SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

An Attempt to Define the Neoclassical Economics

Neoklasik İktisadın Tanımlanmasına Yönelik Bir Deneme

HÜSNÜ BİLİR
Pages
658–670
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Neoklasik İktisat · Thorstein Bunde Veblen · Alfred Marshall

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

BİLİR, H. (2018). An Attempt to Define the Neoclassical Economics. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 658–670. https://ajindex.com/articles/216072

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 279-302.
  2. Ekelund, R. B. ve Hebert, R. F. (2002). Retrospectives: The origins of neoclassical microeconomics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (3), 197-215.
  3. 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:
  4. İletişim Yayınları.
  5. 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.
  6. Kırmızıaltın, E. (2017). Derleyenin notu. E. Kırmızıaltın (Ed.). Seçilmiş makaleler (s. 7-9) içinde. Ankara:
  7. 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.
  8. Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 (4), 483-505.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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,