The Lost Philosophy of Economics: A Tale of Surrender from Thought to Ideology, from Method to Dogma, and toward Interdisciplinary Imperialism

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 142 - 166, 26.03.2026

Betül Sarı Aksakal

https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1778078

https://izlik.org/JA43BH97JM

Öz

This article examines, from a historical and critical perspective, how modern economics has gradually distanced itself from its philosophical and social foundations and evolved into an increasingly technical and instrumental field of knowledge. By privileging positivist methodology, mathematical formalization, and abstract modelling, the neoclassical approach has detached economics from its historical, ethical, and class-based contexts, reshaping it into a discipline that appears neutral while, in practice, reproducing capitalist relations of production within an ideological framework. This transformation became institutionalized, particularly under the influence of American academic dominance after 1945, shaping not only theoretical orientations but also the content and methods of economics education. As a result, the discipline moved toward a structure that marginalizes pluralism, prioritizes mathematical standardization, and constrains critical inquiry. The article traces this process through the consolidation of the neoclassical–Keynesian synthesis, the rise of general equilibrium theory and econometrics, and the expansion of economics into other social sciences. This expansion—often described as disciplinary imperialism—is examined in relation to the narrowing of the discipline’s intellectual horizon and its role in reproducing neoliberal consent. In conclusion, the study argues that strengthening heterodox approaches, supporting methodological pluralism, and re-centering historically informed critical perspectives are essential for restoring the social responsibility of economics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoclassical economics , economics education , American academic hegemony , Post-Autistic Economics Movement , ideological orientation.

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

İktisadın Kayıp Felsefesi: Düşünceden İdeolojiye, Yöntemden Dogmaya ve Disiplinlerarası Emperyalizme Teslimiyetin Hikâyesi

https://izlik.org/JA43BH97JM

Öz

Bu çalışma, modern iktisadın felsefi ve toplumsal köklerinden uzaklaşarak giderek teknikleşmiş ve araçsal bir bilgi alanına dönüşmesini tarihsel ve eleştirel bir perspektifle incelemektedir. Pozitivist yöntemi, matematiksel biçimselleşmeyi ve soyut modellemeyi merkeze alan neoklasik yaklaşım, iktisadı tarihsel, etik ve sınıfsal bağlamından koparmış; onu kapitalist üretim ilişkilerini görünürde tarafsız fakat esasen ideolojik bir çerçevede yeniden üreten bir disipline dönüştürmüştür. Bu dönüşüm özellikle 1945 sonrası Amerikan akademik etkisi altında kurumsallaşmış; yalnızca teorik yönelimleri değil, iktisat eğitiminin içeriğini ve yöntemini de belirlemiştir. Böylece disiplin, çoğulculuğu dışlayan, matematiksel standartlaşmayı esas alan ve eleştirel düşünceyi sınırlayan bir yapıya evrilmiştir. Makale, bu süreci neoklasik-Keynesçi sentezin yerleşmesi, genel denge teorisi ile ekonometri uygulamalarının yükselişi ve iktisadın diğer sosyal bilimlere doğru genişlemesi üzerinden ele almaktadır. Disipliner emperyalizm olarak adlandırılan bu genişleme, disiplinin entelektüel daralmasıyla birlikte neoliberal rızanın yeniden üretimindeki rolüyle birlikte değerlendirilmektedir. Sonuç olarak çalışma, heterodoks yaklaşımların güçlendirilmesini, metodolojik çoğulculuğun desteklenmesini ve tarihsel duyarlılığa sahip eleştirel bir perspektifin yeniden merkeze alınmasını, iktisadın toplumsal sorumluluğunu yeniden kazanması açısından gerekli görmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoklasik iktisat , iktisat eğitimi , Amerikan akademik hegemonyası , Post-Otistik İktisat Hareketi , ideolojik yönelim.

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Aktan, C. C. (2021). İktisat nereye gidiyor? Ankara: Astana.
• Alada, D. (2012). İktisadın kayıp felsefesi-arayışlar, denemeler. İstanbul: Bağlam.
• Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). Monthly Review Press.
• Altunöz, U. (2020). Neoklasik iktisadın eleştirisi Post-Otistik iktisat. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica, 22(3), 265–290.
• Bahçe, S. (2020). Modern burjuva iktisadı: Beka sorunu karşısında boş temenniler, kifayetsiz tespitler. Praksis, 54, 9-28.
• Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
• Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Besomi, D. (2000). Keynes and Harrod on the classical theory of interest: More on the origin of the only diagram in The General Theory. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(3), 367–376.
• Blaug, M. (1990). Economic theories, true or false? Essays in the history and methodology of economics. Edward Elgar.
• Blaug, M. (1992). The methodology of economics: Or how economists explain (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Walrasian economics in retrospect. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1411–1439.
• Buchanan, J. M. (1991). The economics and the ethics of constitutional order. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, R. E. (1977). Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press.
• Chang, H.-J. (2002). Breaking the mould: An institutionalist political economy alternative to the neo-liberal theory of the market and the state. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26(5), 539–559.
• Clift, B. (2019). Karşılaştırmalı Siyasal Ekonomi: Devletler, Piyasalar ve Küresel Kapitalizm. (Trs. Esin Soğancılar). İstanbul: Koç University Publications.
• Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44.
• Comte, A. (1974). The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte (H. Martineau, Trans.). AMS Press. (Original work published 1855).
• Demiröz, D. M. (2001). Makro İktisat eğitimi üzerine bir deneme, İktisat Dergisi, 415, 42-46.
• Durkheim, É. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1895).
• Durusoy, S. (2008). İktisat Biliminin Yeri ve Yöntemi Neden Sorgulanıyor. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 1-26.
• Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso.
• Elster, J. (1982). The case for methodological individualism. Theory and Society, 11(4), 453–482.
• Ercan, F. ve Biçer, Ö. (2005). İktisat ve kalkınma ekonomisi: Kalkınma ideolojisinin sosyalizasyonu olarak kalkınma ders kitaplarının eleştirisi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 16(57), 51-102.
• Fiori, G. (1970). Antonio Gramsci: Life of a revolutionary (T. Nairn, Trans.). London: NLB.
• Fine, B. (2002). Economics imperialism and the new development economics as Kuhnian paradigm shift? World Development, 30(12), 2057–2070
• Fine, B., & Milonakis, D. (2009). From economics imperialism to freakonomics: The shifting boundaries between economics and other social sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Foster, J. B. (2011). Tekelci Finans Sermayesi. (Trs. B. Baysal, O. Gayretli, S. Serezli). İstanbul: Kalkedon.
• Fullbrook, E. (2002). The Post-Autistic Economics Movement: a brief history. Journal of Australian Political Economy, The, (50), 14-23.
• Garrido, A. (2003). John Robinson and the Post-Autistic economics movement. Post-autistic Economics Review, issue no. 22. Article 6, Access Link: https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue22/Garrido22.htm. Access Date: 18/02/2025.
• Göker, E. (2001). Durkheim’in sol eli: Pierre Bourdieu’nun muhalefeti. Praksis 3, 228 251.
• Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules: Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge University Press.
• Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
• Hausman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge University Press.
• Hayek, F. A. (1967). Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. University of Chicago Press.
• Herndon, T., Ash, M., & Pollin, R. (2014). Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2), 257–279.
• Hodgson, G. M. (2009). The great crash of 2008 and the reform of economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(6), 1205–1221.
• Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Ingrao, B., & Israel, G. (1990). The invisible hand: Economic equilibrium in the history of science. MIT Press.
• İnsel, A. (2000). İktisat ideolojisinin eleştirisi. İstanbul: Birikim.
• Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Polity Press.
• Jevons, W. S. (1957). The theory of political economy (5th ed.). Kelley & Millman. (Original work published 1871)
• Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Macmillan.
• Kırer, H. and Eren, E. (2015). İktisat-fizik ilişkisine tarihsel bakış. Ekonomi-tek, 4(2), 25-60.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• 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.
• Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. Routledge.
• Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting economics. Routledge.
• Lawson, T. (2013). What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(5), 947–983.
• Lazear, E. P. (2000). Economic imperialism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 99–146.
• Manicas, P. T. (1987). A history and philosophy of the social sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• McCloskey, D. N. (1983). The rhetoric of economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21, 481–517.
• Menger, C. (2007). Principles of economics (J. Dingwall & B. F. Hoselitz, Trans.). Ludwig von Mises Institute. (Original work published in 1871).
• Mill, J. S. (2008). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation (Vol. 1; 3rd ed.). Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26495 (Original work published 1851).
• Milonakis, D., & Fine, B. (2009). From political economy to economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory. Routledge.
• Mirowski, P. (1989). More heat than light: Economics as social physics, physics as nature’s economics. Cambridge University Press.
• Mirowski, P. (2002). Machine dreams: Economics becomes a cyborg science. Cambridge University Press.
• Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. Verso.
• Morgan, M. S. (1990). The history of econometric ideas. Cambridge University Press.
• Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Öncü, A. and Köse, A. H. (2006). Tahsildarlar ve borçlular: Karşı iktisat gözüyle Dünya kapitalizmi ve Türkiye. İstanbul: Evrensel.
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. (Originally published in German, 1934).
• Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic analysis of law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• Posner, R. (1987). The Law and Economics Movement. The American Economic Review, 77(2), 1-13.
• Rankin, K. (2002). Autistic economics?. Journal of Australian Political Economy, The, (50), 10-13.
• Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2010). Growth in a time of debt. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 100(2), 573–578.
• Romer, D. (1996). Advanced macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill.
• Romer, P. M. (2015). Mathiness in the theory of economic growth. American Economic Review, 105(5), 89-93.
• Rothschild, K. W. (2002). The absence of power in contemporary economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(5), 433–442.
• Samuelson, P. A. (1970). Maximum principles in analytical economics [Nobel Lecture]. NobelPrize.org. Retrieved July 24, 2025, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1970/samuelson/lecture/
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sherman, H. J. (1993). The business cycle: Growth and crisis under capitalism. Princeton University Press.
• Skousen, M. (2005). Modern iktisadın inşası: Büyük düşünürlerin hayatları ve fikirleri. İstanbul: Adres.
• Slattery, D., Nellis, J., Josifidis, K., & Losonc, A. (2013). Neoclassical economics: science or neoliberal ideology?. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 10(3), 313-326.
• Smith, A. (2002). The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, Adam (1776/ 1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (1991). Another century of economic science. The Economic Journal, 101(404), 134-141.
• The Guardian. (2019, January 21). World’s 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%: Oxfam report. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report (Accessed July 24, 2025).
• Udehn, L. (2001). Methodological individualism: Background, history and meaning. London: Routledge.
• Van Bouwel, J. (2005). Towards a framework for pluralism in economics. Post-autistic economics review, 30, 24-27.
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
• Walras, L. (1954). Elements of pure economics (W. Jaffé, Trans.). Allen & Unwin. (Original work published 1874).
• Weintraub, E. R. (2002). How economics became a mathematical science. Duke University Press.
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.