Kurumsal İktisatçı Olarak Hayek: Kültürel Evrim, Kurallar ve Kurumlar

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 96, 91 - 110, 12.12.2019

Adem Levent

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.641085

Cited By: 1

Öz

Avusturya iktisat okulunun 20. yüzyıldaki en önemli düşünürlerinden biri hiç şüphesiz Friedrich August von Hayek’tir. Hayek kültürel evrim teorisiyle kurumsal iktisada katkı olarak değerlendirilebilecek gelişmiş bir kurallar teorisi sunar. Bu çalışma boyunca Hayek’in kurumsal iktisatçı olduğu iddia edilmiştir. Hayek’in kurumsal iktisatçı olarak ele alınması, iktisat ve modern sosyal teorinin kurumlar merkezli anlaşılması için önem arz ettiği kadar modern sosyal teorideki aktör-yapı ikiliğindeki metodolojik sorunların giderilmesine de katkı sunar. Aynı zamanda modern toplumdaki sosyal kurumların nasıl oluştuğunu da gösterir. Hayek’in bireyciliği, atomistik ve toplumdan izole edilmiş bir bireycilikten ziyade sosyal kurallar ve kurumlar analizine dayanan kendiliğinden gelişen düzene dayalıdır. Çalışmanın ana hedeflerinden biri Hayek’in kültürel evrim teorisinin kurumsal iktisat bağlamında analiz edilmesidir. Bu amaçla öncelikle Avusturya iktisadı ve kurumsal iktisat metodolojik açıdan karşılaştırılmıştır. Daha sonra Hayek’in kültürel evrim teorisi, kurumsal iktisat ve metodolojik bireycilik bağlamında detaylı analiz edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hayek, Kültürel Evrim, Metodolojik Bireycilik, Kurumlar

Teşekkür

Atilla Yayla

Hayek as an Institutional Economist: Cultural Evolution, Rules and Institutions

Öz

One of the most important thinkers of the Austrian school of economics in the 20th century is undoubtedly Friedrich August von Hayek. Hayek presents an advanced theory of rules that can be regarded as a contribution to institutional economics through the theory of cultural evolution. Throughout the study, it was claimed that Hayek is an institutional economist. Hayek’s approach being handled as an institutional economist is of importance for understanding economics and modern social theories as institution-centered as well as for its contribution to the elimination of methodological problems in the actor-structure duality of the modern social theory. It also shows how social institutions in the modern society are formed. Hayek’s individualism is inherent in the spontaneous order that is based on the analysis of social rules and institutions rather than an atomistic and society-isolated individualism. One of the main aims of the study is to analyze Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution in the context of institutional economics. For this purpose, firstly Austrian economics and institutional economics were are compared methodologically. Then Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution was is analyzed in detail in the context of institutional economics and methodological individualism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hayek, Cultural Evolution, Methodological Individualism, Institutions

Kaynakça

• ADAMAN, Fikret and DEVINE, Pat, “The Economic Calculation Debate: Lessons for Socialists”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1996, Sayı: 20, ss. 523-537.
• BATEIRA, Jorge, Institutions, Markets and Economic Evolution: Conceptual Basis for A Naturalist Institutionalism, A Thesis Submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Faculty of Humanities, Manchester, 2010.
• BOETTKE, Peter J., “Evolution and Economics: Austrians as Institutionalists”, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1989, Sayı: 6, ss. 73-89.
• BOETTKE, Peter J., “The Theory of Spontaneous Order and Cultural Evolution in the Social Theory of F.A. Hayek”, Cultural Dynamics, 1990, Sayı: 3(1), ss. 61-83.
• BOETTKE, Peter J. (1998), Economic Calculation: The Austrian Contribution to Political Economy, Advances in Austrian Economics, 5: 131-158.
• BOETTKE, Peter J., “Introduction”, Peter J. Boettke, (edit.), Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics içinde, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, ss. vii-xi.
• CALDWELL, Bruce, “Austrians and Institutionalists: The Historical Origins of Their Shared Characteristics”, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1989, Sayı: 6, ss. 91-100.
• CALDWELL, Bruce, “The Emergence of Hayek’s Ideas on Cultural Evolution”, Review of Austrian Economics, 2000, Sayı: 13, ss. 5-22.
• CALDWELL, Bruce, “Hayek and Cultural Evolution”, Uskali Mäki (edit.), Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism and Social Construction içinde, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ss. 285-303.
• CHAVANCE, Bernad, Kurumsal İktisat, çev. Tuba Akıncılar Onmuş, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2019.
• HAYEK, Friedrich August V., The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Routledge, London, 1988.
• HAYEK, Friedrich August V., Kanun, Yasama Faaliyeti ve Özgürlük: Kurallar ve Düzen, çev. Atilla Yayla, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul, 1994.
• HAYEK, Friedrich August V., Kanun, Yasama ve Özgürlük: Özgür Bir Toplumun Siyasi Düzeni, çev. Mehmet Öz, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul, 1997.
• HAYEK, Friedrich August V., “İktisat ve Bilgi”, çev. Can Madenci, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 2009 [1937], Sayı: 14(53-54), ss. 135-151.
• HAYEK, Friedrich August V., Özgürlüğün Anayasası, çev. Yusuf Ziya Çelikkaya, BigBang Yayınları, Ankara, 2013.
• HODGSON, Geoffrey. M. and KNUDSEN, Thorbjørn, Darwin’s Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010.
• KIRZNER, Israel M., “The Economic Calculation Debate: Lessons for Austrians”, The Review of Austrian Economics, 1988, Sayı: 2, ss. 1-18.
• LEATHERS, Charles G., “Veblen and Hayek on Instincts and Evolution”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1990, Sayı: 12, ss. 162-178.
• LEVENT, Adem, “Sosyal Bilimlerin Kıyısında Entelektüel Bir Alan: İktisadi Düşünce”, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 2019, Sayı: 24(94), ss. 33-52.
• Özçelik, Emre, “Kurumlar, Kurumsal İktisat ve Avusturya Okulu”, Eyüp Özveren (edit.), Kurumsal İktisat içinde, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, 2007, ss. 201-235.
• PALERMO, Giulio, “The Convergence of Austrian Economics and New Institutional Economics: Methodological Inconsistency and Political Motivations”, Journal of Economic Issues, 1999, Sayı: 33(2), ss. 277-286.
• PENNINGTON, Mark, Sağlam Politik Ekonomi: Klasik Liberalizm ve Kamu Politikasının Geleceği, çev. Atilla Yayla, Liberte Yayınları, Ankara, 2014.
• PERLMAN, Mark, “Subjectivism and American Institutionalism”, Israel M. Kirzner (edit.), Subjectivism, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding içinde, The Macmillan Press, Hampshire, 1986, ss. 268-280.
• POLANYİ, Karl, Büyük Dönüşüm: Çağımızın Sosyal ve Ekonomik Kökenleri, çev. Ayşe Buğra, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2000.
• RUTHERFORD, Malcolm, “Veblen’s Evolutionary Programme: A Promise Unfulfilled”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1998, Sayı: 22, ss. 463-477.
• SAMUELS, Warren J., “Austrian and Institutional Economics: Some Common Elements”, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1989, Sayı: 6, ss. 53-71.STANFIELD, J. Ron, “The Institutional Economics of Karl Polanyi”, Journal of Economic Issues, 1980, Sayı: 14(3), ss. 593-614.
• VANBERG, Viktor, “Carl Menger’s Evolutionary and John R. Commons’ Collective Action Approach to Institutions: A Comparison”, Review of Political Economy, 1989, Sayı: 1(3), ss. 334-360.
• WITT, Ulrich, “The Theory of Societal Evolution: Hayek’s Unfinished Legacy”, Jack Birner and Rudy van Zijp (edit.), Hayek, Co-ordination and Evolution: His Legacy in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas içinde, Routledge, London, 2001, ss. 178-189.
• WYNARCZYK, Peter,” Comparing Alleged Incommensurables: Institutional and Austrian Economics as Rivals and Possible Complements?”, Review of Political Economy, 1992, Sayı: 4(1), ss. 18-36.
• YAYLA, Atilla, Özgürlük Yolu: Hayek’in Sosyal Teorisi, Liberte Yayınları, Ankara, 2000.