Journals / Ekonomik Yaklaşım / 2008 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 66

Affect of Economic Science Conversion on Nobel Economic Prize

Ekonomi Biliminde Dönüşümün Nobel Ekonomi Ödüllerine Yansıması

Pages
119–153
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

We want to throw a light on which way the economics tend to go as we consider the economists and their studies who won The Nobel Prize in

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There is not a certain casual relations in eceonomics as it is in natural sciences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As the 39–year–period of Nobel Economy Prize is viewed, the studies which mathematical methods are heavily used seemed to be more appropriate fort The Nobel Prize. “Does it affect the guiding line of scientific studies?”, “Does it strengthen The Neo - classical Economics which is already dominant conception?”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We want to throw a light on which way the economics tend to go as we consider the economists and their studies who won The Nobel Prize in
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

There is not a certain casual relations in eceonomics as it is in natural sciences. Furthermore, it is open to discuss quite different methods. Since the world and human relations are in a continuous change, the discussing methods also vary continuously. As the 39–year–period of Nobel Economy Prize is viewed, the studies which mathematical methods are heavily used seemed to be more appropriate fort The Nobel Prize. “Does it affect the guiding line of scientific studies?”, “Does it strengthen The Neo - classical Economics which is already dominant conception?”. Furthermore, “Do both situations compose a mutual process?” These are the questions that come to mind along with methodical discussions.. In this study, we wanted to examine the opinions within the term of Nobel Prize, which vary according to the subjects and problems that economics has to determine and resolve. We want to throw a light on which way the economics tend to go as we consider the economists and their studies who won The Nobel Prize in

Özet

Ekonomi, doğal bilimler kadar kesin neden - sonuç ilişkilerine dayanmamaktadır. Ayrıca birbirinden çok farklı yöntemlerin tartışılmasına da açıktır. Araştırılan dünyanın ve insan ilişkilerinin de sürekli bir değişim içinde bulunması, birliğinde tartışılan yöntemlerin de sürekli farklılık göstermesi sonucunu getirmiştir. Nobel Ekonomi Ödüllerinin 39 yıllık tarihi incelendiğinde, matematiksel yöntemlerin ağırlıklı kullanıldığı çalışmaların daha fazla ödül aldığı görülmektedir. Bu durum, “bilimsel çalışmaların yörüngesini etkilemekte midir?”,“Egemen görüş olan Neoklasik Ekonomiyi daha da güçlendirmekte midir?” Ayrıca, “bu iki gelişme birbirini besleyen ve karşılıklı işleyen bir süreç oluşturmakta mıdır?” sorularını, yöntemsel tartışmalar eşliğinde akla getirmektedir.Bu çalışmamızda, ekonomi biliminin tanımlamak ve çözümlemek zorunda olduğu ekonomik konu ve sorunlara bağlı olarak çeşitlenen görüşleri, Nobel Ekonomi Ödülü çerçevesinde incelemek istedik. 2000’li yıllarda bu alanda verilen ödüllere konu olan ekonomistler ile bunların ödüle konu kılınan çalışmalarını irdeleyerek, ekonomi biliminin hangi yöne yöneldiği üzerine projektör tutmak istiyoruz.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, E., ALTINTAŞ, M., GÜVERCİN, D., SEVİM, C., GÜNAYDIN, İ., DEMİREL, B. (2022). Affect of Economic Science Conversion on Nobel Economic Prize. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 66, 119–153. https://ajindex.com/articles/499759

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Aumann, Robert J., “Existence Of Competitive Equilibria In Markets With A Contınuum Of Traders” Econometrica (pre-1986); 34, 1; pg. 1,1966.
  2. Aumann, Robert J., “An Axıomatızatıon Of The Non-Transferable Utility Value”, Econometrica (pre-1986); 53, 3; pg. 599, May 1985.
  3. Aumann, Robert J., “Correlated equilibrium As An Expression Of Bayesian Ration ali ty”, Econometrica (1986-1998); 55, 1; pg. 1, Jan 1987.
  4. Aumann, Robert J., “Markets With A Contınuum Of Traders”, Econometrica (pre-1986); 32, 1,2; pg. 39, Jan-Apr 1964.
  5. Aumann, Robert J., “Notes And Comments On The Non-Transferable Utility Value: A Comment On The Roth-Shafer Examples” Econometrica (pre-1986); 53, 3; pg. 667 May 1985.
  6. Aumann, Robert J., “Rejoinder”, Econometrica (1986-1998); 54, 4; pg. 985, Jul 1986.
  7. Aumann, Robert J., “Utility Theory Without The Completeness Axiom”, Econometrica (pre-1986); 30, 3; pg. 445, Jul 1962.
  8. Aumann, Robert J., “Value, Symmetry And Equal Treatment: A Comment On Scafuri And Yannelis”, Econometrica (1986-1998); 55, 6; pg. 1461, Nov 1987.
  9. Aumann, Robert J., “Values Of Markets Wıth A Continuum Of Traders”, Econometrica (pre-1986); 43, 4; pg. 611, Jul 1975.
  10. Aumann, Robert J., Brandenburger, Adam, “Epistemic Conditions For Nash Equilibrium”, Econometrica (1986-1998); 63, 5; pg. 1161, Sep 1995.
  11. Aumann, Robert J., Dreze, Jacques H., “Values Of Markets With Satiation Or Fixed Prices” Econometrica (1986-1998); 54, 6; pg. 1271, Nov 1986.
  12. Aumann, Robert J., Kurz, Mordecai, “Power And Taxes”, Econometrica (pre-1986); 45, 5; pg. 1137, Jul 1977.
  13. Ayson, Robert, “Bargaining With Nuclear Weapons: Thomas Schelling’s ‘General’ Concept of Stability”, The Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol.23, No.2, pp.48-71, June 2000. Blanchard Oliver, “ What Do We Know About Macroeconomics That Fisher and Wicksell, Did Not”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1375-1405, November, 2000.
  14. Bollerslev, Tim (1986), “Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity”, Journal of Econometrics, 31, pp: 307–327.
  15. Bollerslev Tim, Engle, R., and Wooldridge, J., M. (1986), “A Capital Asset Pricing Model with Time Varying Covariances”, Journal of Political Economy, 96, pp: 116-131.
  16. Boulding, E., “Samuelson’s Foundations: The Role of Mathematics İn Economics”, The Journal of Political Economy, 56, 187-199, 1948.
  17. Buğra, Ayşe, İktisatçılar ve İnsanlar, İletişim Yay. İstanbul, 2005
  18. Byde, Andrew, “Applying Evolutionary Game Theory to Auction Mechanism Design”, Hawlett-Packard Company, 2002.
  19. Colman, Andrew M., “Thomas