Economics Education in Turkey: Places of The History of Economic Thought and Economic History Courses in The Curricula

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 64, 1872 - 1886, 31.10.2021

Fatma Zişan Kara , Hüsnü Bilir

https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.987286

Öz

Economics education has been progressing same as natural sciences such as physics and mechanics, estranged from disciplines such as history, ethics, philosophy, sociology, and psychology in contrast to the classical political economy, as its predecessor which has become the dominant doctrine in the discipline of economics since the early 20th century. Organizing economics education with an emphasis on mathematics and econometrics, and estranging it from other social sciences deepen such a fundamental problem. It is seen that mathematical, statistical, and econometric methodologies loom large for economics education in Turkey, and it is possible to assert that other social sciences such as history, sociology, and philosophy are unable to find enough space in the economics curricula. This study aims to examine the economics curricula of universities established in Turkey and to determine the shares of courses such as the history of economic thought and economic history in the curricula.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Economics education, History of economic thought, Economic history, Neoclassical economics

Türkiye’de İktisat Eğitimi: İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi ve İktisat Tarihi Derslerinin Müfredattaki Yerleri

Öz

İktisat eğitimi özellikle yirminci yüzyılın başlarından itibaren iktisat disiplinindeki hâkim öğreti haline gelen neoklasik iktisat aracılığı ile halefi olduğu klasik ekonomi politiğin aksine, tarih, etik, felsefe, sosyoloji, psikoloji gibi disiplinlerden uzaklaşarak, fizik ve mekanik gibi doğa bilimlerini kendisine örnek alarak ilerlemektedir. İktisat eğitimini matematik ve ekonometri ağırlıklı organize etmek ve diğer sosyal bilim alanlarından uzaklaştırmak bu temel problemi derinleştirmektedir. Türkiye’de iktisat eğitiminde matematiksel, istatistiksel ve ekonometrik yöntemlerin ön planda olduğunu ve tarih, sosyoloji, felsefe gibi diğer sosyal bilim alanlarının iktisat müfredatında yeterince yer bulamadığını söylemek mümkün görünmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin iktisat müfredatlarını incelemek ve iktisadi düşünce tarihi, iktisat tarihi gibi derslere müfredatlarda ne kadar yer ayrıldığını tespit etmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İktisat eğitimi, İktisadi düşünce tarihi, İktisat tarihi, Neoklasik iktisat

Kaynakça

• Anderson, G., D. Benjamin, & M. A. Fuss. 1994. The determinants of success in university introductory economics courses. The Journal of Economic Education 25 (4): 99-119.
• Aydın, Y. 2016. Post otistik iktisat: İktisat eğitimi ve neoklasik iktisat eleştirisi [Post-autistic economics: Criticism of neoclassical economics and economics education]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 35: 35-47.
• Aysan, A. F., & M. F. Ulu. 2013. Küresel kriz, iktisat tarihi ve makroiktisat metodolojisi açışından bir kazanç olabilir mi? [Could economic crisis be a advantage for the methodology of economic history and macroeconomics?]. İktisat ve Toplum 20: 5-10.
• Aysan A. F., Y. S. Hacıhasanoğlu, G. İ. Kara, & A. Suner. 2006. Önde gelen iktisat doktora programlarında temel makro iktisat eğitimi [Graduate macroeconomics education in leading Ph.d programs in economics]. Research Report of Boğaziçi University, No: Iss/Ec-200-15. Accessed March 18, 2020. http://ideas.econ.boun.edu.tr/content/wp/ISS_EC_06_15.pdf.
• Barone, C. A. 1991. Contending perspectives: Curricular reform in economics. The Journal of Economic Education 22 (1): 15-26.
• Blaug, M. 1998. The problems with formalism. Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals 41 (3): 35-45. doi: 10.1080/05775132.1998.11472031.
• Blaug, M. 2003. The formalist revolution of the 1950’s. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25 (2): 145-156. doi: 10.1080/1042771032000083309.
• Brückner, S., M. Förster, O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, & W. B. Walstad. 2015. Effects of prior economic education, native language, and gender on economic knowledge of first-year students in higher education. A comparative study between Germany and the USA. Studies in Higher Education 40 (3): 437-453. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1004235.
• Boot, H. M. 1997. Special report: Teaching economic history at Australian universities. Australian Economic History Review 37 (2): 158-164. doi: 10.1111/aehr.372005.
• Caldwell, B. 2013. Of positivism and the history of economic thought. Southern Economic Journal 79 (4): 753-67. doi: 10.4284/0038-4038-2012.274.
• CEE (Council for Economic Education). 2010. Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics. 2nd ed. Council for Economic Education, New York.
• Colander, D., R. P. F. Holt, & J. P. Rosser. 2010. How to win friends and (possibly) influence mainstream economists. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 32 (3): 397-408.
• Cyert, R. M. 1984. Economic education in our schools: A renewed mission. The Journal of Economic Education 15 (4): 261-64.
• Douglas, S., & J. Sulock. 1995. Estimating educational production functions with correction for drops. The Journal of Economic Education 26 (2): 101-112. doi: 10.2307/1183365.
• Dow, S. 1992. Postmodernism and economics. In Postmodernism and the social sciences, ed. J. Doherty, E. Graham & M. Malek, 148-61. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dow, S. 2009. History of thought and methodology in pluralist economics education. International Review of Economics Education 8 (2): 41-57. doi: 10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30069-4.
• Durkheim, E. 1956. Education and sociology. Trans. S. D. Fox. New York: Free Press.
• Eren, E. 2012. Küresel bunalım, iktisat eğitimi ve yeni iktisat [The global crisis, economics education and new economics]. Discussion Paper, Turkish Economic Association, No. 2012/103. Accessed March 15, 2020. http://www.tek.org.tr/files/disc/dt71.pdf.
• Frank, R. H., T., Gilovich, and D. T. Regan. 1993. Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (2): 159-171. doi: 10.1257/jep.7.2.159.
• Frank, R. H., T., Gilovich, & D. T. Regan. 1996. Do economists make bad citizens? Journal of Economic Perspectives 10 (1): 187-192. doi: 10.1257/jep.10.1.187.
• Gayer, T., & E. R. Weintraub. 2002. Negotiating at the boundary: Patinkin vs. Phillips. History of Political Economy 32 (3): 441-71.
• Giddens, A. 1989. Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Hahn, J., & K. Jang. 2010. Economic education in Korea: Current status and changes. The Journal of Economic Education 41 (4): 436-47. doi: 10.1080/00220485.2010.51040.
• Hill, R., & T. Myatt. 2010. The economics anti-textbook: A critical thinker's guide to microeconomics. London: Zed Books.
• Hyslop-Margison, E. J. 2000. The market economy discourse on education: Interpretation, impact, and resistance. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLVI (3): 203-13.
• Kern, W. S. 1990. Frank Knight's skeptical view of economic education. The Journal of Economic Education 21 (2): 195-206.
• Kherfi, S. 2008. Economic education in the Middle East: Are the determinants of success in ıntroductory economics any different? The Journal of Economic Education 39 (1): 22-40. doi: 10.3200/JECE.39.1.22-40.
• Klamer, A. (1984). Conversations with economists. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.
• Kuhn, C., O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, S. Brückner, & H. Saas. 2018. A new video-based tool to enhance teaching economics. International Review of Economics Education 27: 24-33. doi: 0.1016/j.iree.2018.01.007.
• Kurmuş, O. 2009. Bir bilim olarak iktisat tarihinin doğuşu [The emergence of economic history as a science]. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
• Mankiw, G. 2005. Principles of Economics. 2nd. ed. New York: Dryden Press.
• Matherly, W. C. 1935. Economic education. Social Science 10 (2): 23-30.
• Mcloskey, D. N. 1976. Does the past have useful economics?. Journal of Economic Literature 14 (2): 434-61.
• Mearman, A., S. Berger, and D. Guizzo. 2016. Curriculum reform in UK economics: A critique. Economics Working Paper Series, 1611, Faculty of Business and Law, University of West England, Bristol. Accessed October 18, 2020. https://uwe- repository.worktribe.com/output/905541/curriculum-reform-in-uk-economics-acritique.
• Nelson, R. H. 2001. Economics as religion. From Samuelson to Chicago and beyond. University Park, Penn.: Penn State University Press.
• OECD. 2011. Progress report on economics strand. Paper presented at the 6th meeting of the AHELO Group of National Experts, Paris, March 28–29.
• Ramsden, D. 2012. Making economics and economists better: The Government Economic Service perspective. In What’s the use of economics? Teaching the dismal science after the crisis, ed. D. Coyle, 3-11. London: London Publishing Partnership.
• Ruben, E. 2001. İktisat öğretiminin sorunları [The boundaries of economic teaching]. İktisat Dergisi 415: 35-40.
• Santomero, A. M. 2003. Knowledge is power: the importance of economic education. Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Q4: 1-5. Accessed August 28, 2020. https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedpbr/y2003iq4p1-5.html.
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. History of economic analysis. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
• Seager, H. R. 1893. Economics at Berlin and Vienna. Journal of Political Economy 1 (2): 236-62.
• Sent, E. M. 2006. Pleas for pluralism. In Real World Economics: A Post-Autistic Reader, ed. E. Fullbrook, 177-184. London: Anthem Press.
• Shiller, R. J. 2010. How should the financial crisis Change how we teach economics? The Journal of Economic Education 41 (4): 403-409. doi: 10.1080/00220485.2010.510409.
• Stilwell, F. 2006. Four reasons for pluralism in the teaching of economics. Australasian Journal of Economics Education 3 (1&2): 42-55.
• Sunal, S. 2017. Ne yaptığımızı tam olarak biliyor muyuz? [Do we exactly know what we’re doing?]. İktisat ve Toplum 79: 34-40.
• Süalp, M. N. 2012. İktisadın, bir bilimsel öğreti alanı olarak, eğitimi [The teaching of economics as a scientific domain]. Discussion Paper, No. 2012/42, Turkish Economic Association, Ankara. Accessed June 4, 2020. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81604/1/71905916X.pdf.
• Şimşek, S. & Ş. Cicioğlu. 2006. İktisat eğitiminde temel sorunlar ve öneriler [Basic problems and suggestions in economics education]. TÜHİS: İş Hukuku ve İktisat Dergisi 20 (3): 17-29.
• The Members of the PEPS-Economie Students’ Association. 2014. The case for pluralism: what French undergraduate economics teaching is all about and how it can be improved. International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 5 (4): 385- 400. doi: 10.1504/IJPEE.2014.068320.
• Uygur, E. 2012. Küresel bunalım, iktisat politikaları, yöntemleri ve eğitimi [The Global Crisis, Economic Policies, Methods and Education]. Discussion Paper, Turkish Economic Association, No. 2012/99. Accessed March 17, 2020. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81692/1/72918501X.pdf.
• Yılmaz, A. B., E. S. Tonga, and H. Çakır. 2017. Lisansüstü eğitim öğrencilerinin aldıkları eğitim hakkındaki görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of the graduate students’ opinions about the education they recieve]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 37 (1): 1-45.
• Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, K. 2011. Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning & Education 10 (4): 643-60.
• Watts, M. & G. Lynch. 1989. The principles courses revisited. American Economic Review 79 (2): 236-241.
• Wunder, T. A., T. Kemp, & S. England. 2009. Fact based economic education. Journal of Economic Issues 43 (2): 467-75.