Neoliberal Geçiş Süreciyle Güçlenen Çevre Vurgusu

Öz

Bu çalışmada liberal ideolojik perspektiften, iktisadi gelişimin yarattığı çevresel tahribat ve tahribatın çözümü için sunulan piyasa araçları ele alınmıştır. Öncelikle kronolojik olarak çevre vurgusunun bu denli güçlenmesinin arka planı anlatılmıştır. Akabinde liberalizm ve liberalizmin teorik zeminini oluşturan varsayımlar irdelenmiştir. Klasik liberalizmde tasnif dışı bırakılan çevre, neoklasik iktisadi paradigma içerisinde anlatılmış ve çevresel sorunların çözümünde kullanılan araçlar değerlendirilmiştir. Hayek’in liberalizm anlayışı, liberal öğretinin yapı taşı iken bu çalışma kapsamında da önemli bir dayanak olmuştur. Bu doğrultuda Hayek’in çevre konusundaki görüşlerine yer verilmiştir. Nihai olarak çevrenin insan neslinin devamlılığı için ne denli önemli olduğu vurgulanmış; çevresel unsurların piyasa koşulları altında fiyatlanması ve mülkiyet haklarının devredilmesinin gereklilik iken belirli stratejik noktalarda kamusal müdahalenin meşru olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liberalizm
• Ekolojik Ekonomi
• Serbest Piyasa Çevreciliği

Environmental Effect Strengthened by The Neoliberal Transition Process

Öz

In this study, from liberal point of view, the environmental damage caused by economic development is discussed, market tools offered for the solution of this damage are evaluated. Liberalism and its assumptions are examined. Hayek's liberalism is the building block of liberal teaching, has been reference within the scope of this study. Environmental issue was ignored in classical liberalism, was explained in the neoclassical economic paradigm, the tools used in the solution of environmental problems were researched. In this direction, Hayek's views on the environment are included. It has been understood how important the environment is for the continuity of the human race. Environmental elements should be priced under market conditions, property rights should be transferred. However, public intervention should be allowed at certain strategic points.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liberalism
• Ecological Economy
• Free Market Environmentalism

Kaynakça

1. Acciona. (2020), What is climate change? (Erişim: 25.09.2022) https://www.acciona.com/climate-change/?_adin=02021864894
2. Anderson, T. L. & Leal, D. R. (1991). Free Market Environmentalism: Hindsight And Foresight, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 8(111), 111-134.
3. Anderson, T. L. (2016). If Hayek and Coase Were Environmentalists: Linking Economics and Ecology. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), 121-140.
4. Andrew, J. & Cortese, C. (2013). Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: The case of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 397–409.
5. Asserson, W. (2007). The Economists in the Garden: The Historical Roots of Free Market Environmentalism (Erişim: 1.09.2022), USA: Montana State University Departmant of History and Philosophy Professional Paper https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3924/Asserson_Final_n_Pro_P5__2_.pdf
6. Baird C. W. (2006), Hayek on the Rule of Law and Unions (Erişim: 18.09.2022), https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-rule-of-law-and-unions/
7. Baştürk, M. F. (2014). Mülkiyet Problemi, Dışsallıklar ve Coasen Çözüm, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 21(1), 143-154.
8. Bell, D. R. (2004). Creating Green Citizens? Political Liberalism And Environmental Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(1), 37-53.

9. Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2001). Ecological Economics: Themes, Approaches and Differences with Environmental Economics. Regional Environmental Change, 2, 13-23.
10. Buchanan J.M. & Stubblebine C. (1962). Externality. Economica, 29(116), 371-384.
11. Burtan Doğan B. (2010). Klasik Liberal Teoride Bireyciliğin Yeri ve Önemi ile Bireycilik ve Kalkınma Sorunsalı Arasındaki Etkileşimler, Mevzuat Dergisi, 13(152).
12. Corporate Watch (2016), A-Z of Green Capitalism, (Erişim: 25.09.2022) https://enoughisenough14.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Corporate-Watch-A-Z-of-Green-Capitalism.pdf
13. Çelik, F. & Usta, S. (2010), Klasik Liberalizmde “Özgürlük” ve Liberalizmin Yerel Yönetimlere Bakışı, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24, 121-135.
14. Çiftçi, A. (2020). Çevre Sorunları ve Liberalizm, Econder, 4(2), 462-478.
15. Daly, E. H. (1992). Free‐market environmentalism: Turning a good servant into a bad master. Critical Review, 6(2-3), 171–183.
16. Daly, G. & Giertz, F. (1975). Externalities, Extortion, and Efficiency. The American Economic Review, 65(5), 997-1001
17. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and Political Theory. London: UCL Press
18. Ehrlich, P. R. & Holdren, J., P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth, Science, New Series, 171, No. 3977, 1212-1217.
19. Ehrlich, P. R. (2008). Key Issues for Attention from Ecological Economists. Environment and Development Economics, 13(1), 1-20.
20. Erdoğan, M. (2017). Liberalizme Yeniden Bakış: Tarihi ve Felsefi Temelleri, (Erişim: 20.12.2022), http://erdoganmustafa.org/liberalizme-yeniden-bakis-tarihi-ve-felsefi-temelleri/
21. Finnis, J. (1994). Liberalism and Natural Law Theory, Mercer L. Rev. 687(45), 687-704.
22. Foster, J. B. (2002). Ecology Against Capitalism, New York: Monthly Review Press
23. Friedman, J. (1990) Methodological vs. normative individualism, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 4(1-2), 5-9.
24. Gorz, A. (1995). İktisadi Aklın Eleştirisi. Işık Ergüden (Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
25. Gowdy, J. & Erickson, J. D. (2005). The Approach of Ecological Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29, 207–222
26. Greenwood, D. (2007). The Halfway House: Democracy, Complexity, and The Limits to Markets In Green Political Economy. Environmental Politics, 16(1), 73–91.
27. Haar, E. (2009), Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory: Hume, Smith, Mises, and Hayek, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
28. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and Policy Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Hamowy, R. (1971), Freedom and The Rule Of Law In F.A. Hayek, Il Politico, Gıugno 36(2), pp. 349-377
30. Harris, J. M. & Roach, B. (2018). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach, New York- London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
31. Hayek, F. A. (1952). Individualism and Economic Order, London: Routledge & Kean Paul
32. Hayek, F. A. (1966). The Principles of A Liberal Social Order, II Politico, 31(4), 601-618.
33. Hayek, F. A. (1967). Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,.
34. Hayek, F. A. (2009). Liberalizm. Ünsal Çetin (Çev.). Liberal Düşünce, 14(55), 197-224.
35. Horwitz: (2001), From Smith to Menger to Hayek: Liberalism in the Spontaneous-Order Tradition, The Independent Review, 6(1), 81-97
36. Hovenkamp, H. (2009), The Coase Theorem and Arthur Cecil Pigou, Arizona Law Review, 51(3), 633-649.
37. Kazgan, G. (2006). İktisadi Düşünce veya Politik İktisadın Evrimi, İstanbul:Remzi Kitabevi.
38. Klaus, V. (2007), Global warming: truth or propaganda? (Erişim: 21.09.2022) https://www.ft.com/content/e9df7200-19c7-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621
39. Kökalan Çımrın, F.(2014). Kapitalizm, Çevre ve Çok Uluslu Şirketler, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(50), 175-187
40. Kukathas, C. (2006). Hayek and Liberalism. In The Cambridge Companion to Hayek, Cambridge University Press, 182-207
41. Lomasky, L. E. (1990). But is it liberalism? Critical Review, 4(1-2), 86–105.
42. Mankiw, N. G. (2009), Smart Taxes: An Open Invitation to Join the Pigou Club, Eastern Economic Journal, 35, 14-23.
43. Medema, G. & Ferey, S. (2015), Externalities in Economic Thought (Erişim :4.10.2022). Oeconomia https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/366
44. Medema, S. G. (1994). The Problem of Social Cost. In: Ronald H. Coase. Contemporary Economists. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
45. Midgley, G., Ochoa A.& Alajendro, E. (1999), Visions of Community for Community OR, The Omega International Journal Management Science, 27 (2), 259–274
46. Mises, L. W. (1952). Planning for Freedom and Twelve Other Essays and Addresses. U.S.A: Libertarian Press.
47. Mises, L. W. (2005). Liberalism The Classical Tradition, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc..
48. Pigou, A.C. (1932). The Economics of Welfare, London: Macmillan and Co. Limited St. Martin’s Street.
49. Racio R. (1992). The Rise, Fall, And Renaissance Of Classical Liberalism (Erişim: 5.09.2022) https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/rise-fall-renaissance-classical-liberalism
50. Rockström, J. (2017). 5 Reason Why The Economy is Falling The Environment, And Humanity, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, (1.09.2022) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/5-reasons-why-the-economy-is-failing-the-environment-and-humanity/ adresinden alındı
51. Sagoff, M. (1992). Free‐Market Versus Libertarian Environmentalism. Critical Review, 6(2-3), 211–230.
52. Seçilmiş, E. (2016). Coase Teoremine Alternatif Bakış, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53(612), 9-20.
53. Serter, G. (2021). Neoliberal İdeolojinin Çevresel Yüzü: Ekoliberalizm, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 64-77.
54. Shahar, D. C. (2017), Hayek's Legacy for Environmental Political Economy, in Interdisciplinary Studies of the Market Order, London: Rowman Littlefield.
55. Shearmur, J. (2003). Hayek and After Hayekian Liberalism As A Research Programme, London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
56. Stiglitz, J. E. (1994). Kamu Kesimi Ekonomisi. Ömer Faruk Batırel (Çev.), Marmara Üniversitesi Yayınları, Yayın No.:549, İstanbul
57. Stroup, R. & Baden J. (1973). Externality, Property Rights, and the Management of our National Forests. The Journal of Law and Economics, 16(2), 303-312.
58. Stroup, R. L. (2014). Ekonomi: Herkesin Ekonomi ve Çevre Hakkında Bilmesi Gerekenler, Ahmet Uzun (Çev.), Ankara: Liberte Yayınları
59. T.C. Dış İşleri Bakanlığı, (2022), Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma (Erişim: 1.09.2022), https://www.mfa.gov.tr/surdurulebilir-kalkinma.tr.mfa
60. Tietenberg T. & Lewis, L. (2018). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, New York-London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
61. United Nations (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (Erişim: 31.08.2022) https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/media/publications/sustainable-development/brundtland-report.html
62. United Nations (1992), United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3-14 June (Erişim: 1.09.2022) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf
63. United Nations Environment Programme (2022), Why does environment, health and pollution matter?, (Erişim: 31.08.2022) https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/environment-health-and-pollution/why-does-environment
64. United Nations. (1972). Report of The United Nations Conference on The Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-6 June 1972 (Erişim: 31.08.2022) https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/stockholm1972
65. Waldron, J. (1987). Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism, The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 127-150
66. Westmoreland, R. (1998), Hayek: The Rule of Law or the Law of Rules?, Law and Philosophy, 17(1), 77-109.
67. Wissenburg, M. (2006). Liberalism, in A. Dobson & R. Eckersley (Eds.), Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge (s.20-34), Cambridge University Press.
68. Woodhouse, K. M. (2009). The Politics of Ecology: Environmentalism and Liberalism in the 1960s. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 2(2), 53-84
69. World Health Organization (2022), Air Pollution (Erişim: 31.08.2022), https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/environment-health-and-pollution/why-does-environment
70. Yayla A. (2012). Hayek’in Liberalizm Anlayışı. Ankara: Kesit Yayınları
71. Yayla A. (2015). Liberalizm. Ankara: Liberte Yayınları.
72. Yegen, B. & Turan, M. E. (2021), Pigovian Bir Vergi Önerisi: SAR Vergisi, Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 14(1), 397-418.
73. Zakaras, A. (2013). A Liberal Pluralism: Isaiah Berlin and John Stuart Mill. The Review of Politics, 75(1), 69–96.