Gelişme iktisadı üzerine kuramsal tartışmalar ve yeni kuramsal iktisadın katkıları

Yıl 2021, , 578 - 597, 12.04.2021

Harun Bal , Pınar Çuhadar

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.752120

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı literatür taraması yöntemini kullanarak gelişme kuramları arasındaki farklılıkları ortaya koymak ve Yeni Kurumsal İktisat çerçevesinde konuya son dönemde yapılan katkıları irdelemektedir. Gelişme kavramının kazandığı anlam kuramsal gelişmelere ve dönemin hâkim iktisat ekolüne göre değişim göstermektedir. Klasik iktisadın gelişme kavramını büyüme ile eşdeğer görmesi uzun dönem literatüre hâkim bakış açısı olmuştur. Fakat bu kuramlara dayalı politikaların gelişmekte olan ülkelerde uygulanmaya konması ile yaşanan ekonomik darboğazlar, bu kuramlarla elde edile neticelerin gelişme sorunlarını çözümleyemeyeceğini göstermiş; yeni arayışları da beraberinde getirmiştir. İktisadi gelişme konusunda yapılan ve ortodoks iktisat anlayışının hâkim olduğu analizler, gelişmenin yakın nedenlerine odaklanan kuramlar ile açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Gelişmenin yakın nedenleri yatırımlar yolu ile girdi miktarında ortaya çıkan teknolojik gelişimle sağlanan verimlilik artışlarına odaklanmaktadır. Heterodoks düşünce okulları ise gelişmenin nihai nedenleri toplumsal ve siyasal ortama yani kurumsal olgulara odaklanmaktadır. Ülkeler arasındaki gelişmişlik farklılıklarının nihai nedenlerini üzerine yakın dönemde birçok yaklaşım geliştirilmiştir. Bu yaklaşımlarda Yeni Kurumsal İktisat okulunun yazınları oldukça önemli bir yere sahiptir. Yeni kurumsal iktisat okulunun tekil bir gelişme teorisi olmamakla birlikte gelişme konusunda ortodoks iktisat ile heterodoks görüşler arasında üçüncü bir yol olarak tanımlanması mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Kurumsal İktisat, gelişme ekonomisi, kurumlar

Destekleyen Kurum

Çukurova Üniversitesi BAP Birimi

Proje Numarası

İİBF2012D4

Theoretical arguments on development economics and the contributions of the new institutional economics

Öz

The aim of this study is to clarify the differences between development theories by using the literature review method and to explain the recent contributions of New Institutional Economics. The meaning of development concept has changed according to theoretical developments and the dominant economic school of thought. Classical economics had the dominant perspective of the long term literature. However, the fact that economic crisis emerged with policies grounded of these theories could not solve the development problems and brought back with new way of searching. The development analysis dominated by the orthodox economy have been tried to explain immediate causes of development. Immediate causes of development focus on the productivity gains achieved by technological and productivity improvements coming from investments. On the other hand, heterodox schools of thought focuses the final causes of development dealing with the social and political environment related with institutional facts. Many new approaches focused on the final causes of development differences between countries recently. The literature of the New Institutional Economics School has an important place in these approaches. Although the New Institutional economic school is not a unique development theory, it is possible to define it is as a third way between Orthodox economics and heterodox views.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Institutional Economics, Development economics, Institutions

Proje Numarası

İİBF2012D4

Kaynakça

• Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, Forging Ahead and Falling Behind. The Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385-406.
• Acemoğlu, D. (2006), Modelling Inefficient Institutions. Advances in Economics and Econometrics Theory and Applications, Nineth World Congress,1, 341-380.
• Acemoğu, D.,& Robinson, J.(2010). The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development. Review of Economics and Institutions, 1(2), 1-33.
• Acemoğlu, D., Johnson, S., Robınson, J. (2006). Understanding Prosperity and Poverty: Geography, Institutions and The Reversal Of Fortune in Understanding Poverty Banerjee,A.,Benabou, R. Mookherjee, D. (Ed). Oxford University Press: United Kingdom.
• Alchian, A.& Demsetsz, H. (1973). Property Right Paradigm. Journal of Economic History, 33, 16-27.
• Adelman, I. &Yeldan, E. (2000). Is this end of Economic Development?, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(1-2), 95-109.
• Aghion, P. (2004). Growth and Development: A Schumpeterian Approach. Annals of Economıcs and Fınance 5, 1–25. Aren, S. (2008). İstihdam, Para ve İktisadi Politika, Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
• Ateş, S.(1996). Ekonomik Büyümeye Yaklaşımlar Ve Yakınsama Sorunu. Çukurova Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1).
• Bardhan, P. (1988). Alternatıve Approaches to Development Economics. H. Chenery and T.N. Srinivasan. (Ed). Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. I, Elsevier Science Publisher.
• Bardhan, P. (2006). Institutions and Development, in David Clark (ed.), Elgar Companion to Development Studies, Elgar Publishing
• Brinkman, R. (1995). Economic Growth versus Economic Development: Toward A Conceptual Clarification. Journal of Economic Issıues, 29(4).
• Coase, R.(1937). Nature of Firm. Economica, New Series, 4 (16), 386-405.
• Cornwall, J.& Cornwall, W. (1994). Growth Theory and Economic Structure. Economia, 61, 237-251
• Cypher, J.& Dietz, J. (2009). The Process of Economic Development. Routledge: Canada
• Dulupçu, M. (2005). Kalkınma Ekonomisi Literatürüne Eleştirel Bakış, içinde Kalkınma Ekonomisi: Seçme Konular, Muhsin Kar ve Sami Taban (Ed)., Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
• Erbay, R., Özden, M. (2013). İktisadi Kalkınma Kuramlarına Eleştirel Yaklaşım. Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 3.
• Ficker, S. (2005). From Structuralism to the New Institutional Economics: The Impact of Theory On The Study of Foreign Trade in Latin America, Latin American Research Review, 40(3), 145-162.
• Gallup, J., Sachs, J., Mellınger, A. (1999). Geography and Economic Development, CID Working Paper, 1.
• Garrigue, R. (1968). İktisadi Gelişme Teorisi ve Prensipleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 27(4), 183-208.
• Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Kaynak:http://http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19641800248.html. Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2013.
• Görgün, S. (2012). İktisadi Gelişme ve Gelişme iktisadı. Maliye Araştırma Merkezi Konferansları, 34, İstanbul.
• Granato, J., Inglehart, R., Leblang, D. (1996). The Effect of Cultural Values on Economic Development: Theory, Hypotheses and Emprical tests. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 607-631.
• Güvel, A. (2011). Ekonomik Büyüme Kuramları. Adana: Karahan Kitabevi
• Hirschman, A.(1981). Kalkınma İktisadının Yükselişi Ve Düşüşü, içerisinde Kalkınma İktisadı Yükseliş ve Gerilemesi F. Şenses (Ed.), İletişim Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Hosseini, H.(2003), Why Development is More Complex Than Growth: Clarifying Some Confusions. Review of Social Economy, 61(1).
• Kaynak, M. (2003). Kalkınma İktisadının Kilometre Taşları ve Teknoloji, Yeni Dünya Düzeni ve Kalkınma, Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi Sempozyumu, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara
• Kum, M. (2011). İktisadın Yeni Coğrafi Açılımı: Yeni Ekonomik Coğrafya yaklaşımı..Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 30(1), 235-255.
• Kuznets, S. (1957). Summary of Discusson and Postscript.The Journal of Economic History, 17(4), 545-553. Landes, D. (1990). Why are We So Rich and They So Poor?. The American Economic Review, 80 (2), 1-13. Lewis, A. (1965). Review of Economic Development. The American Economic Review, 55(1-2), 1-16.
• Lewis, A.(1988).The Roots of Development Theory. Handbook of Development Economics in (Ed.H. Chenery, S. Srinivasan ) Handbook of Development Economics,1 (2), 27-37, Elsevier.
• Mouhammed, Adil, H.(2008). A Critique of a Marxist Critique of Thorstein Veblen. American Review of Political Economy, 6(1), 19-39.
• Myhrman, J. (1989). The New Institutional Economics and Process of Economic Development. Journal of Economic Institutions and Theorotical Economics, 145, 38-59.
• Mrydal, G.(1974). What is Economics?. Journal of Economic Issues, 8(4).
• Mookherjee, D.& Ray, D. (1999). Readings in the Theory of Economic development, Working Paper, New York University.
• North, D. (1989). Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction. World Development, 17(9), 1319-1332
• North, D. (1992). The New Institutional Economics And Development, Presented American Association Meeting, Kaynak:http:// www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/NewInstE.North.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 22.04.2012
• Naqvi, H. (1995). The Nature Of Economic Development, World Development, 23(4), 543-556.
• Nelson, R.&Winter, S .(1974). Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 16 (2), 23–46.
• Nelson, R. (2008). Economic Development from The Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory. Oxford Development Studies, 36(1), 9-21.
• Nunn, N. (2009). The Importance of History for Economic Development. The Annual of Economic Review, 1, 65-92.
• Pamuk, Ş. (2012). Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi (3. Baskı). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Przeworski, A.& Curvale, C.(2006). Political Institutions and Economic Development in The Americas: The Long Run, , unpublished manuscript, Department of Politics, New York University Przeworski, A., Curvale, C.(2006). Political Institutions and Economic Development in the Americas: The Long Run, , unpublished manuscript, Department of Politics, New York University
• Ranis, G.(2004), The Evolution of Development Thinking: Theory and Policy. Yale University Center Discussion Paper, 886.
• Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A.(2003). The Primacy of Institutions, Finance and Development, 40(2).
• Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., Trebbi, F.(2002). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. NBER Working Paper No. 9305
• Rosentein, P. Rodan. (1961). International Aid for Underdeveloped Countries, Review of Economic Statics, 43.
• Rostow, W. (1960). The Fıve Stages-of-Growth (A Summary) in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge University Press, 4-16
• Ruttan, V. (1998). The New Growth Theory and Development Economics: A survey.Journal of Development Studies, 35(2), 1-26.
• Sokoloff,, K., Engerman, S. (2000).Institutions, Factor Endowments and Paths of Development in The New World.Journal of Economic Perspective, 14(3), 217–232
• Sen, A. (1983). Development: Which way now?, The Economic Journal, 93(972), 745-762.
• Sen, A.(1988). The Concept of Development in Handbook of Economic Development, 1, Elsevier Published.
• Simon, H. (1986). Rationality in Psychology And Economics, The Journal of Business, 59(4), 209-224.
• Tabellini, G. (2006), Institutions and Culture. European.Economic Association Conference, Budapest, Hungary
• Thirwall, A.(2011). The Role of Institutions in Economic Development. Palagrave MacMillan.
• Todaro, M.& Smith,S. (2007). Economic Development. Boston, USA: The Pearson Publishing.
• Turnovsky, S. (2001). Old and New Growth Theories: A Unifying Structure. paper to be presented at Conference on Old and New Growth Theory, University of Pisa.
• Williamson, O. (1985). Transaction Cost Economics in the Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: MacMillan.
• Yavlıoğlu, C. (2002). Geri Kalmışlık Olgusu ve Ekonomistik Kalkınma Teorileri. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 3( 2), 49-70.