic expansion proposed by Henry George emerged as an intellectual synthesis and intervention that did not fit neatly into either camp of mainstream political economy. The literature presents fragmented and disjointed discussions of Georgism’s descriptive assessment, its defense and critique, its philosophical aspect that challenges the very essence of private property, its ideological nature and the intellectual camp to which it should belong, its claim to be a general theory of economic crisis and a solution to the problem of efficiency loss, its current interpretations, and examples and results of implementation attempts. The absence of a study that combines Georgism’s theoretical integrity, ideological originality, the importance of crisis theory and the solution to efficiency loss, the transformation of the means of implementation in terms of technical content and its historical practice, diminishes the comprehensibility and value of Georgist thought. This decline, in turn, can lead to the oblivion of Georgism’s grand claim to be the ideal policy and strategy for reversing inherited poverty and unsustainable economic order. The aim of this study is to make a holistic evaluation of Georgist ideology and political economy by considering all its dimensions together on four axes (-theory, -position, -contribution, -practice). In this way, it is aimed to bring a comprehensive fundamental analysis framework of Georgism to the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Henry George
• Georgism
• Georgist Political Economy
• Rent Taxation
• Rent Appropriation

Kaynakça

1. Aktan, C. C., & Birkalan, A. Ö. (2023). Arazi tekelini sınırlama ve arazi rantlarını vergilendirme üzerine Henry George’un tek vergi önerisi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27(1), 256-269. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3080024
2. Andelson, R. V. (1993). Henry George and the reconstruction of capitalism: An address. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(4), 493-501. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487480
3. Atan, B. (2021). Ricardo’dan George’a rantların vergilendirilmesi. Maliye Çalışmaları Dergisi, 65, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.26650/mcd2021-874997
4. Bahl, R., Martinez-Vazquez, J., & Youngman, J. (Eds.). (2008). Making the property tax work: Experiences in developing and transitional countries. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
5. Baker, R. L. (1975). Controlling land uses and prices by using special gain taxation to intervene in the land market: The Vermont experience. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 4(3), 427-480.
6. Baker, R. L., & Andersen, S. O. (1981). Taxing speculative land gains: The Vermont experience. Urban Law Annual: Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 22(3), 3-69. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/urbanlaw/article/7659/galley/24492/view/
7. Bird, R. M., & Slack, E. (2004a). Introduction and overview. In R. M. Bird & E. Slack (Eds.), International handbook of land and property taxation (pp. 1-18). Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. Bird, R. M., & Slack, E. (2004b). Land and property taxation in 25 countries: A comparative review. In R. M. Bird & E. Slack (Eds.), International handbook of land and property taxation (pp. 19-56). Edward Elgar Publishing.

9. Blaug, M. (2000). Henry George: rebel with a cause. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 7(2), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/096725600361816
10. Blundell, V. H., Foldvary, F., Gaffney, M., Harrison, F., & Tideman, N. (1994). Land and taxation. Shepheard-Walwyn.
11. Bromley, D. W. (1997). Private land and public values. In H. J. Brown (Ed.), Land use and taxation: Applying the insights of Henry George (pp. 81-89). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
12. Brown, H. G. (1927). Land speculation and land-value taxation. Journal of Political Economy, 35(3), 390-402. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1822055
13. Brown, H. J. (1997). Henry George’s contribution to contemporary studies of land use and taxation. In H. J. Brown (Ed.), Land use and taxation: Applying the insights of Henry George (pp. 1-5). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
14. Brown, H. J., & Smolka, M. O. (1997). Capturing public value from public investments. In H. J. Brown (Ed.), Land use and taxation: Applying the insights of Henry George (pp. 17-32). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
15. Case, K. E. (1997). Volatility, speculation and the efficiency of land markets. In H. J. Brown (Ed.), Land use and taxation: Applying the insights of Henry George (pp. 33-42). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
16. Chen, T. A. (2008, January 26). Introduction to Taiwan’s taxation system: Major problems and reform. In International Symposium: Recent Development in Taiwan’s Taxation, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan.
17. Cirillo, R. (1984). Leon Walras and social justice. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(1), 53-60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3486394
18. Cobb, C. (2006). Publisher’s foreword. In Progress and poverty (pp. ıx-xı). Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. Cobb, C. (2018). China’s looming economic crisis [Working paper]. Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
19. Cobb, C., & Rowe, J. M. (2000). How the income tax became a tax on labor [Working paper]. Progress and Poverty Institute.
20. Coleman, A., & Grimes, A. (2010). Betterment taxes, capital gains and benefit cost ratios. Economics Letters, 109(1), 54-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.08.012
21. Daniels, T. L., Daniels, R. H., & Lapping, M. B. (1986). The Vermont land gain tax: Experience with it provides a useful lesson in the design of modern land policy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45(4), 441-455. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3486461
22. De Mille, A. (2006). Afterword: who was Henry George. In Progress and poverty (pp. 304-310). Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
23. Doğan, A. (2007). Özel mülkiyet hakkının temeli olarak emek. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 56(3), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000000320
24. Drake, B. (2006). Editor’s preface. In Progress and poverty (pp. xii-xiv). Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
25. Dye, R. F., & England, R. W. (2010). Assessing the theory and practice of land value taxation [Policy Focus Report]. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
26. Foldvary, F. E. (1981). Geo-libertarianism. Land & Liberty, 88(1042-1043), 53-55.
27. Foldvary, F. E. (1997). The business cycle: A Georgist-Austrian synthesis. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56(4), 521-541. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487330
28. Gaffney, M. (2009). After the crash: Designing a depression-free economy. Wiley-Blackwell.
29. Gaffney, M., & Harrison, F. (1994). The corruption of economics. Shepheard-Walwyn.
30. George, H. (1892). The condition of labour: An open letter to Pope Leo XII. Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
31. George, H. (2006). Progress and poverty. Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
32. Harris, L. (2003). Getting results or not. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(3), 625-628. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487816
33. Harrison, F. (1983). The power in land: An inquiry into unemployment, the profits crisis and land speculation. Shepheard-Walwyn.
34. Harrison, F. (2003). Gronlund and other Marxists. In R. V. Andelson (Ed.), Critics of Henry George: An appraisal of their strictures on Progress and Poverty (2nd ed., pp. 259-296). Pearson.
35. Hartzok, A. (2008). Financing planet management: Sovereignty, world order and earth rights imperative. In A. Hartzok (Ed.), The earth belongs to everyone: Articles & essays (pp. 135-146). Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
36. Hartzok, A. (2013, April). Socializing rent, untaxing production. In Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 2013, Washington DC.
37. Heilbroner, R. L. (2003). İktisat düşünürleri (Çev. A. Tartanoğlu). Dost Kitabevi.
38. Hudson, M. (2008). Henry George’s political critics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(1), 1-46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739689
39. Hudson, M., & Feder, K. (1997). Real estate and the capital gains debate [Working Paper No. 187]. The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.
40. Hudson, M., Feder, K., & Miller, G. J. (1994). A philosophy for a fair society. Shepheard-Walwyn. Katzenberger, A. J. (2009). A synopsis of Henry George’s progress and poverty [Working paper]. Cooperative-individualism.
41. Kızıltepe, M. (2021). (Georgist öğreti ve Tayvan örneği üzerinden) Rantı kamuya kazandırmada emlak mülkiyetini ve değer artışlarını doğru ve etkin vergilendirmenin siyasal anlamı, işlevi ve temel ilkeleri [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
42. Lam, A. H. S., & Tsui, S. W. (1998). Policies and mechanisms on land value capture: Taiwan case study [Working Paper, Code: WP98AL1]. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
43. Milne, J. (2014). The idea of property. Land & Liberty, 121(1232), 9-13.
44. Muellbauer, J. (2005). Property taxation and the economy after the barker review. The Economic Journal, 115(502), C99-C117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00982.x
45. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. McGraw-Hill.
46. Myers, R. H. (1984). The economic transformation of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The China Quarterly, 99, 500-528. https://www.jstor.org/stable/653239
47. Netzer, D. (1966). Economics of the property tax. Brookings Institution Press.
48. Plehn, C. C. (1918). A study of the incidence of an increment value land tax. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 32(3), 487-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/1883512
49. Roberts, J. M. (1971). Progress and poverty’s continuing challenge. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 30(3), 301-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485163
50. Robinson, D., & Chant, E. M. (1992). Interaction of land policy and land-based tax policy: The Vermont land gains tax. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 4, 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1992.tb00039.x
51. Samuels, W. J. (2003). Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded: A speculative memorandum. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(3), 583-592. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487812
52. Sietchiping, R., & Haile, S. (2011). Land-based taxation and urban development. In R. Sietchiping (Ed.), Innovative land and property taxation (pp. 2-7). UN-Habitat.
53. Smolka, M. O., & De Cesare, C. M. (2011). Property tax and informal property. In R. Sietchiping (Ed.), Innovative land and property taxation (pp. 8-29). UN-Habitat.
54. Sullivan, M. A. (2003). Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded: A personal response to the question raised by Warren J. Samuels. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(3), 607-623. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487815
55. Tsui, S. W. (2008). Alternative value capture instruments: The case of Taiwan. In R. Bahl, J. Martinez-Vazquez, & J. Youngman (Eds.), Making the property tax work: Experiences in developing and transitional countries (pp. 127-161). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.