Heterodox Economics as a Sociological Category

Yıl 2019, , 263 - 276, 30.08.2019

Hüsnü Bilir

https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.426509

Cited By: 2

Öz

The term of heterodox economics has been used to
state such thinkers as Veblen, Marx, Robinson, Sraffa –even sometimes Keynes
and Hayek- and such schools of thought as post-Keynesian economics, Marxist
economics, Sraffian (neo-Ricardian) economics, structalist economics,
institutional economics, social economics and evolutionary economics. Such
diverse thinkers and schools of thought are classified together because it’s accepted
that they either have some common concepts and ideas, or reject the orthodoxy
or mainstream of economics. But these definitions discuss heterodoxy in terms
of particular concepts and ideas or rejection of orthodoxy or mainstream
emphasise merely the intellectual aspect of heterodoxy and doesn’t represent
the changing structure of economics. The aim of this paper is to emphasise that
the heterodox economics is a sociological cathegory which has to be discussed
in the context of respect and influence, and determine why these thinkers of
schools of thought aforementioned are designated as heterodox.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Heterodox Economics, Intellectual Definition, Sociological Definition

Sosyolojik Bir Kategori Olarak Heterodoks İktisat

Öz

Günümüzde heterodoks iktisat terimi Veblen, Marx,
Robinson, Sraffa –hatta kimi zaman Keynes ve Hayek- gibi düşünürleri ve
post-Keynesyen iktisat, Marksist iktisat, Sraffacı (neo-Ricardocu) iktisat,
yapısalcı iktisat, kurumcu iktisat, sosyal iktisat ve evrimci iktisat gibi
düşünce okullarını ifade etmek üzere kullanılmaktadır. Bu denli farklı düşünür
veya düşünce okulunun bir arada sınıflandırmasının sebebi ise, belli müşterek
kavram ve fikirlere sahip olduklarının ya da iktisat disiplininin ortodoksisine
veya anaakımına karşı çıktıklarının kabul edilmesidir. Heterodoksiyi bu şekilde
belli kavram ve fikirler üzerinden veya ortodoksinin veya anaakımın
reddedilmesi üzerinden ele alan bu tanımlar heterodoksinin yalnızca entelektüel
veçhesine vurgu yapmakta ve iktisat disiplininin değişen yapısını
yansıtmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı ise, heterodoks iktisadın saygınlık ve
nüfuz ekseninde ele alınması gereken sosyolojik bir kategori olduğunu
vurgulamak ve sözü edilen düşünür ya da düşünce okullarının neden heterodoks
olarak nitelendirildiklerini tespit etmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Heterodoks İktisat, Entelektüel Tanım, Sosyolojik Tanım

Kaynakça

• Arestis, Phillip (1992). The Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: An Alternative Analysis of Economic Theory and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Backhouse, Roger (2004). “A Suggestion for Clarifying the Study of Dissent in Economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 26, No. 2: 261-271.
• Black, John; Hashimzade, Nigar; Myles, Gareth (2013). A Dictionary of Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Caldwell, Bruce (2009). “Some Comments on Lawson’s Reorienting Economics: Same Facts, Different Conclusions”, Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his Critics, (Ed. Edward Fullbrook), Routledge, London and New York: 13-19.
• Colander, David (2000). “The Death of Neoclassical Economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 22, No. 2: 127-143.
• Colander, David (2007). “Pluralism and Heterodox Economics: Suggestions for an ‘Inside the Mainstream’ Heterodoxy”, Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper, No: 07-24.
• Colander, David (2010). “The Economics Profession, the Financial Crisis, and Method”, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 17, No. 4: 419-427.
• Colander, David; Holt, Richard; Rosser, Barkley (2004). “The Changing face of Mainstream Economics”, Review of Political Economy, Vol. 16, No. 4: 485-499.
• Cronin, Bruce (2010). “The Diffusion of Heterodox Economics”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 5: 1475-1494.
• Davidson, Paul (2005). “A Response to King’s Argument for Pluralism”, Post-Autistic Economics Review, Vol. 24.
• Davis, John (2007). “The Turn in Economics and the Turn in Economic Methodology”, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 14, No. 3: 275-290.
• Davis, John (2008). “The Turn in Recent Economics and Return of Orthodoxy”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3: 349-366.
• Davis, John (2009). “The Nature of Heterodox Economics”, Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his Critics (Ed. Edward Fullbrook), Routledge, London and New York: 83-92.
• Dequech, David (1999). “Expectations and Confidence under Uncertainty”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 21, No. 3: 415-430.
• Dequech, David (2007). “Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox and Heterodox Economics”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2: 279-302.
• Dobusch, Leonhard; Kapeller, Jakop (2012). “Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a Framework for Interested Pluralism in Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 46, No. 4: 1035-1057.
• Dorfman, Joseph (1970). “Heterodox Economic Thinking and Public Policy”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 4, No. 1: 1-22.
• Dow, Shelia (2000). “Prospects for Progress in Heterodox Economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 22, No. 2: 157-170.
• Dow, Shelia (2004). “Structured Pluralism”, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 11, No. 3: 275-290.
• Dow, Shelia. (2008). “Plurality in Orthodox and Heterodox Economics”, Journal of Philosophical Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2: 73-96.
• Dugger, William (Ed.) (1989). Radical Institutionalism: Contemporary Voices, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Fullbrook, Edward (Ed.) (2003). The Crisis in Economics: The Post-Autistic Economics Movement: The First 600 Days, , London and New York: Routledge.
• Garnett, Robert (2006). “Paradigms and Pluralism in Heterodox Economics”, Review of Political Economy, Vol. 18, No. 4: 521-546.
• Gruchy, Allan (1947). Modern Economic Thought: The American Contribution, New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.
• Hands, D. Wade. (2015). “Orthodox and Heterodox Economics in Recent Economic Methodology”, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Vol. 8, No. 1: 61-81.
• Heukelom, Floris (2014). “Mainstreaming Behavioral Economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 21, No. 1: 92-95.
• Holcombe, Randall (2008). “Pluralism versus Heterodoxy in Economics and the Social Sciences”, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2: 51-72.
• Kapeller, Jakop (2010a). “Citation Metrics: Serious Drawbacks, Perverse Incentives, and Strategic Options for Heterodox Economics”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 5: 1376-1408.
• Kapeller, Jakop (2010b). “Some Critical Notes on Citation Metrics and Heterodox Economics”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 42, No. 3: 330-337.
• Lavoie, Marc (1992). Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Lavoie, Marc (2006). “Do Heterodox Theories Have Anything in Common? A Post-Keynesian Point of View”, European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 3, No. 1: 1-87.
• Lawson, Tony (1997). Economics and Reality, London and New York: Routledge.
• Lawson, Tony (2006). “The Nature of Heterodox Economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, No. 4: 483-505.
• Lee, Frederic (2009). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century, London and New York: Routledge.
• Lee, Frederic (2011). “The Pluralism Debate in Heterodox Economics”, Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 43, No. 3: 540-551.
• Lee, Frederic (2012). “Heterodox Economics and its Critics”, Review of Political Economy, Vol. 24, No. 2: 337-351.
• Mayer, Thomas (1998). “Boettke's Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics: An Empiricist's Response”, A Journal of Politics and Society, Vol. 12, No. 1-2: 151-171.
• Meador, D. Marshall (2009). “Comment on ‘What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought’”, Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 38: 71-73.
• Mearman, Andrew (2007). “Teaching Heterodox Economic Concepts”, The Handbook for Economics Lecturer, https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/heterodox.pdf, (Erişim: 03.04.2018). Mearman, Andrew (2011). “Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?”, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 2: 480-510.
• Mearman, Andrew (2012). “‘Heterodox Economics’ and the Problems of Classification”, Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 19, No. 4: 404-424.
• Nelson, Julie (2003). “Confronting the Science/Value Split: Notes on Feminist Economics, Institutionalism, Pragmatism and Process Thought”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27, No. 1: 49-64.
• Rabin, Matthew (2002). “A Perspective on Psychology and Economics”, European Economic Review, Vol. 46, No. 4: 657-685.Rosser, Barkley (2011). “Post Keynesian Perspectives and Complex Ecologic-Economic Dynamics”, Metroeconomica, Vol. 62, No. 1: 96-121.
• Sawyer, Malcolm (1989). The Challenge of Radical Political Economy: An Introduction to Alternatives to Neo-classical Economics, Savage, MD: Barnes and Noble Books.
• Sent, Esther-Mirjam (2004). “Behavioral Economics: How Psychology Made its (Limited) Way Back into Economics”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 36, No. 4: 735-760.
• Sherman, Howard (1987). Foundations of Radical Political Economy, Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe.
• Wrenn, Mary (2007a). “Searching for Common Ground: Interactive Agency in Heterodox Economics”, European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 4, No. 2: 253-275.
• Wrenn, Mary (2007b). “What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought”, Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 36, No. 2: 97-108.