İktisadî Adamdan Toplum Adamına

Ortodoks iktisadî düşüncenin temelini oluşturan iktisadî adam modeli, sosyal normları göz ardı etmesi; piyasa aksaklığı, dışsallıklar ve istikrarsızlıklara yol açması, böylece bir paradoks olarak, modelin bizzat kendisi tarafından reddedilen devlet müdahalesine davetiye çıkarması sebebiyle eleştirilmiştir. Heterodoks iktisadî ekoller, genel olarak daha dengeli bir iktisat modeli geliştirmek ve ekonomiyi toplumla bütünleştirmek amacıyla ortodoks yaklaşımdan ayrılırlar. Bu ekoller insan ve davranışlarına daha gerçekçi bir yaklaşımı temsil etmelerine rağmen yine de her biri insan tabiatının bazı elemanlarını göz ardı etmektedir. İktisadî adam modelinin kritiğe tabi tutulduğu bu çalışmada, ‘toplum adamı’ adını verdiğimiz bir insan modeli önerilmiştir. Bireysellikle toplumsallığı dengeleyen ve “Yaşa ve Yaşat” özdeyişiyle özetlenebilecek toplum adamı modeli, ortodoks ve heterodoks ekolleri barıştırarak, insan ve onun hayatını bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele almakta ve insanı toplumsal kaygılar taşıyan sorumlu bir birey olarak değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmada, modelin Gürcü toplumuna uygulanabilirliğini ölçmek amacıyla Gürcistan’da uygulanan anket çalışmasından elde edilen bulgulara da yer verilmiştir.

From Economic Man To Social Man

The model of economic man, which constitutes the basis of orthodox economics, has been criticized for overlooking social norms, for causing market failure, externalities and instabilities, hence paradoxically calling for government intervention, which is a move rejected by the model itself. Heterodox economic schools diverge from the orthodox approach in order to develop a more balanced economic model in general and to integrate the economy with the society. Although these represent a more realistic approach to man and his behaviors, they still ignore some significant elements of human nature. Criticizing economic man and other alternative models, this paper introduces another model titled “social man”. The “social man” model, which balances individualism and social norms and which can be summed up with the epigram “Live and Let Live”, employs a holistic approach towards man and his life, reconciling orthodox and heterodox schools, and regards man as a responsible individual with social concerns. The study also includes the findings of a survey held in Georgia to test the applicability of the model to Georgian society.

PDF

___

Backhouse, Roger E. (2002). The Ordinary Business of Life: A History of Economics from the Ancient World to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Ben-Ner, Avner and Louis Putterman (1997). Values and Institutions in Economic Analysis 1. 27 Jan 1997 version. http://www.brown.edu (16.08.2005).

Brockway, George P. (1991). The End of Economic Man: Principles of Any Future Economics. HarperCollins/Cornelia & Michael Bessie Books. http://search.epnet.com (25.04.2004).

Bryant, Joseph M. (2000). “Cost-Benefit Accounting and the Piety Business: Is Homo Religiosus, At Bottom, A Homo Economicus?”. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. 09433058. 12(4).

Campbell, Donald T. (1983). “The Two Distinct Routes beyond Kin Selection to Ultrasociality: Implications for the Humanities and the Social Sciences”. The Nature of Prosocial Development: Interdisciplinary Theories and Strategies. Ed. Diane Bridgeman. New York: Academic Press.

Dingley, James C. (1997). “Durkheim, Mayo, Morality and Management”. Journal of Business Ethics. Augustos ’97. 16(11): 1117-29. http://search.epnet.com (04.06.2004).

Etzioni, Amitai (1988). The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Free Press.

Faber, Malte, Reiner Manstetten and Thomas Petersen (1997). “Homo Oeconomicus and Homo Politicus. Political Economy. Constitutional Interest and Ecological Interest”. Kyklos. 50 (4): 457-83. Item: 318968.

Fox, Maggie (2008). “Money Buys Happiness If You Spend on Someone Else”. http://www.reuters.com/article. March 20. (06.07.2008)

Friedman, Milton (1970). “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”. The New York Times Magazine. September 13. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/ libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html. (06.07.2008)

Gagnier, Regenia (1993). “On the Insatiability of Human Wants: Economic and Aesthetic Man”. Victorian Studies 36 (2): 125-53.

Hirsch, P., S. Michaels and R. Friedman (1990). “Clean models vs. dirty hands: Why economics is different from sociology” Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy. Ed. S. Zukin and P. DiMaggio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 39-56.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1998). “The Approach of Institutional Economics”. Journal of Economic Literature. March. 36:166-192.

Liluashvili, Gia (2002). “Legal Culture, Problems and Some Solutions”. Khidi. 7: 5-7.

Lutz, Mark A. (1985). “Beyond Economic Man: Humanistic Economics”. Economics and Philosophy. Ed. Peter Koslowski. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

Lutz, Mark A. and Kenneth Lux (1988). Humanistic Economics: The New Challenge. New York: Bootstrap Press.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin.

Nitsch, Thomas O. (1982). “Economic Man, Socio-economic Man and Homo-economicus Humanus”. International Journal of Social Economics 9 (6/7): 20-49.

O'boyle, Edward J. (1994). “Homo Socio-Economicus: Foundational to Social Economics and the Social Economy”. Review of Social Economy. Fall. 52:286-313.

Orloff, Pierre (2001). “Business Culture”. Doing Business with Georgia. Ed. Marat Terterov. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Papava, Vladimer and Elene Chikovani (Ed.) (1997). “Georgia: Economic and Social Challenges of the Transition (GESCT)”. Problems of Economic Transition. November/December.

Parker, R. A. C. (1989). The Second World War: A Short History. London: Oxford University Press.

Samuels, Warren J. (1990). “Four Strands of Social Economics: A Comparative Interpretation”. Social Economics: Retrospect and Prospect. Ed. Mark A. Lutz. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Smith, Adam (2004). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: Part 10. Harvard Classics. Kessinger Publishing.

Sulaberidze, A. (2004). “On Certain Factors That Determine the Present Transformation of Society and the Family in Georgia”. Sociological Research. November–December. 43(6): 75–86.

Taylor, John B. (2004). “Economic Freedom and Georgia’s Rose Revolution”. November 22. Tbilisi. http://www.treasury.gov (03.06.2006).

Tomer, John F. (1996). “Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation”. Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (6). 619-38.

Tomer, John F. (2001). “Economic man vs. hetedox men: The concepts of human nature in schools of economic thought”. Journal of Socio-Economics 30 (4): 281-94.

Waters, William R. (1988). “Social Economics: A Solidarist Perspective”. Review of Social Economy. October. 46: 113-143.

Whalen, Charles J. (1996). “The Institutional Approach to Political Economy”. Beyond Neoclassical Economics: Heterodox Approaches to Economic Theory. Ed. Fred E. Foldvary. Brookfield: Edward Elgar.

Wilber, Ken (1996). The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development. Quest Books. Wheaton. IL.

Zurabishvili, Tamara and Tinatin Zurabishvili (2004). “Georgia: Persistent Paternalism”. Sociological Research. November-December 43 (6): 87-97.