KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1

Uyumun Politik Ekonomisi: Bireyler Kolektif Kurallara Neden İtaat Eder?

The Political Economy of Compliance: Why Do Individuals Obey Collective Rules?

Aras Yolusever(İSTANBUL KÜLTÜR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9810-2571
Sayfa
22–46
Yayın Tarihi
2026-07-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Katkı/Farklılıklar - Çalışma, rasyonel tercih, kurumsal güven ve ağ temelli yayılım yaklaşımlarının tek bir hesaplamalı modelde birleştirerek uyumun mikro temellerini biçimselleştirmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç – Çalışmanın amacı bireylerin kolektif kurallara neden uyduğunu açıklamak için farklı teorik perspektifleri tek bir çerçeve altında bütünleştirmek; vergi uyumundan halk sağlığı düzenlemelerine kadar geniş bir uygulama alanı sunmaktır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Yöntem/Metodoloji/Dizayn - Rasyonel tercih teorisi, kurumsal iktisat ve davranış bilimlerinden yararlanan çalışma, küçük dünya, ölçeksiz ve rastgele ağlarda yer alan 500 heterojen ajanı simüle eden bir ajan tabanlı model (ATM) geliştirmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Katkı/Farklılıklar - Çalışma, rasyonel tercih, kurumsal güven ve ağ temelli yayılım yaklaşımlarının tek bir hesaplamalı modelde birleştirerek uyumun mikro temellerini biçimselleştirmektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Kurumsal İktisat · İktisat Teorisi · Politik İktisat

Özet

Amaç – Çalışmanın amacı bireylerin kolektif kurallara neden uyduğunu açıklamak için farklı teorik perspektifleri tek bir çerçeve altında bütünleştirmek; vergi uyumundan halk sağlığı düzenlemelerine kadar geniş bir uygulama alanı sunmaktır. Yöntem/Metodoloji/Dizayn - Rasyonel tercih teorisi, kurumsal iktisat ve davranış bilimlerinden yararlanan çalışma, küçük dünya, ölçeksiz ve rastgele ağlarda yer alan 500 heterojen ajanı simüle eden bir ajan tabanlı model (ATM) geliştirmiştir. Model üç uyum mekanizmasını bir araya getirmektedir: fayda-maliyet hesabı, kurumsal güven ve sosyal normların yayılımı. Sonuçlar- Uyum ; caydırıcılık, güven ve akran etkisinin etkileşiminden ortaya çıkan olgudur; tek bir faktöre indirgenemez. Güven inşasına yönelik müdahalelerin, yalnızca yaptırıma dayalı stratejilere kıyasla daha yüksek maliyet etkinliği sağladığı; norm görünürlüğü kampanyalarının ise her iki yaklaşımın da etkisini güçlendirdiği görülmüştür. Katkı/Farklılıklar - Çalışma, rasyonel tercih, kurumsal güven ve ağ temelli yayılım yaklaşımlarının tek bir hesaplamalı modelde birleştirerek uyumun mikro temellerini biçimselleştirmektedir.

Abstract

Purpose - To explain why individuals comply with collective rules by integrating multiple theoretical perspectives into a single framework, with applications ranging from tax compliance to public health mandates. Methodology/Approach/Design- Drawing on rational choice theory, institutional economics, and behavioral science, the authors build an agent-based model (ABM) simulating 500 heterogeneous agents across small-world, scale-free, and random networks. The model combines three compliance mechanisms: cost–benefit calculation, institutional trust, and social norm diffusion. Findings- Compliance emerges from the interaction of deterrence, trust, and peer influence rather than any single factor. BeTrust-building interventions prove more cost-effective than enforcement alone, and norm visibility campaigns amplify both. Originality/Value- The study formalizes the micro-foundations of compliance by unifying rational choice, institutional trust, and network diffusion in one computational model, offering actionable in-sights for institutional design.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yolusever, A. (2026). Uyumun Politik Ekonomisi: Bireyler Kolektif Kurallara Neden İtaat Eder?. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1, 22–46. https://doi.org/10.54838/bilgisosyal.1936887

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (44)

  1. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics. 95(9–10), 1082–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
  2. Allingham, M. G. and Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics. 1(3–4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(72)90010-2
  3. Alm, J. (2012). Measuring, explaining, and controlling tax evasion: Lessons from theory, experiments, and field studies. International Tax and Public Finance. 19(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9171-2
  4. Alm, J., McClelland, G. H., Schulze, W. D. (1992). Why do people pay taxes? Journal of Public Economics. 48(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(92)90040-M
  5. Andreoni, J., Erard, B., Feinstein, J. (1998). Tax compliance. Journal of Economic Literature. 36(2), 818–860. Barabási, A.-L. and Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science. 286(5439), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509
  6. Bargain, O. and Aminjonov, U. (2020). Trust and compliance to public health policies in times of COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics. 192, 104316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104316
  7. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy. 76(2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
  8. Beetham, D. (2013). The legitimation of power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Bicchieri, C. (2017). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Bloomquist, K. M. (2006). A comparison of agent-based models of in-come tax evasion. Social Science Computer Review. 24(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439306287021
  12. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
  13. Centola, D. and Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology. 113(3), 702–734. https://doi.org/10.1086/521848
  14. Cialdini, R. B. and Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology. 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  15. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology. 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  16. Cullen, J. B., Turner, N., Washington, E. L. (2021). Political alignment, attitudes toward government, and tax evasion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 13(2), 132–166. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190245
  17. Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  18. Fagiolo, G., Guerini, M., Lamperti, F., Moneta, A., Roventini, A. (2019). Validation of agent-based models in economics and fi-nance. In C. Beisbart and N. J. Saam (Eds.), Computer simulation validation (pp. 763–787). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2_31
  19. Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 8(4), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007
  20. Fetzer, T., Hensel, L., Hermle, J., Roth, C. (2021). Coronavirus perceptions and economic anxiety. Review of Economics and Statistics. 103(5), 968–978. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00946
  21. Grimm, V., Railsback, S. F., Vincenot, C. E., Berger, U., Gallagher, C., DeAngelis, D. L.,., Ayllón, D. (2020). The ODD protocol for describing agent-based and other simulation models: A second update to improve clarity, replication, and structural real-ism. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 23(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4259
  22. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., and Knies, E. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 83(3), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315585950
  23. Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., Vlaev, I. (2017). The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. Journal of Public Economics 148, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.02.003
  24. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Oxfordshire: Andrew Crooke.
  25. Jay, J., Bor, J., Nsoesie, E. O., Lipson, S. K., Jones, D. K., Galea, S., Raifman, J. (2020). Neighbourhood income and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour. 4, 1294–1302. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00998-2
  26. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  27. Kirchler, E. (2007). The economic psychology of tax behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Con-tractor, N.,., Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science. 369(6507), 1060–1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170
  29. Levi, M. (1997). Consent, dissent, and patriotism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice. 42(1), 199–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670398
  30. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis. 23(5), 961–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00373
  32. Rothstein, B. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Sugihara, G. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature. 461, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227
  34. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1(2), 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794
  35. Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: W. W. Norton.
  36. Slemrod, J. (2007). Cheating ourselves: The economics of tax evasion. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 21(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.1.25
  37. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis. 13(6), 675–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
  38. Torgler, B. (2007). Tax compliance and tax morale: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  39. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  40. Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Corruption, inequality, and the rule of law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Watts, D. J. and Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature. 393, 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
  42. Windrum, P., Fagiolo, G., Moneta, A. (2007). Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alternatives and prospects. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 10(2), 8. https://www.jasss.org/10/2/8.html
  43. Grimm, V., Railsback, S. F., Vincenot, C. E., Berger, U., Gallagher, C., DeAngelis, D. L.,., Ayllón, D. (2020). The ODD protocol for describing agent-based and other simulation models: A second update to improve clarity, replication, and structural real-ism. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 23(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4259
  44. Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Con-tractor, N.,., Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science. 369(6507), 1060–1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170