The Human Conception of Neuroeconomics: Homo-Neurobiologicus

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 774 - 783

Hüsnü Bilir

https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1484311

Öz

One of the fundamental assumptions of neoclassical economics is the concept of the homo-æconomicus. This model assumes that individuals are rational, pursue personal interests, and aim to maximize their utility or profits based on choices determined by external factors. Neuroeconomics, however, challenges this idealized human model and focuses on understanding how people actually behave in the real world. By examining human decision-making processes and behaviors through laboratory studies and field analysis, neuroeconomics seeks to understand the neurobiological processes behind economic decisions. This approach suggests that people make decisions not only based on external factors or rationality but also influenced by emotions, thoughts, and their neurobiological structures. In this context, neuroeconomics points to a completely different nature of humans, contrary to the homo-æconomicus model: This human model, whose behavior is influenced by its social and economic nature and its neurobiology, is termed as homo-neurobiologicus. In this a person's economic decisions are largely determined by their neurobiological structure. The purpose of this study is to examine the homo-neurobiologicus which is the human understanding of neuroeconomics, and to highlight the differences and similarities between it and homo-æconomicus.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neuroeconomics, Homo-Neurobiologicus, Neoclassical Economics, Homo-æconomicus

Etik Beyan

This study is derived from the doctoral dissertation titled "Neuroeconomics: Is it a Renewed Face of Neoclassical Economics or a Critical Approach?" prepared by Hüsnü BİLİR (2017) under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Ufuk SERDAROĞLU in the Department of Economics at Gazi University, Institute of Social Sciences.

Nöroiktisadın İnsan Anlayışı: Homo-Neurobiologicus

Öz

Neoklasik iktisadın temel varsayımlarından birisi homo-æconomicustur. Rasyonel olduğu, kişisel-çıkarı peşinde koştuğu ve faydasını/kârını maksimize etmeye çalıştığı varsayılan homo-æconomicus dışsal olarak veri olan ve belirlenen tercihler temelinde bir seçim durumuyla karşı karşıyadır. Nöroiktisat ise bu idealize edilmiş insan modeline karşı çıkmakta ve insanların gerçek hayatta nasıl davrandıklarını anlamaya odaklanmaktadır. Laboratuvar çalışmaları ve saha analizleri aracılığıyla insanların karar alma süreçlerini ve davranışlarını inceleyerek, ekonomik kararlarının arkasındaki nörobiyolojik süreçleri anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, insanların sadece dışsal faktörler veya rasyonalite üzerinden değil, aynı zamanda duygular, düşünceler ve nörobiyolojik yapıları üzerinden de kararlar aldığını öne sürmektedir. Bu çerçevede nöroiktisat, homo-æconomicus modelinden tamamen farklı bir insan doğasına işaret etmektedir: Davranışı, toplumsal ve iktisadi doğasının ve nörobiyolojik yapısının bir sonucu olan bu insan modeli homo-neurobiologicus olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu modelde, insanın iktisadi kararlarını büyük ölçüde nörobiyolojik yapısı belirlemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı nöroiktisadın insan anlayışı olan homo-neurobiologicusu incelemek ve homo-æconomicus ile arasındaki farklara ve benzerliklere işaret etmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nöroiktisat, Homo-neurobiologicus, Neoklasik İktisat, Homo-æconomicus

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, Prof. Dr. Ufuk SERDAROĞLU danışmanlığında Hüsnü BİLİR (2017) tarafından Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İktisat Ana Bilim Dalı’nda hazırlanmış olan “Nöroiktisat: Neoklasik İktisadın Yenilenen Yüzü mü, Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım mı?” başlıklı doktora tezinden türetilmiştir.

Kaynakça

• Alter, M. (1982). Carl Menger and ‘Homo Oeconomicus’: Some Thoughts on Austrian Theory and Methodology, Journal of Economic Issues, 16(1), 149-160.
• Arestis, P. (1996). Post-Keynesian Economics: Towards Coherence, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20(1), 111-135.
• Bilir, H. (2017), Nöroiktisat: Neoklasik İktisadın Yenilenen Yüzü mü, Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım mı? (Neuroeconomics: Is it a Renewed Face of Neoclassical Economics or a Critical Approach?), Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Boettke, P. J., Leeson, P. T. & Smith, D. J. (2008). The Evolution of Economics: Where we are and how we got Here, The Long Term View, 7(1), 14-22.
• Bunge, M. (2000). Ten Modes of Individualism: None of Which Works and their Alternatives, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 30(4), 384-406.
• Camerer, C. F. (2007). Neuroeconomics: Using Neuroscience to Make Economic Predictions, The Economic Journal, 117(519), 26-42.
• Camerer, C. F. & Fehr, E. (2006). When does ‘Economic Man’ Dominate Social Behavivor?, Science, 311(5757), 47-52.
• Davidson, P. (1994). Post-Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical Physics: An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences, London: C. Kegan Paul&Co.
• Elahi, K. (2015). Homo Economicus in Neoclassical Economics: Some Conceptual Curiosities about Behavioural Criticisms, Homo Oeconomicus, 32(1), 23-51.
• Elster, J. (2008). Ekşi Üzümler: Rasyonalitenin Altüst Edilmesi Üzerine Çalışmalar, (Trans. B. Cezar). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Eren, E. (2011). ’Yeni’ İktisatta Ortak Noktalar, in E. Eren & M. Sarfati (Eds.), İktisatta Yeni Yaklaşımlar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, pp. 13-45.
• Fine, B. & Milonakis, D. (2014). İktisat Emperyalizminden Acayip İktisada: İktisat ve Diğer Sosyal Bilimler Arasında Değişen Sınırlar (Trans. E. Kırmızıaltın & H. Bilir), Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
• Frantz, R. (2005). Two Minds: Intuition and Analysis in the History of Economic Thought, New York: Springer.
• Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond Homo Economicus: Evidence from Experimental Economics, Ecological Economics, 35(3), 311-322.
• Glimcher, P. W. (2009). Neuroscience, Psychology and Economic Behavior: The Emerging Field of Neuroeconomics, in L. Tommasi, M. A. Peterson & L. Nadel (Eds.), Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain and Behavior, Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 261-278.
• Glimcher, P. W. (2011). Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Glimcher, P. W.; Dorris, M. C. & Bayer, H. M. (2005). Physiological Utility Theory and the Neuroeconomics of Choice, Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 213-256.
• Glimcher, P. W. & Rustichini, A. (2004). Neuroeconomics: The Consilience of Brain and Decision, Science, 306(5695), 447-452.
• Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic Institutions as Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis, Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3-11.
• Hayek, F. A. (1937). Economics and Knowledge, Economica, New Series, 33(54), 33-54.
• Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society, American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
• Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hosseini, H. (1990, January). The Archaic, the Obsolote and the Mythical in Neoclassical Economics: Problems with the Rationality and Optimizing Assumptions of the Jevons-Marshallian System, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 49(1), 81-92.
• İnsel, A. (2012). İktisat İdeolojisinin Eleştirisi (Sixth Edition), İstanbul: Birikim Yayınları.
• Kahneman, D. (2015). Hızlı ve Yavaş Düşünme (Trans. O. Ç. Deniztekin & F. N. Deniztekin), İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları.
• Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979, March). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
• Lee, D. (2006). Neural Basis of Quasi-rational Decision Making, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2), 191-198.
• Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. (2008). Field Experiments in Economics: The Past, the Present and the Future, NBER Working Papers, No. 14356.
• Libet, B. (1993). The Neural Time Factor in Conscious and Unconscious Events, Ciba Foundation Symposium, (174), 123-137.
• Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan and Co.
• Menger, C. (1981). Principles of Economics (Trans. J. Dingwall & B. F. Hoselitz). New York: New York University Press,
• Nelson, J. A. (1995). Feminism and Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 131-148.
• O’Boyle, E. J. (2007). Requiem for Homo Economicus, Journal of Markets & Morality, 10(2), 321-337.
• Ormerod, P. (1994). The Death of Economics, London: Faber and Faber.
• Park, J. W. & Zak, P. J. (2007). Neuroeconomics Studies, Analyse & Kritik, (29), 47-59.
• Pressman, S. (2006). Fifty Major Economists (Second Edition), London: Routledge,
• Rankin, D. J. (2011). The Social Side of Homo Economicus, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(1), 1-3.
• Ross, D. (2007). The Economics of Sub-personal: Two Research Programs, in B. Montero & M. D. White (Eds.), Economics and the Mind, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 41-57.
• Rustichini, A. (2009). Neuroeconomics: What have we Found and What should we Search for? Current Opinion on Neurobiology, 19(6), 672-677.
• Sacks, O. (1997). Karısını Şapka Sanan Adam (Trans. Ç. Çalkılıç). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Sapra, S. G. & Zak, P. J. (2010). Eight Lessons from Neuroeconomics for Money Managers, CFA Institute Research Publications, Behavioral Finance and Investment Management, No. 2010-2, 63-76.
• Schutz, A. (1943). The Rationality in the Social World, Economica, New Series, 10(38), 130-149.
• Sen, A. (1977). Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 317-344.
• Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as Processes and as Product of Thought, American Economic Review, 68(2), 1-16.
• Solo, R. A. (1975). Neoclassical Economics in Perspective, Journal of Economic Issues, 9(4), 627-644.
• Veblen, T. B. (1899). The Preconceptions of Economic Science, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 13(2), 121-150.
• Vercoe, M. & Zak, P. J. (2010). Inductive Modeling Using Causal Studies in Neuroeconomics: Brains on Drugs, Journal of Economic Methodology, 17(2), 123-137.
• Zak, P. J. (2004). Neuroeconomics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359(1451), 1737-1748.
• Zak, P. J. & Kugler, J. (2011). Neuroeconomics and International Studies: A New Understanding of Trust, International Studies Perspectives, 12(2), 136- 152.