An Attempt to Define the Neoclassical Economics

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 658 - 670, 30.06.2018

Hüsnü Bilir

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.387221

Cited By: 5

Öz

While there is a consensus over that
neoclassical economics is the school of thought that dominates today's
discipline of economics, we can not speak of an agreement on the meaning and
content of the term neoclassical economics because the term is handled
differently by various thinkers. In some studies neoclassical economics is
identified with certain thinkers and concepts, whereas in the others it is
dealt with in the context of a certain historical period. However, there is no
definition of neoclassical economics in these studies. Therefore, based on the
analysis of Thorstein B. Veblen, the first thinker to propose the term
neoclassical economics the present study aims to provide a definition of the
neoclassical economics, and to present certain common points of neoclassical
analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoclassical Economics, Thorstein Bunde Veblen. Alfred Marshall, Tradition of Thought, Fundamental Assumptions

Neoklasik İktisadın Tanımlanmasına Yönelik Bir Deneme

Öz

Günümüzde iktisat disiplinine hâkim
olan düşünce okulunun neoklasik iktisat olduğu konusunda bir fikir birliği
bulunmaktadır, ancak neoklasik iktisat teriminin anlamı ve içeriği konusunda
aynı şeyi söylemek pek mümkün değildir. Zira neoklasik iktisat teriminin farklı
düşünürler tarafından farklı şekillerde ele alındığı görülmektedir. Örneğin
bazı çalışmalarda neoklasik iktisat belli düşünür ve kavramlarla
özdeşleştirilirken, bazı çalışmalarda ise neoklasik iktisat belli bir tarihsel
dönem bağlamında ele alınmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bu çalışmalarda neoklasik
iktisat konusunda bir tanımlama yapılmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı da
neoklasik iktisat terimini ilk öneren düşünür olan Thorstein B. Veblen’in
analizinden yola çıkarak, neoklasik iktisadın tanımlamasını yapmak ve neoklasik
analizin belli müşterek noktalarını ortaya koymaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoklasik İktisat, Thorstein Bunde Veblen, Alfred Marshall, Düşünce Geleneği, Temel Varsayımlar

Kaynakça

• Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 279-302.
• Ekelund, R. B. ve Hebert, R. F. (2002). Retrospectives: The origins of neoclassical microeconomics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (3), 197-215.
• Goodwin, N., Harris, J. M., Nelson, J. A., Roach, B. ve Torras, M. (2014). Microeconomics in context (3. baskı). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
• Guerrien, B. (1999). Neo-klasik iktisat (2. baskı). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Hennings, K. ve Samuels, W. J. (1990). Neoclassical economic theory, 1870 to 1930. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
• Hunt, E. K. ve Lautzenheiser, M. (2011). History of economic thought: A critical perspective. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
• Hutchison, T. W. (1956). Bentham as an economist. Economic Journal, 66 (262), 288-306.
• Kırmızıaltın, E. (2017). Derleyenin notu. E. Kırmızıaltın (Ed.). Seçilmiş makaleler (s. 7-9) içinde. Ankara: Heretik Basın Yayın.
• Lavoie, M. (2006). Do heterodox theories have anything in common? A Post-Keynesian point of view. Journal of Economics, 3 (1), 87-112.
• Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 (4), 483-505.
• Arnsperger, C. ve Varoufakis, Y. (2006). What is neoclassical economics? The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrevelance and, thus, discursive power. Panoeconomicus, 1, 5-18.
• Lawson, T. (2016). What is this “school” called neoclassical economics? J. Morgan (Ed.). What is neoclassical economics? Debating the origins, meaning and significance (s. 30-80) içinde. London and New York: Routledge.
• Marshall, A. (2009). Principles of economics (Abridged Edition). New York: Cosimo.
• Milonakis, D. ve Fine, B. (2009). From political economy to economics: Method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
• O’Boyle, B. ve McDonough, T. (2016). The state of nature and natural states: Ideology and formalism in the critique of neoclassical economics. J. Morgan (Ed.). What is neoclassical economics? Debating the origins, meaning and significance (s. 200-220) içinde. London and New York: Routledge.
• Peart, S. (2000). Irrationality and intertemporal choice in early neoclassical thought. Canadian Journal of Economics, 33 (1), 175-189.
• Pressman, S. (2006). Fifty major economists (2. baskı). London: Routledge.
• Rima, I. (1996). Can neoclassical economics be social economics?. Forum for Social Economics, 26 (1), 5-13.
• Rima, I. (2009). Development of economic analysis (7. baskı). London and New York: Routledge.
• Ross, D. (2016). Neoclassicism forever. J. Morgan (Ed.). What is neoclassical economics? Debating the origins, meaning and significance (s. 255-272) içinde. London and New York: Routledge.
• Schabas, M. (1989). Alfred Marshall, W. Stanley Jevons and the mathematization of economics. ISIS, 80 (1), 60-73.
• Aspromourgos, T. (1986). On the origin of the term “neoclassical”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 10 (30), 265-270.
• Schumpeter, J. (1941). Alfred Marshall’s principles: A semi-centennial appraisal. The American Economic Review, 31 (2), 236-248.
• Schumpeter, J. (1954). History of economic analysis. Taylor&Francis e-Library.
• Screpanti, E. ve Zamagni, S. (2005). An outline of the history of economic thought (2. baskı). Oxford: Oxford University.
• Stevenson, A. ve Waite, M. (2011). Concise oxford English dictionary (11. baskı). Oxford: Oxford University.
• Şahin, H. (2006). Türkçe’de ön ek. U. Ü. Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7 (10), 65-77.
• Varoufakis, Y. ve Arnsperger, C. (2009). A most peculiar failure: On the dynamic mechanism by which the inescapable theoretical failures of neoclassical economics reinforce its dynamics. Erişim adresi: http://uadphil.econ.uoa.gr/UA/files/1139148722..pdf.
• Veblen, T. B. (1900). The preconceptions of economic science III. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 14 (2), 240-269.
• Veblen, T. B. (2017). İktisat biliminin ön-kabulleri III. (H. Bilir, Çev.). E. Kırmızıaltın (Ed.), Seçilmiş Makaleler (s. 149-176) içinde. Ankara: Heretik Basın Yayın.
• Wiles, P. (1979). Ideology, methodology and neoclassical economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2 (2), 155-180.
• Weintraub, E. R. (2007). Neoclassical Economics. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Erişim adresi:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html.
• Backhouse, R. (1985). A history of modern economic analysis. New York: Basil Blackwell.
• Wolff, R. D. ve Resnick, S. A. (1987). Economics: Marxian versus neoclassical, London: The Johns Hopkins University.
• Zafirovski, M. (1999). How “neo-classical” is neoclassical economics? With special reference to value theory. History of Economics Review, 29, 45-69.
• Bilir, H. (2017). Nöroiktisat: Neoklasik iktisadın yenilenen yüzü mü, eleştirel bir yaklaşım mı? (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2012). For a heterodox mainstream economics: An academic manifesto. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 35 (1), 3-20.
• Brue, S. L. (1994). The evolution of economic thought (5. baskı). New York: Dryden.
• Colander, D. (2000). The death of neoclassical economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2), 127-143.
• Colander, D., Holt, R. ve Rosser, B., Jr. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Reviews of Political Economy, 16 (4), 485-499.
• Davis, J. B. (2006). The turn in economics: Neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2 (1), 1-20.