Klasik Politik İktisattan Neoklasik (Ana Akım) İktisada: İktisadın İdeolojik Yeniden Üretimi ve Depolitizasyon Süreci

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 60, 197 - 223, 28.04.2024

Betül Sarı Aksakal

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.02.10

Öz

İktisadın ayrı bir disiplin olarak ele alınmasını sağlayan ilk düşünce okulu klasik politik ekonomi olarak bilinen klasik iktisattır. Klasik iktisat bölüşümün bilimi olarak tanımlanır. Ancak bilimin bölüşümsel dinamiklere ne ölçüde öncelik verdiği tartışmalı bir konu olduğu düşünülmektedir. Öte yandan 1870'lerdeki marjinalist devrimin ardından neoklasik iktisadın doğuşu, iktisadın sosyal bilimlerden kopuşuna yol açmıştır. Saf ekonomik mantık, ekonomiyi toplumdan, siyasetten ve her türlü toplumsal faktörden ayırarak kendi içinde özerk bir mekanizmayla çalışan pozitif bilimlerin içine yerleştirmiştir. Böylelikle kapitalist sistemin yapısal derinliğini ve dağılım dinamiklerini sorgulayabilecek sırların dışlanmasının amaçlandığı düşünülmektedir. Tüm bu bağlamlarda klasik ve neoklasik iktisadın ideolojik temelli yeniden üretim ve depolitizasyon süreci tarihsel materyalist bir çerçevede ele alınacaktır. Böylelikle, klasik ekonomi politik olarak nitelendirilen klasik iktisadın ve ana akım iktisat olarak bilinen neoklasik iktisadın görünen yüzlerinin ardındaki kuramsal ve ideolojik gerçekliklerin açığa çıkarılmasının mümkün olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Klasik Politik Ekonomi, Neoklasik İktisat, Kapitalizm, Marjinalizm, Bölüşüm

Proje Numarası

-

From Classical Political Economics to Neoclassical (Mainstream) Economics: The Ideological Reproduction and Depoliticization Process of Economics

Öz

The first school of thought that allowed economics to be treated as a separate discipline was classical economics, known as classical political economy. Classical economics is described as the science of distribution. However, the extent to which science prioritises distributional dynamics is debatable. On the other hand, after the marginalist revolution in the 1870s, the birth of neoclassical economics led to the separation of economics from social sciences. Pure economic logic has separated the economy from society, politics, and all kinds of social factors and put it into positive sciences that operate with an autonomous mechanism within itself. In this way, it is thought that it is aimed to exclude the secrets that can question the structural depth and distribution dynamics of the capitalist system. In all these contexts, the ideological-based reproduction and depoliticisation process of classical and neoclassical economics will be discussed within a historical materialist framework. Thus, it is thought that it will be possible to reveal the theoretical and ideological realities behind the visible faces of classical economics, characterised as classical political economy and neoclassical economics, known as mainstream economics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Classical Political Economy, Neoclassical Economics, Capitalism, Marginalism, Distribution

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Kaynakça

• Aktan, C.A. (2021), İktisat nereye gidiyor?, Ankara: Astana.
• Alkin, E. (1992), İktisat, İstanbul: Filiz.
• Altunöz, U. (2020), Neoklasik İktisadın Eleştirisi: Post-Otistik İktisat, Ankara: Seçkin.
• Başkaya, F. (1997), Paradigmanın İflası: Resmi İdeolojinin Eleştirisine Giriş, İstanbul: Doz.
• Bassiry, G.R. & M. Jones (1993), “Adam Smith and the ethics of contemporary capitalism”, Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 621-627.
• Baum, S. (1992), “Poverty, inequality, and the role of government: what would Adam Smith say?”, Eastern Economic Journal, 18(2), 143-156.
• Becchio, G. & G. Leghissa (2016), The Origins of Neoliberalism: Insights from economics and philosophy, Taylor & Francis.
• Birner, J. (2002), “A Conservative Approach to Progress in Economics”, in: S. Boehm et al., (eds.), Is There Progress in Economics (65-88), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham.
• Blaug, M. (1995), Economic Theory in Retrospect, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Buchanan, J.M. (1958), “Ceteris paribus: Some notes on methodology”, Southern Economic Journal, 24(3), 259-270.
• Carlson, A. (2006), “The problem of Karl Polanyi”, The Intercollegiate Review, 41(1), 32-39.
• Cevizci, A. (2009), Felsefe Tarihi, Say Publications.
• Clark, J.B. (1894), “A universal law of economic variation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 8(3), 261-279.
• Clarke, S. (1991), Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology, London: Macmillan Academic and Professional.
• Clift, B. (2019), Karşılaştırmalı Siyasal Ekonomi: Devletler, Piyasalar ve Küresel Kapitalizm, (Çev. E. Soğancılar), İstanbul: Koç University Publications.
• Collinson, S. (2003), Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case Studies in Political Economy Analysis for Humanitarian Action, London: Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute.
• Diez, T. & J. Steans (2005), “A useful dialogue? Habermas and International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 31(1), 127-140.
• Divitçioğlu, S. (1982), Üretim, Değer ve Bölüşüm, Kırklareli: Sermet.
• Elson, D. (1979) “The value theory of labour”, in: D. Elson (ed.), Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism (115-180), London: CSE Books.
• Formaini, R.L. (2002), “Adam Smith Capitalisms's Prophet”, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 7(1), 1-4.
• Gamble, A. et al. (2000), “Introduction: The Political Economy of the Company”, in: J. Parkinson et al. (eds.), The Political Economy of the Company (1-20), Oxford: Hart.
• Groenewegen, P. (1991), “Political Economy and Economics”, in: The World of Economics (556-562), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Groenewegen, P.D. (1969), “Turgot and Adam Smith”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 16, 271-287.
• Hançerlioğlu, O. (1999), Ekonomi Sözlüğü, İstanbul: Remzi.
• Henderson, J.P. (1977), “Adam Smith, Ricardo and Economic Theory”, Centennial Review, 21(2), 118-139.
• Henry, J.F. (2009), “The illusion of the epoch: neoclassical economics as a case study”, Studi e Note di Economia, 14(1), 27-44.
• Herzog, L. (2014), “Adam Smith on markets and justice”, Philosophy Compass, 9(12), 864-875.
• Hollis, M. & E.J. Nell (1975), Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neoclassical Economics, Cambridge University Press. New York.
• Hutchison, T. (1938), The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, London: Macmillan.
• Hutchison, T. (1988), Before Adam Smith: The Emergence of Political Economy, 1662-1776, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• İnsel, A. (2012), İktisat Ideolojisinin Eleştirisi, İstanbul: Birikim.
• Irwin, D.A. (1989), “Political economy and Peel's repeal of the Corn Laws”, Economics & Politics, 1(1), 41-59.
• Jevons, W.S. (1879), The Theory of Political Economy, Macmillan.
• Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
• Kaya, İ.T. (2019), “Aydınlanma Rasyonalizminin Neoklasik Ekonomiye Yansımaları”, Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 84-95.
• Kök, R. & M. Çetin (2019), İktisat Metodolojisi ve Bölüşüm Ahlakı, Ankara: Nobel.
• Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Kurz, H.D. (2022), “Classical Political Economy”, in: The Palgrave Handbook of the History of Human Sciences (1-28), Singapore: Springer Singapore.
• Lafferty, G. (2022), “Labour history and the neoliberal era: Context and conceptualisation”, Labour History, (122), 1-20.
• Landreth, H. & D. Colander (2002), History of Economic Thought, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Lowenberg, A. (1990) “Neoclassical economics as a theory of politics and institutions”, Cato Journal, 9, 619-639.
• Lucas, R. (1988), “On the mechanics of economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42.
• Luna, V.M.I. (2016), “The persistence of poverty in capitalist countries”, Economía Informa, 400, 67-82.
• Marshall, A. & M.P. Marshall (1879), Economics of Industry, London: Macmillan.
• Marshall, A. (1959), Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan & Co.
• Marx, K. & F. Engels (1845), The German Ideology, Moscow, RU: David Riazanov.
• Marx, K. (1954), Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, vol. I, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Marx, K. (1964), The Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, (Trs. M. Milligan), New York: International Publishers.
• Marx, K. (1976), Capital: A Critique of Political Economy vol. I (Trs. B. Fowkes), London: Penguin Books.
• Marx, K. (1978), The Poverty of Philosophy, Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
• Marx, K. (1981), Capital, vol. 3. (Trs. D. Fernbach from the German edition of 1894), Harmondsworth: Pelican.
• Mihályi, P. & I. Szelényi (2019), Rent-seekers, profits, wages and inequality, Springer International Publishing.
• Milios, J. (2000), “Social Classes in Classical and Marxist Political Economy”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(2), 283-302.
• Milonakis, D. & B. Fine (2009), From political economy to economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory, Routledge.
• Mirowski, P. (1984), “Physics and the ‘marginalist revolution’”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(4), 361-379.
• Morrow, G.R. (1927), “Adam Smith: moralist and philosopher”, Journal of Political Economy, 35(3), 321-342.
• Myers, M.L. (1976), “Adam Smith's concept of equilibrium”, Journal of Economic Issues, 10(3), 560-575.
• Nimura, S. (2016), “Adam Smith: Egalitarian or anti-egalitarian? His responses to Hume and Rousseau’s critiques of inequality”, International Journal of Social Economics, 43(9), 888-903.
• Öngen, T. (2002), “Marx ve sınıf”, Praksis, 8, 9-28.
• Özel, H. (2009), “İktisat ve sosyal teoride ''Görünmez El'' eğretilmesi”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 42(2), 45-65.
• Pack, S. (2013), “Adam Smith and Marx”, in: Chr. Berry, M. et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Adam Smith (523-538), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Peters, J. et al. (2002), “Economic transition as a crisis of vision: Classical versus neoclassical theories of general equilibrium”, Eastern Economic Journal, 28(2), 217-240.
• Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press.
• Ricardo, D. (1817), “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation”, Available online at the Library of Economics and Liberty, <http://www .econlib.org/library/Ricardo/ricP.html>, July 23, 2023.
• Ricardo, D. (1997), Ekonomi Politiğin İlkeleri ve Vergilendirme, (Çev. T. Ertan), İstanbul: Belge.
• Robbins, L. (1932), “The nature and significance of economic science”, The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology, 1, 73-99.
• Roll, E. (1952), A History of Economic Thought, New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Samuelson, P.A. (1978), “The canonical classical model of political economy”, Journal of Economic Literature, 16(4), 1415-1434.
• Satlıgan, N. et al. (2012), Kapital’in İzinde, İstanbul: Yordam.
• Savran, S. (2012), “Ricardo'nun Dehası ve Körlüğü”, in: N. Satlıgan et al. (eds.), Kapital'in İzinde, İstanbul: Yordam.
• Savran, S. (2022), Marksistler Cilt 1: Teori-Pratik Birliğine Doğru, İstanbul: Yordam.
• Sayar, A.G. (2005), İktisat Metodolojisi ve Düşünce Tarihi Yazıları, İstanbul: Ötüken.
• Schmidt, J. (1992), “What Enlightenment Was: How Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant Answered the Berlinische Monatsschrift”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 30(1), 77-101.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1972), Imperialism and Social Classes: Two Essays, Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• Screpanti, E. & S. Zamagni (2005), An Outline of The History of Economic Thought, OUP Oxford.
• Sievers, A.M. (1968), Has Market Capitalism Collapsed? A Critique of Karl Polanyi’s New Economics, Columbia University Press.
• Skinner, A. (1990), “The Shaping of Political Economy in the Enlightenment”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 37(2), 145-65.
• Skinner, A.S. (2003), “Adam Smith (1723-1790): Theories of political economy”, in: W.J. Samuels et al. (eds.), A Companion to The History of Economic Thought (94-111), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Skousen, M. (2005), Modern İktisadın İnşası: Büyük Düşünürlerin Hayatları ve Fikirleri, İstanbul: Adres.
• Skousen, M. (2007), The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, New York: ME Sharpe.
• Smith, A. (1937), The Wealth of Nations, New York: Modern Library.
• Smith, A. (2016), Milletlerin Zenginliği, (Çev. H. Derin) İstanbul: İş Bank Publications.
• Smith, A. (2018), Ahlaki Duygular Kuramı, (Çev. D. Kızılay), İstanbul: Pinhan.
• Solow, R.M. (1985), “Economic history and economics”, The American Economic Review, 75(2), 328-331.
• Sunar, İ. (1999), Düşün ve Toplum, Bilim-Felsefe Politika Serisi / 8. Doruk Yayınları, Ankara.
• Todaro, M.P. & S.C. Smith (2011), Economic Development, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
• Turpin, P. (2011), The Moral Rhetoric of Political Economy: Justice and Modern Economic Thought, Routledge.
• Veblen, T. (1898), “Why is economics not an evolutionary science?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 373-397.
• Waterman, A.M. (2002), “Economics as theology: Adam Smith's wealth of nations”, Southern Economic Journal, 68(4), 907-921.
• Welch, C. (1984), Liberty and Utility: The French Idéologues and The Transformation of Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Westra, R. (2018), “A theoretical note on commodification of labour power in China and the global putting-out system”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(1), 159-171.
• Wolff, R.D. & S.A. Resnick (1987), Marxian versus Neoclassical, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Wright, E.O. (2005), “Foundations of a neo-Marxist class analysis”, in: E.O. Wright (ed.), Approaches to Class Analysis (1-26), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Zafirovski, M. (1999), “How ‘neo-classical’ is neoclassical economics? With special reference to value theory”, History of Economics Review, 29(1), 45-69.
• Zafirovski, M. (2018), “Rational choice theory or pretense? The claims, equivalences, and analogies of the ‘Economic approach to human behavior’”, Sociological Spectrum, 38(3), 194-222.