Journals / Türk İdare Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 487

A HISTORICAL, CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS

KURUMSAL İKTİSADIN TARİHSEL, KAVRAMSAL VE METODOLOJİK BİR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Pages
585–628
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

As aimed in this paper, academic studies that focus on making institutional approach an area of interest from historic, conceptual and conceptual standpoint once again can contribute both to overcoming obstructions of established economics in terms of solving today’s economic problems and offering ambitious and alternative approaches such as institutional economics as important alternative options.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Organizational economics that made a description of “how it should be” for the science of economics has considered the economy as a wholly institutionalized process, departed from established economics and virtually proved that a new economics can be possible.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While realizing this, it virtually declared war on the methods and assumptions of established economics.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As aimed in this paper, academic studies that focus on making institutional approach an area of interest from historic, conceptual and conceptual standpoint once again can contribute both to overcoming obstructions of established economics in terms of solving today’s economic problems and offering ambitious and alternative approaches such as institutional economics as important alternative options.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Organizational economics that made a description of “how it should be” for the science of economics has considered the economy as a wholly institutionalized process, departed from established economics and virtually proved that a new economics can be possible. While realizing this, it virtually declared war on the methods and assumptions of established economics. Organizational economics, usually considered to have existed only with criticism of established economics, have contributed many essentially original concepts and facts to economics literature, improved them, and played an important role in maturation of the science of economics and bringing it back to its origin. Basically we can see the greatest effect of institutional economics in the clarification of established economics’ concepts such as development and growth and, in the reasons of development disparities among societies and alternative perspectives in decision making and policy creation processes for the elimination of these disparities. As aimed in this paper, academic studies that focus on making institutional approach an area of interest from historic, conceptual and conceptual standpoint once again can contribute both to overcoming obstructions of established economics in terms of solving today’s economic problems and offering ambitious and alternative approaches such as institutional economics as important alternative options.

Özet

İktisat bilimine yönelik bir “olması gereken” tarifi yapan Kurumsal İktisatekolü, ekonomiyi topyekûn kurumsallaşmış bir süreç olarak görerek, yerleşikiktisattan ayrılmış ve adeta yeni bir iktisadın mümkün olabileceğini göstermiştir.Bunu gerçekleştirirken de, yerleşik iktisadın yöntemlerine ve varsayımlarına adetameydan okumuştur. Çoğu zaman sadece yerleşik iktisat eleştirisiyle var olduğudüşünülen Kurumsal İktisat, özünde orijinal birçok kavramı ve olguyu iktisatyazınına kazandırmış, bunları geliştirmiş, iktisat biliminin olgunlaşmasını ve özüneyani bir sosyal bilime dönmesini sağlayıcı bir rol üstlenmiştir. Esasen kurumsaliktisadın en büyük katkısını günümüzde halen yerleşik iktisat temelinde yapılankalkınma ve büyüme gibi olguların açıklanması süreçleri ile toplumlar arasındakigelişmişlik farklılıklarının nedenleri ve bunların önlenmesine ilişkin politikageliştirme ve karar alma süreçlerindeki alternatif bakış açılarında görebiliriz.Bu çalışmada amaçlandığı gibi kurumsalcı yaklaşımın tarihsel, kavramsal veyöntemsel açıdan yeniden ilgi alanı haline gelmesinisağlayacak akademikçalışmalar, günümüzün iktisadi problemlerinin çözülebilmesi noktasında hemyerleşik iktisadın tıkanma noktalarının aşılabilmesi ve hemde belki de kurumsaliktisat gibi iddialı ve alternatif yaklaşımların önemli birer seçenek haline gelmesinekatkı sağlayabilecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

MEÇİK, O., YENİLMEZ, F., DURA, Y. C. (2022). A HISTORICAL, CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS. Türk İdare Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 487, 585–628. https://ajindex.com/articles/625364

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Adelman, I. (1961). Theories of EconomicGrowthand Development, Stanford UniversityPress,
  2. Stanford, California. Ankarloo, D. (2002). “The New InstitutionalEconomicsandEconomicHistory”, TheJournal of EconomicHistory, C: 57, No: 3, ss. 718-721.
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1994). “MethodologicalIndividualismandSocial Knowledge”, TheAmericanEconomicReview, C. 84, No. 2, ss. 1-9.
  4. Ata, A. Y. (2009). “Kurumsal İktisat Çerçevesinde Yolsuzluğun Fırsat ve Motivasyonları: AB Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Baş Dinar, G. (2014). “Yeni Kurumsal İktisatta Kurumların Rolü ve İşlevlerine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of SocialSciences, C: 8, No: 2, ss. 96-118.
  5. Bowles, S. (1998). “EndogenousPreferences: TheCulturalConsequences of MarketsandOtherEconomicInstitutions”, Journal of EconomicLiterature, C: 36, No: 1, ss. 75-111.
  6. Clark, J. M. (1918). “Economicsand Modern Psychology: II”, Journal of PoliticalEconomy, C: 26, ss. 136-166.
  7. Clark, J. M. (1927). “RecentDevelopments in Economics” in Edward C. Hayes, ed. RecentDevelopments in theSocialSciences. Philadelphia: Lippencott, ss. 213-306.
  8. Coase, R. H. (1937). “The Nature of theFirm”, Economica, New Series, C: 4, No: 16, ss. 368-405.
  9. Coase, R. H. (1964). “Discussion of Direct Regulationand Market Performance in theAmericanEconomy”, by Richard E. Cavesand “TheEffectiveness of EconomicRegulation: A Legal View”, byRoger C. Crampton, AmericanEconomicReview, C: 54, ss. 194-197.
  10. Copeland, M. A. (1951). “InstitutionalEconomicsand Model Analysis”, TheAmericanEconomicReview, C: 41, No: 2, ss. 56-65.
  11. Dahlman, C. J. (1979). “The Problem of Externality”, Journal of LawandEconomics, C:. 22, No: 1, ss. 141-162.
  12. Doğaner Gönel, F. (2016). Kalkınma Ekonomisi, 3. Baskı,
  13. Efil Yayınevi,
  14. Ankara.
  15. Eggertsson, T. (1990).
  16. EconomicBehaviorandInstitutions, Cambridge UniversityPress,
  17. Cambridge. Hamilton, W. H. (1919). “TheInstitutionalApproachtoEconomicTheory”, TheAmericanEconomicReview, C: 9, No: 1, ss. 309-318.
  18. Haney, L. H. (1915). HistoryEconomicThought: A CriticialAccount of TheOriginand Development of TheEconomicTheories of TheLeadingThinkers in TheLeading Nations, TheMacmillanCompany, New York, USA. Hodgson, G. M. (1998). “TheApproach of InstitutionalEconomics”, Journal of EconomicLiterature, C: 36, No: 1, ss.166-192.
  19. Kabaş, T. (2017). “19. YY. Osmanlı ve Japon İktisat Düşüncesinin Karşılaştırılması”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi