İktisadın Krizine Alternatif Bir Çözüm Önerisi: Humanomics

Öz

Bu çalışma, iktisat disiplininin uzun süredir tartışılan krizini ele almakta ve etkili çözüm önerilerinden biri olan Humanomics yaklaşımını tartışmaktadır. Tarihsel süreçte ekonomi politikten “iktisat”a geçiş, disiplinin metodolojik, epistemolojik ve ontolojik çerçevesinde köklü bir dönüşüm yaratmış; homo economicus varsayımı merkezinde şekillenen neoklasik iktisat, bireyi fayda maksimizasyonu yapan rasyonel bir özneye indirgemiştir. Bu indirgemeci anlayış, iktisadı toplumsal, kültürel ve etik boyutlardan koparmış ve disiplinin krizini derinleştirmiştir. Çalışmada, modernist bilim anlayışının pozitivist temellerinin iktisada yansıması incelenmekte; davranışsal iktisat, deneysel yaklaşımlar ve yeni kurumsalcılığın katkılarının ise köklü bir ontolojik ve epistemolojik dönüşüm gerçekleştirme noktasında yetersiz kaldığı vurgulanmaktadır. Buna karşılık Humanomics, Adam Smith’in Ahlaki Duygular Kuramı ve Milletlerin Zenginliği eserlerinde geliştirdiği düşünsel mirası referans alarak, insanın hem ekonomik hem de sosyal-ahlaki yönlerini bütüncül biçimde kavrayan bir perspektif sunmaktadır. İnsan davranışlarının yalnızca fayda maksimizasyonu ile değil, aynı zamanda sempati, uygunluk, tarafsız gözlemci, ortaklık hissiyatı, adalet, etik, retorik, kültür ve anlam dünyalarıyla şekillendiğini savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, çalışmada iktisat disiplininin krizden çıkışı için insana merkeze alan, disiplinlerarası etkileşime açık ve normatif unsurları dışlamayan bir paradigma olarak Humanomicsin inşası incelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• iktisat
• ekonomi politik
• homoeconomicus
• humanomics

An Alternative Approach to the Crisis of Economics: Humanomics

Öz

This study addresses the long-debated crisis in the discipline of economics and discusses the Humanomics approach, one of the effective approaches to solving it. Historically, the transition from political economy to ‘economics’ has led to a fundamental transformation in the methodological, epistemological, and ontological framework of the discipline; neoclassical economics, shaped around the assumption of homo economicus, has reduced the individual to a rational agent seeking to maximize utility. This reductionist understanding has severed economics from its social, cultural, and ethical dimensions, deepening the discipline's crisis. The study examines the reflection of modernist science's positivist foundations in economics; it emphasizes that behavioral economics, experimental approaches, and the contributions of new institutionalism have fallen short in achieving a fundamental ontological and epistemological transformation. In contrast, Humanomics, drawing on the intellectual legacy developed by Adam Smith in his works The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, offers a perspective that comprehensively grasps both the economic and the social-moral dimensions of human beings in a holistic manner. It argues that human behavior is shaped not only by utility maximization but also by sympathy, conformity, impartial spectator, a fellow-feeling, justice, ethics, rhetoric, culture, and worlds of meaning. Consequently, the study examines the construction of Humanomics as a paradigm for the discipline of economics to emerge from the crisis, one that centers on human beings, is open to interdisciplinary interaction, and does not exclude normative elements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economics
• political economy
• homoeconomicus
• humanomics

Kaynakça

1. Aydınonat, E. (2014). Felsefi iktisat: İktisadın doğasına dair söyleşiler. Ankara: İletişim Yayınları.
2. Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, truth and logic. Gollancz.
3. Beed, C. (1991). Philosophy of science and economics: A critique. Journal of Economic Issues, 25(2), 459–479.
4. Beed, C. (2005). Naturalised epistemology and economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(1), 99-117.
5. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
6. Blaug, M. (1992). The methodology of economics: Or how economists explain (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
7. Blaug, M. (2002). Ugly currents in modern economics. Içinde U. Mäki (Ed.), Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism, and Social Construction. Cambridge University Press.
8. Blaug, M. (2003). The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s. İçinde W. J. Samuels, J. E. Biddle, & J. B. Davis (Ed.), A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

9. Boettke, P. J., Leeson, P. T. and Smith, D. J. (2008). The evolution ofeconomics: Where we are and how we got here. The Long Term View, 7(1),14-22.
10. Buğra, A. (2008). İktisatçılar ve İnsanlar. İletişim Yayınları.
11. Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, Future. İçinde C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & M. Rabin (Ed.), Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press.
12. Caldwell, B. (1984). Beyond positivism: Economic methodology in the twentieth century. George Allen & Unwin.
13. Carnap, R. (1967). The logical structure of the world (R. A. George, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1928)
14. Cirillo, R. (1984). Léon Walras and Social Justice. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(1), 53-60.
15. De Montchrestien, A. (1999). Traicté de l'oeconomie politique (Vol. 16). Librairie Droz.
16. Dilthey, W. (1989). Introduction to the human sciences (Eds. & Çev. R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi,). Princeton University Press.
17. Elahi, K. (2014). Behavioral controversy concerning homo economicus: A human perspective. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 7(2), 2-29.
18. Ferm, V. (1950). A History of Philosophical Systems, NewYork, The Philosophical Library Press.
19. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. Verso.
20. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (çev. A. M. Sheridan Smith). New York: Pantheon.
21. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). University of Chicago Press.
22. Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23. Gadamer, H.G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall). Continuum. (Original work published 1975)
24. Giddens, A. (1974). Positivism and sociology. Heinemann.
25. Göçmen, D. (2007). The Adam Smith Problem Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and ‘Wealth of Nations. I. B. Tauris. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/adam-smith-problem-9781845114008/
26. Greif, A. (1994). Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 912-950.
27. Greif, A., & Mokyr, J. (2016). Institutions and economic history: A critique of professor McCloskey. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000417
28. Greif, A., Kingston, C. (2011). Institutions: Rules or Equilibria?. İçinde Schofield, N., Caballero, G. (eds) Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19519-8_2
29. Güçlü, A. U., Erkan–Uzun, S. Y., & Ümit Hüsrev, F. S. (2003). Felsefe Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Ankara.
30. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
31. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
32. Hayek, F. A. (1989). The Fatal Conceit The Errors of Socialism. İçinde W. W. Bartley III (Ed.), The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek Volume I. The University of Chicago Press.
33. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (çev.J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson). Harper & Row.
34. Helzner, J. (2013). Epistemology and economics. Synthese, 190(5), 781-786.
35. Hirschman, A. O. (2013). The Passions and the Interests. Princeton University Press.
36. Hodgson, G. M. (1998). The Approach of Institutional Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 166-192.
37. Hodgson, G. M. (2011). Sickonomics: Diagnoses and remedies. Review of Social Economy, 69(3), 357-376.
38. Hutchison, T. W. (1938). The significance and basic postulates of economic theory. Macmillan.
39. Işık, E. (2022). Adam-Akım İktisadın Öznesi “Homoeconomicus” u Toplumsal Cinsiyet Gözlüğü ile Okumak. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 6(2), 396-421.
40. Jevons, W. S. (2013). The Theory of Political Economy (4th Edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
42. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
43. King, J. E. (1948). The Origin of the Term ‘Political Economy’, The Journal of Modern History, (20)3.
44. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin Company.
45. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
46. Lachmann, L. M. (1951). The Science of Human Action. Economica, 18(72), 412-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2549611
47. Lachman, L. M. (1991). Austrian Economics as a Hermeneutic Approach. İçinde D. Lavoie (Ed.), Economics and Hermeneutics (ss. 134-146). Routledge.
48. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press.
50. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. University of California Press.
51. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. University of California Press.
52. Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei093
53. Lawson, T. (2013). What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(5), 947-983.
54. Lavoie, D. (2011). The interpretive dimension of economics: Science, hermeneutics, and praxeology. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24(2), 91-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-010-0137-x
55. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Lyotard, J.F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (çev. G. Bennington & B. Massumi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
57. Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. J. Johnson.
58. Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy. Volume one (E. Mandel, Intro.; çev. B. Fowkes). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)
59. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics, London: Macmillan and Co.
60. McCloskey, D. N. (1983). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21(2), 481–517.
61. McCloskey, D. N. (2006). The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3750637.html
62. McCloskey, D. N. (2010). Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo9419313.html
63. McCloskey, D. N. (2016a). “Adam Smith did Humanomics: So Should We”. Eastern Economic Journal, 42(4), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-016-0007-8
64. McCloskey, D. N. (2016b). Max U versus Humanomics: A critique of neo-institutionalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000053
65. McCloskey, D. N. (2016c). The humanities are scientific: A reply to the defenses of economic neo-institutionalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000430
66. McCloskey, D. N. (2016d). Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo22655327.html
67. McCloskey, D. N. (2019). Lachmann practiced humanomics, beyond the dogma of behaviorism. The Review of Austrian Economics, 32(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-017-0404-1
68. McCloskey, D. N. (2021). Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226766089
69. McCloskey, D. N. (2022). Beyond Positivism, Behaviorism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo145786166.html
70. McLure, M. (1997). ‘Rationality, Individualism and Public Policy’ in the Light of Pareto. History of Economics Review, 26(1), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.1997.11733248
71. Menger, C. (2009). İktisadın Prensipleri (A. K. Çelebi, Çev.). Liberte Yayınları. https://www.liberte.com.tr/iktisadin-prensipleri
72. Mill, J. S. (1874). On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It. İçinde Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (2. bs). Longman, Green, Reader, And Dyer.
73. Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy. John W. Parker.
74. Milonakis, D. and Fine, B. (2009). From political economy to economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory. Oxon: Routledge.
75. Morgan, M. S. (2006). Economic Man as Model Man: Ideal Types, Idealization and Caricatures. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 28(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10427710500509763
76. Munger, M. C. (2025). Are there normative social epistemologies? Vernon Smith, Adam Smith, and the challenge of systems. Public Choice, 202(3), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-025-01266-5
77. Nelson, J. A. (2003). How did ‘the moral’ get split from ‘the economic’? In D. K. Barker & E. Kuiper (Eds.), Toward a feminist philosophy of economics (pp. 134–141). Routledge.
78. North, D. C. (2002). Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans. Sabancı Üniversitesi.
79. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43.
80. Persky, J. (1995). Retrospectives: The Ethology of Homo Economicus. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 221-231.
81. Primrose, D. (2017). The subjectification of “homo economicus” in behavioural economics. The Journal of Australian Political Economy, 80, 88-128. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.308685192870062
82. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson. (German original 1934)
83. Ricardo, D. (2000). On the principles of political economy and taxation. John Murray.
84. Robbins, L. (1932). An Essay On The Nature and Significance Of Economic Science. Macmillian and Co. Limited.
85. Say, J. B. (2001). A Treatise on Political Economy or The Production, Distribution and Consumption of Wealth. Batoche Books, Kitchener.
86. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: SAGE.
87. Schlick, M. (1979). Philosophical papers (H. L. Mulder & B. F. B. van de Velde-Schlick, Eds.). Reidel. (Essays from 1932 et al.)
88. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (çev.G. Walsh & F. Lehnert). Northwestern University Press.
89. Serdaroğlu, U (2010). Feminist İktisadın Bakışı Postmodernist mi? Eflatun Basım Dağıtım Yayımcılık.
90. Shapere, D. (1984). Reason and the search for knowledge. Reidel.
91. Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
92. Simon, H. A. (1979). Information Processing Models of Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30(Volume 30, 1979), 363-396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.30.020179.002051
93. Smith, A. (2006). Milletlerin Zenginliği (H. Derin, Çev.; 1. bsk). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
94. Smith, A. (2018). Ahlaki Duygular Kuramı. Pinhan Yayınları.
95. Smith, V. L. (2008). Rationality in Economics Constructivist and Ecological Forms. Cambridge University Press.
96. Smith, V. L., & Wilson, B. J. (2019). Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185561
97. Storr, V. H. (2013). Understanding the Culture of Markets. Routledge.
98. Şenses, F. (2017). İktisat: Bir sosyal bilim olarak geçmişi ve bugünü. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
99. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
100. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
101. Urbina, D. A., & Ruiz-Villaverde, A. (2019). A Critical Review of Homo Economicus from Five Approaches. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 78(1), 63-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12258
102. von Mises, L. (2008). İnsan Eylemi, Ekonomi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Liberte Yayınları.
103. von Wieser, F. (1893). Natural Value. Macmillian and Co
104. von Wieser, F. (1927). Social Economics. Adelphi Company.
105. Walras, L. (1954). Elements of Pure Economics. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
106. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.
107. Yılmaz, K. R. (2020). Ekonomiyi yeniden düşünmek ya da bir başlangıç olarak eleştirel politik ekonomiyi geri çağırmak: Tarihsel bir okuma. Praksis, 54, 203–251.
108. Zafirovski, M. (1999). How ‘neo-classical’ is neoclassical economics? With special reference to value theory. History of Economics Review, (29), 45-69.